Which of the Dem candidates seem least offensive?


PDA






rock jock
December 30, 2003, 05:33 PM
I can't believe I am saying this, but Lieberman actually appears the least smarmy of the group. Not that any of them are better than Bush, even with all his many faults.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which of the Dem candidates seem least offensive?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Monkeyleg
December 30, 2003, 05:40 PM
Rock Jock, I know how you feel. Lieberman seems to be the only adult in the pack. Even Sharpton isn't as funny as some of the "serious" candidates.

Makes you wonder if Hillary isn't going to try to save the day. :what:

nico
December 30, 2003, 05:57 PM
Lieberman is the only one I have any respect for. I definitely don't agree with a great deal of his opinions/positions, but the rest seem like they'll say whatever they think will get them votes.

hillbilly
December 30, 2003, 06:00 PM
They oughta dig up Hubert Humphrey........

hillbilly

Malone LaVeigh
December 30, 2003, 06:10 PM
I voted for Dean, because he's the most tolerable of the group. It will take a lot to get me to not vote third party, though.

tn 1911
December 30, 2003, 06:16 PM
If I could bring myself to voting for any Democrat at time point in time, it would be Lieberman.

Michael

Sean Smith
December 30, 2003, 07:06 PM
Lieberman. I actually disagree with a huge pile of his political beliefs, but he at least strikes me as consistent and a rational actor on some level. Unfortunately, he has the charisma of old cottage cheese, and is doomed to fail.

Clark is inconsistent and a weasel all-around. That's what I thought of him as a general before I knew he was a Democrat, Republican, or Green for that matter. He should never be given political power.

Kerry has been plagued by flip-flopping on various issues & his campaign is inept. With smarter handlers he could have been The Man, but he's a dead duck.

Dean seems like an outright nut to me. Self-satisfied New England Yankees don't tend to sell well in general, especially those perceived (fairly or not) as representing the hard-left lunatic fringe.

Sharpton. Scum of the earth. But apparently was sort of funny on SNL.
Kucinich. Huh? Wasting oxygen.
Braun. See above.
Gephardt is a protectionist twit. Remember how dumb Bush's steel tarrifs were? Now multiply that by 100. That aside, he's as dynamic as a stick of warm butter.
Edwards. DOA.

Even though I don't like the vast majority of the Democratic Party's positions on just about anything, except maybe my right to get drunk and have sex with anyone or anything of age without locking me up and telling me Jesus will hate me for it, I don't think that it is especially healthy for the Democratic Party to run such a field of losers, since it lets the Republicans get away with fielding chumps.

dischord
December 30, 2003, 07:19 PM
http://www.crackedmag.com/images/sylvester-prof.png

Standing Wolf
December 30, 2003, 07:48 PM
America isn't going to vote for any of those looters.

Mark Tyson
December 30, 2003, 08:04 PM
Lieberman.

Although I obviously disagree with him on guns and some other stuff he strikes me as a decent person.

General Wesley Clark is the result of a crossbreeding between a carnival barker and a Mako shark. He is an arrogant and ruthless man and he scares me.

Dean is too angry and flippant. He is appealing almost entirely to people who hate George Bush. Criticism is one thing, but you can't win the whole country on rancor alone.

John "F-Word" Kerry had potential as the War Hero candidate but he is running an incompetent campaign.

I heard Kucinich at the debates and he makes me laugh. Someone call the Kremlin and tell them to check Lenin's tomb.

The others are insignificant.

mountainclmbr
December 30, 2003, 09:28 PM
All worship government. None care about me or my God-given rights. In my opinion, Lieberman would be less likely to place me in a mass grave. However, I will work myself to death to pay for those who never want to work. Such a happy thought.

MeekandMild
December 30, 2003, 09:31 PM
I think Sharpton is the pick of the litter. Like Huey P. Long used to say, an honest politician stays bought. Sharpton for all his flaws is the most honest of the bunch. :rolleyes:

benewton
December 30, 2003, 10:33 PM
Sharpton, 'cause ANFW he gets in!

And, in the meantime, he provides entertainment, given he has the supporting cast of eight and free media.

seeker_two
December 30, 2003, 11:09 PM
Will the next poll be "Which WWII dictator was the least offensive: Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Franco?"...:p


My choice would be Kennedy.....John F. Kennedy.

One: He's a lot less liberal than any of those listed above.

