Rant time....I dont know if this has been posted. But you liberals need to stop biting the hand that feeds you. Zell was a hardcore democrat his entire political career, he did a lot of good for many of your causes, and is loyal and trustworthy. Are some of you in denail and find it that hard to believe that someone can actually be disheartened by the democratic party. No one seems to midn when a republican has a change of heart. Now Zell, who was loved is being referred to as racist and delusional, for what? Chaning his mind? Exercising his rights as an American? For feeling that the democrats have swung too far to the left? The comment she made about kerry were pre-9/11, the world has changed since then whether people like it or not. Zell may disagree with you but respect the man as a statesman and as someone who is worthy of it

Zell has said he should have switched parties a long time ago. He isnt even a moderate. I think Miller is the kind of guy who saw political winds changing and severly shifted his views. I doubt he would still speak up for Bill Clinton.

Zell has said he should have switched parties a long time ago. He isnt even a moderate. I think Miller is the kind of guy who saw political winds changing and severly shifted his views. I doubt he would still speak up for Bill Clinton.

547164[/snapback]

 

I disagree all around. A 70 somehting year old political veteran from georgia is not going to shift his views due to changes in political climate. The man was a conservative democrat, much as clinton was before he had to lean a little more to the left to win his party's nomination.

Zell made a judgement call. He became a Republican and if you cant accept that simply because he used to be more of a democrat then I dont know what to say. By your own words you admit that 9-11 altered his views. Zell, for whatever reason, felt that he should adopt most conservative policies. He is bitter that others have not and that otehrs think they can make this country strong and not do it the way Bush has.

 

He is under the dellusional view that everything GWB does is absolutley whats best for America and the dissenters are simply political is absolute blindness. Get it out of your head that the other side is not acting in such a manner because they want simply to win but because we feel we want whats best for America. Thats why he has a problem with Dems. Not because they are left. But because they question his sovreign.

Zell made a judgement call. He became a Republican and if you cant accept that simply because he used to be more of a democrat then I dont know what to say. By your own words you admit that 9-11 altered his views. Zell, for whatever reason, felt that he should adopt most conservative policies. He is bitter that others have not and that otehrs think they can make this country strong and not do it the way Bush has.

 

He is under the dellusional view that everything GWB does is absolutley whats best for America and the dissenters are simply political is absolute blindness. Get it out of your head that the other side is not acting in such a manner because they want simply to win but because we feel we want whats best for America. Thats why he has a problem with Dems. Not because they are left. But because they question his sovreign.

547184[/snapback]

 

 

The problem is I disagree, will they ever be a time when both sides truly feel that the current president is the best man for the job? During FDR's time one presidential opponent basically forfeit the election and allowed FDR to win b/c he felt a presidential change would be bad for national security. But had 9/11 happened this year rather than 2001 people would still vote for kerry and find some reason as to why bush is better. There will always be political opposition even if they dont feel that the war on terror would be better fought by kerry the liberals will always vote for the liberal and vice versa

I can't figure out what the hell he was talking about when he said:

 

"Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."

 

A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"?

 

It's called a "presidential election" Zell. Someone should tell him they happen every four years.

I can't figure out what the hell he was talking about when he said:

 

"Today, at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of a Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief."

 

A "manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"?

 

It's called a "presidential election" Zell. Someone should tell him they happen every four years.

547242[/snapback]

 

 

What he meant by that (and im saying this wihtout bias in a matter of fact way) was the way the Democrats have tried to make bush look bad constantly and how kerry has been running as the im not bush candidate. (whether you agree with zell or not) thats what he meant by that

well yes I didn't mean the question literally....

 

just that this is pretty much par for the course when an election is coming up, not to mention how divided the country has been lately.

 

"a democrats manic obsession to bring down the commander-in-chief"...... give me a break.

miller did say he would always be a democrat.

 

*challenges flying mollusk to a duel* LOL

Ok, here is a hypo for you legacy. Gore is President. He has raised taxes highly. He has created strict enviromental laws. He has brough social security and other government programs more money. He gives gays the right to marry. Assuming 9-11 happend, he invades Afghanistan. He increases security. He fights terrorism through other methods. But he never invades Iraq. He says he wants to continue to fight the war on terror and that he has been winning since no attack has happend. How do you vote? How do conservatives vote?

Zell Miller was the GOP's answer to Ron Reagen at the DNC.