Two: He's "mortally impaired"...:evil:

Wildalaska
December 31, 2003, 03:24 AM
Lieberman is the best of the bunch, unfortunately for his electoral hopes, hes Jewish.

Wildand yaknowwhatthatmeansdontchaAlaska

clubsoda22
December 31, 2003, 03:48 AM
At least dean supports the constitution, is pro-gun, and heavily against restrictions on civil liberties such as the patriot act.

Let's all try and remember what good Bush did for this country. :rolleyes:

fallingblock
December 31, 2003, 04:12 AM
"At least dean supports the constitution, is pro-gun, and heavily against restrictions on civil liberties such as the patriot act."
************************************************************

will NOT be what he does....

And Howweird Dean's party is not 'pro-gun', he's merely being allowed to mouth the words.:scrutiny:

I'mSpartacus!
December 31, 2003, 06:03 AM
Dean saying he is not anti gun is like when Clinton said abortion should be legal, but rare. Read between the lines -- and also remember that if Dean were president you had better bet that he would appoint judges that would decide issues like gun manufacturer's liability. Care to speculate what percentage of Dean's appointments would be favorable to the original intent of the 2nd. Amendment?

clubsoda22
December 31, 2003, 06:27 AM
just curious guys, what has dean ever done that was anti-gun? The guy has essentially promised no more federal gun laws while he is in office.

will NOT be what he does....

So, instead of trusting what dean says, we're supposed to elect a guy who has already shown THROUGH ACTION that he doesn't particularly care for the constitution and civil liberties?

boltaction
December 31, 2003, 07:19 AM
I agree that Lieberman is the least offensive of these clowns, but I could NOT bring myself to vote in this poll. just couldn't do it. Yeah, Lieberman is on record as being against registration and licensing (and THAT is major for a Democrat), BUT, he is in favor of smart gun technology. Once we have smart guns, we may as well kiss the second amendment goodnight and good-bye: at that point, Big Brother (whether it be the US or the UN) would be able to disable your firearms at will (not to mention any tech-savvy thief, rapist, etc.). The last thing we need is a Smart Gun cheerleader in the White House.

As far as Dean is concerned, he is being bankrolled by one of the more dangerous men in the world, George Soros (billionaire who has written on "The Capitalist Threat", has called the US "the gravest threat to world freedom", and is a major force in global disarmament of civilians). If you think Dean is going to do us ANY good regarding guns rights, send me an email QUICK, because I own a few bridges in Brooklyn that I want to sell you.

Most of the other candidates are jokes; (although Sharpton is probably the only one of the bunch I could actually sit down and have a beer with). Finally, Gephart is the only one who could give Bush a run for his money, so most of this discussion is probably pointless.

Any Democrat in the White House will wind up with an Attorney General, SCOTUS and other Fed judges, etc. who, on the whole, will sell you and your guns down the river. I will vote for Bush, not because he is great, but because he is just one quantum step better than any Dem.

Boltaction

clubsoda22
December 31, 2003, 07:34 AM
If you think Dean is going to do us ANY good regarding guns rights, send me an email QUICK, because I own a few bridges in Brooklyn that I want to sell you.

Didn't say he'd do any good, but by saying he won't pass any more laws he won't do any harm. Don't focus this on a single issue either. What good are gun rights if you have no other civil rights? It's only a matter of time before some "anti-terrorism" bill will deprive us of the rest of them.

I'd rather have a candidate that was strong on civil rights and weak on terrorism than the other way around, which is what we've got now.

Back to the question that no one yet answered: what good did bush do for this country?

Lone_Gunman
December 31, 2003, 07:50 AM
I am amazed at how many people who have posted here seem to think the Republicans are pro gun!

You guys know that Bush will sign a renewal of AWB, right?

Bush could resume importation of a large number of firearms which his father banned by executive order. All it would take is a stroke of his pen. But he hasn't done that. If he is pro gun, why hasnt he done it?

HankB
December 31, 2003, 08:53 AM
I voted for Sharpton as least offensive, since he has the least chance of winning.

If he doesn't get the nomination (snicker) I hope he runs a strong independent campaign . . . guess which side he'll siphon more votes from? ;)

Stoney
December 31, 2003, 09:08 AM
If any one of these bum's lands in the White House ,it will not be a good for gun owners in America. No matter what they say on the campaign trail, it goes out the window when the arrive in Washington in January of 05.

Mal H
December 31, 2003, 09:12 AM
Funny, I voted for Lieberman before looking at the votes or reading the posts. I'm kinda surprised most of us are in agreement.

Mark Tyson
December 31, 2003, 09:27 AM
Didn't say he'd do any good, but by saying he won't pass any more laws he won't do any harm. Don't focus this on a single issue either.

Last I heard, he favors closing the "gun show loophole" and opposes the bill protecting gun manufacturers from frivilous lawsuits. This is pandering to the gun control crowd, because as governor gun control was a non-issue and he never did anything about it either way. This hasn't won him any friends in the Brady crowd however - they've all come out against him.

I saw a US News interview where he actually admitted that gun control didn't do any good.

Sean Smith
December 31, 2003, 09:28 AM
I'm surprised people voted for Sharpton here. The question is who is most offensive, not who you hope will get nominated so the Democrats lose.

boltaction
December 31, 2003, 11:57 AM
on Dean: Club, as I said, from a gun point of view, I do not want the Democratic apparatus he would bring along with him; the chances of his picking a progun AG, judges, cabinet members etc is nil. Also, as I said, he may dance to the tune of Soros, who IS a gun banner.

To those who point out that Bush has not done much for us, remember that we pick the better of the candidates. If my choice is Bush vs any of the Dems, I pick Bush - why? think of the damage Gore WOULD have done, and any of the others COULD do.

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 12:31 PM
To those who point out that Bush has not done much for us, remember that we pick the better of the candidates. If my choice is Bush vs any of the Dems, I pick Bush - why? think of the damage Gore WOULD have done, and any of the others COULD do.

Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing EVIL...

We must endeavor to find better candidates & support them. Even if that means looking to third-party candidates.

MicroBalrog
December 31, 2003, 01:44 PM
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing EVIL...

And another unbased opinion...

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 02:27 PM
And another unbased opinion...

Meaning?...:scrutiny:

If you're having difficulty understanding that statement, I'm sure a friendly rabbi could explain it to you...:cool:

MicroBalrog
December 31, 2003, 02:31 PM
If you're having difficulty understanding that statement, I'm sure a friendly rabbi could explain it to you...

As far as I understand Judaism,;) a Rabbi would probably disagree.:neener:

BigG
December 31, 2003, 04:15 PM
It gives me great pleasure to contemplate that this crop of yokels makes the likes of Mike Dukakis, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, and especially HHH look like statesmen by comparison.:uhoh: There is no help for Jimma Carta, though. He will be judged by history for the idjit of the 20th century that he is. :scrutiny:

longeyes
December 31, 2003, 04:20 PM
Lieberman. Unfortunately, he's a lifelong public servant with, for me, insufficient exposure to the private sector, and has become infected with too many of the far left's favorite ideas. The Joe Lieberman who once backed school vouchers is the one I might have been able to vote for.

seeker_two
December 31, 2003, 10:35 PM
As far as I understand Judaism, a Rabbi would probably disagree.

If so, then Yahweh needs to have a little conversation with them...:uhoh:

Mike Irwin
January 1, 2004, 12:29 AM
Which is the least offensive?

That's like saying which form of execution -- hanging, firing squad, electric chair, etc. -- is least lethal.

Combat-wombat
January 1, 2004, 12:36 AM
The Brady Campaign said Dean is bad, and not to vote for him because he was pro-gun. I take that as good.

gundam007
January 1, 2004, 12:38 AM
lieberman seems to be the most stable. My uncle works for Kerry's wife and has met kerry but found him to be arrogany/elitist...

w4rma
January 1, 2004, 01:27 AM
And Bush's judges will be pro-Patriot Act (I & II) and therefore anti-Bill of Rights (except for lip service to the second, up until they grab that one, also).

clubsoda22
January 1, 2004, 05:33 AM
think of the damage Gore WOULD have done, and any of the others COULD do.

Conjecture (btw, i don't like gore).

That statement is based on several "what if's" a common tactic used by anti-gunners. That's like saying a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon is bad, Why? well, WHAT IF he decided to go shoot children in a park? Well, WHAT IF a Dean is elected? What if? He might do this, He might do that, but so far he looks promising and he has a record that backs it up.

Compare bush to the guy who's already got a long criminal history. we've shown bush can't be trusted, he DOES appoint people who are bad for freedom and not only supports laws that take away our rights, but passes them.

Back to the question that no one can seem to answer, what good has Bush done for this country?

Mike Irwin
January 1, 2004, 10:37 AM
"Conjecture."