Ok, here is a hypo for you legacy. Gore is President. He has raised taxes highly. He has created strict enviromental laws. He has brough social security and other government programs more money. He gives gays the right to marry. Assuming 9-11 happend, he invades Afghanistan. He increases security. He fights terrorism through other methods. But he never invades Iraq. He says he wants to continue to fight the war on terror and that he has been winning since no attack has happend. How do you vote? How do conservatives vote?

547397[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

If making him look bad means disagreeing with his policies of how to make American great then I dont care what Zell Miller says. Id like to think all of us want whats best for American. But when you accuse the dems of sacrificing American for Gods know what, then there is little debate.

 

And accord, Ron Reagen talked about stem cell research. Miller called Dems traitors.

Presidents don't raise taxes.

 

So its not Bush's tax cut? Why dont you ever pipe up with this when someone says Kerry will raise taxes?

 

Presidents don't enact environmental law.

 

No but they do appoint officials within various agencies that are guided by a presidential policy that is clear by its actions to not be good for the enviroment. Ask Nixon's former EPA head.

 

Presidents don't overhaul social security

 

But they are responsible for massive entitlement programs? You blame FDR for various entitlement but wasnt it Congress that passed those?

 

Presidents don't give govt programs money.

 

So does Bush run around saying he funds various programs?

 

Presidents don't enact constitutional amendments.

 

But they do make it an issue. Simple question-If Gore was president, would a gay marriage amendment even be considered?

 

Parties mold policy and Presidents are the clear leaders of their parties.

He is a rat and needs to be with the rats. Don't call yourself a Democrat when you are clearly not one. I call that treason.

 

LETTER TO ZELL MILLER: 'You have betrayed our trust'

Jimmy Carter - For the Journal-Constitution

Wednesday, September 8, 2004

 

To Sen. Zell Miller:

 

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor [of Young Harris] and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as state senator, lieutenant governor and governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

 

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge and Sam Nunn, disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

 

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican National Convention because of your being a "Democrat," and it's quite possible that your rabid speech damaged our party and paid the GOP some transient dividends.

 

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign's personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as "one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best-known and greatest leaders --- and a good friend.")

 

I, myself, served in the Navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don't believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacifist.

 

Zell, I have known you for 42 years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral pre-emptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited.

 

Sincerely, and with deepest regrets,

 

Jimmy Carter

Ok, here is a hypo for you legacy. Gore is President. He has raised taxes highly. He has created strict enviromental laws. He has brough social security and other government programs more money. He gives gays the right to marry. Assuming 9-11 happend, he invades Afghanistan. He increases security. He fights terrorism through other methods. But he never invades Iraq. He says he wants to continue to fight the war on terror and that he has been winning since no attack has happend. How do you vote? How do conservatives vote?

547397[/snapback]

 

 

I'm not voting based solely on national security BUT, I'll see what the challenger brings to the table first. Is the challeneger agreeing to do the same with the war on terror but institute a conservative domestic policy? Gore vs. an invisible challenger i dont know who id vote for

Presidents don't raise taxes.

 

So its not Bush's tax cut? Why dont you ever pipe up with this when someone says Kerry will raise taxes?

 

Presidents don't enact environmental law.

 

No but they do appoint officials within various agencies that are guided by a presidential policy that is clear by its actions to not be good for the enviroment. Ask Nixon's former EPA head.

 

Presidents don't overhaul social security

 

But they are responsible for massive entitlement programs? You blame FDR for various entitlement but wasnt it Congress that passed those?

 

Presidents don't give govt programs money.

 

So does Bush run around saying he funds various programs?

 

Presidents don't enact constitutional amendments.

 

But they do make it an issue. Simple question-If Gore was president, would a gay marriage amendment even be considered?

 

Parties mold policy and Presidents are the clear leaders of their parties.

548211[/snapback]

 

No, its quite plainly not Bush's tax cut. The president PROPOSES, congress DISPOSES. It has been this way since we had a constitution.

 

Kerry's ability to raise taxes is obviously limited to whatever cooperation he would get from congress. If there's a dem majority, people clearly need to worry - dem majorities with dem presidents typically isn't an environment conducive to govt thrift or significant concern for the public pocketbook. If its split, then there would be gridlock - my prefered status for government BTW.

 

When they can't agree on anything, they can't be picking your pocket.

 

I would have no problem with a Kerry win as long as the republicans controlled the senate or house.

548324[/snapback]

I think we are in an era where it doesn't matter which party holds the presidency. Neither are fiscally conservative. And all this is happening with a Republican Congress. Explain this?