Yep, pure conjecture. That's all you have to go on in this kind of situation.

I remember, though, participating in a similar thread in the old Compuserve Firearms Forum when Bush I was running against Clinton.

A lot of people actually thought that Bill Clinton wouldn't be a bad choice for President, and that he would probably leave gunowners alone...

Yeah. Right.

Greg Bell
January 1, 2004, 10:43 AM
"Which WWII dictator was the least offensive: Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Stalin, or Franco?"...


Easy, Franco

boltaction
January 2, 2004, 04:06 AM
No, Conjecture is the generation of an hypothesis. I tested an hypothesis on the basis of records:

When running in 2000, Gore wanted:
Require photo licensing for handgun purchases.
Limit gun purchases to one per month and require a three-day waiting period.
Require manufacturers and federally licensed sellers to report sales to a state authority.

and, of course, he was also a major supporter of the Brady Bill.

Bush has done NOTHING of the kind.
QED

The "conjecture" hypothesis has been refuted.

AND...there are some interesting similarities between Gore and Dean:

First, let's all agree that predicting the future is a tough business. Testing of such hypotheses requires drawing on disparate evidence (Whewell, in his 1840 book, called this "Consilience of Inductions"). So, consider these two statements:

ON GORE: In an interview last weekend, the Vice President said his early views of the issue reflected the perspective of a Congressman from a rural part of the South where "guns did not really present a threat to public safety but rather were predominantly a source of recreation."
citation: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/2000/02/07/gun.html

DEAN:Vermont has one of the lowest homicide rates in the United States. During my 11 years as Governor, the highest number of murders in a single year was 25 and the lowest number was five. Over half of these were domestic assaults, and the majority were not committed with a firearm...If you say “gun control” in Vermont or Wyoming, people think it means taking away their hunting rifle. If you say "gun control" in New York City or Los Angeles, people are relieved at the prospect of having Uzis or illegal handguns taken off the streets. They’re both right. That’s why I think Vermont ought to be able to have a different set of laws than California.
citation: http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws

So, Dean's gun position can be summed up as: gun rights are about hunting. If you actually NEED a gun for self-defense (like in D.C.) forget it.

Sounds like most gun-grabbing Dems to me (I do like some Dems: Mark Warner of VA is pretty good, as is the retiring Zell Miller).

clubsoda22
January 2, 2004, 04:28 AM
It's impossible to compare clinton, gore and dean. They are completely different candidates. For some reason i think that if dean ran under a third party more republicans would like him. I like dean because dean is a candidate that the democratic party doesn't really like. They put up with him because they think he can win. You can't say "Howard Dean will set up gun control because bill clinton did," They're two different people. A vermont liberal is a heck of a lot different than a southern liberal.

However, it is possible to compare George W Bush to himself. George W. Bush did pass the patriot act. George W. Bush did set up the military tribunals.

Why would you vote for someone who has already proven himself to be bad for freedom as opposed to voting for someone who might, due to some misguided reasoning in the head of some republican, be bad for freedom, although the evidence shows otherwise?

And the question that no one has answered STILL: What good has George Bush done for this country?

Sylvilagus Aquaticus
January 2, 2004, 12:29 PM
Paul Simon and Paul Tsongas. They're dead.

Regards,
Rabbit.

Cactus
January 2, 2004, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by clubsoda22:
And the question that no one has answered STILL: What good has George Bush done for this country?

1. Lowered taxes, twice!

2. Taken the fight to the terrorists instead of waiting for them to attack and then reacting.

3. Driven the Democrats crazy.

President Bush has also done things that I disagree with, as has every past President. And as will every FUTURE President. That's the nature of politics. I still find President Bush to be much better than the alternative would have been and better than Howard Dean would be.

Greg Bell
January 2, 2004, 03:45 PM
Amen Cactus!


"And the question that no one has answered STILL: What good has George Bush done for this country?"

1. He has cut our taxes twice despite extreme pressure not to.
2. He has canned some of the more absurd Clinton environmental regs.
3. He canned Kyoto.
4. He appointed an AG that *gasp* asserted that the 2A is an individual right!
5. He hasn't signed any new gun legislation.
6. He hasn't pushed for any new gun legislation. And don't give me any crap about the AWB. Why do you think VPC and its friends are so furious about Bush's "I'll sign it if it gets here" policy?- Because they know it is a death sentence for their precious AWB.
7. He showed the world that we don't give a sh!+ what they think when it comes to protecting ourselves.
8. A booming economy after helping the country recover from the tech bubble and 9/11 uncertainties.
9. We got Saddam.
10. We freed, oh, 50 million people from oppression.
11. He pissed off the French, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. You know, all those countries that have always had our best interests at heart.
12. He pissed off the Democrats (see 11 for uncomfortable list of allies).
13. etc...


Hey, I don't care for everything Bush has done, but no one could meet that standard. It is easy to be ideologically pure and be a Libertarian--because you are free from all responsibilities. No one takes Libertarians seriously and they have zero chance of being elected. They are perpetual Monday morning QBs who can rest confident that they will never be called to make a decision of consequence.

GHB

aircarver
January 2, 2004, 05:34 PM
Needs a " None" column ! :scrutiny:

clubsoda22
January 3, 2004, 04:34 AM
[QUOTE]1. He has cut our taxes twice despite extreme pressure not to.
2. He has canned some of the more absurd Clinton environmental regs.
3. He canned Kyoto.
4. He appointed an AG that *gasp* asserted that the 2A is an individual right!
5. He hasn't signed any new gun legislation.
6. He hasn't pushed for any new gun legislation. And don't give me any crap about the AWB. Why do you think VPC and its friends are so furious about Bush's "I'll sign it if it gets here" policy?- Because they know it is a death sentence for their precious AWB.
7. He showed the world that we don't give a sh!+ what they think when it comes to protecting ourselves.
8. A booming economy after helping the country recover from the tech bubble and 9/11 uncertainties.
9. We got Saddam.
10. We freed, oh, 50 million people from oppression.
11. He pissed off the French, Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc. You know, all those countries that have always had our best interests at heart.
12. He pissed off the Democrats (see 11 for uncomfortable list of allies).
13. etc...
QUOTE]

1) And the national debt is what? Where'd all this money come from that he's giving back to us? Overall the tax cuts have done nothing to help americans as a whole because a very large percentage are now unemployed and the majority of america isn't getting much money, compounded with the fact that the value of the dollar now sucks. A bunch of rich people got a lot of money and i'm busy tutoring kids in the city who have to do their homework without textbooks or photocopies because the school can't afford it.

2&3) A healthy dose of smog never hurt anyone...A lot of clintons environmenta regs were BS, and let it never be said that i liked clinton, but bush has shown reckless disregard for the environment.

4) John Ashcroft is a plauge. He may be pro gun, but he is the most athoritarian, ANTI-FREEDOM person ever to hold the office. His devotion to "family values" also pisses me off. I don't need his values imposed on my family.

5&6) True, we'll see come next september (which is mercifully before the election). Lets look at some leislation that he has signed though. Tell me the patriot act won't make it easier for the government to take our guns in the future. It's a bad precident, next major terror attack i fulley expect to have to hand 'em all in "for our own safety".

7) Yeah, why not make more people hate us...that's the way to curb terrorism. :rolleyes:

8) ever wonder how exactly he did that? So do a lot of economists. The truth is that the market leveled itself after the bubble popped, no thanks to any democrats or republicans.

9&10) good for the freaking iraquis...what good has he done for this country, not iraq. And don't give me any crap about him being a future threat unless you can pull some WMD out of your rear end...or did we all forget what the war was supposed to be about. Also, free is a relative term.

11) Who needs allies, we're the big bad united states. Making people pissed is not a good thing, especially when the unforseen happens and you end up having to beg them for assistance. The guy screwed up allienced that were decades in the making. NOT good for this country. Also, alliences are never about another countries best interests, they are about self interest.

12) Yeah, screw that bi-partisan stuff he ranted and raved about during the elections.:rolleyes:

JohnBT
January 3, 2004, 07:16 AM
You know, Sharpton is probably the most honest one on the list and therefore least offensive to me. Honest in the sense of speaking his mind before he consults the polls and focus groups instead of after like the others.

I'm not voting for any of them, so it doesn't really matter.

John

Greg Bell
January 3, 2004, 02:32 PM
clubsoda22,

Wow Club, looks like you used the whole NYT/DNC handbook on that one. Since you are obviously a Democrat or/and Green I can understand your dissatisfaction. I know, I know, Bush and Rednecks bad, Dean and Europe good. Whatever :rolleyes:. You guys are going down hard in November :)

GHB

If you enjoyed reading about "Which of the Dem candidates seem least offensive?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!