DERMO … sorry it took so long to respond to your reply. I no longer live in Cali, I was stationed there as a Marine. I have moved back to Louisiana after my tour.
WMD - computer tough guy!
Don’t mention it.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
It doesnt matter who is in office, alot of non-Americans will always hate us just based on how there own country twists their view of us.
That isn’t true. European relations were not nearly as stressed as they are now. Germany had been one of our closest allies before all this. France may have always hated us for reasons unbeknownst, but other countries have reason to hate us now, where they didn’t so much back in the day. If we kept our asses out of other country’s business, no one would hate us.
How do you figure this? We haven’t gotten on well with Germany for a long time. The only thing that kept us together was the Soviet threat.
France has of course stabbed us in the back at every opportunity for decades.
French, German and Russian support of Saddam and their involvement in the incredibly corrupt oil for food programs shows they have been dealing with the devil. They are pissed because we spoiled their party. Tough shit. We are on the right side of this deal.
The fact they are pissed at Bush means he must be doing something right.[/quote]
I understand that the European involvement, especially France, against the war was based on money. France had billions at stake in our war. But to think that we were on the right side in this war is to ignore our involvment with other countries, such as the Central American stuff in the 1980s, and the Allende incident in Chile in 1973. We have not always been on the right side, so why should they be?
You can bet that if American interests were at stake (meaning American money), and some European country intervened, we would be at war with them in a second. To say that we have never dealt with the devil is neither right nor rational; we are a country that is in it for the money.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
WMD wrote:
Habitual wrote:
Media + Liberals + Polls = Bullshit
Thanks
Media + Conservatives + Polls = more shit
In fact, the whole right-left paradigm is a big stinky pile of shit.
Your welcome.
You really aren’t that bright are you WMD?
Bush could give a shit about the polls. he’s proved that time and again.
Republicans have won the only real polls that count for the last 10 years - the ballot box.
[/quote]
Let’s see, you completely miss the point of this post but I’m the one who isn’t very bright. Interesting. Did you actually read it or did you just see my avatar and have a hissy fit?
I’ll type slower. Do try to keep up.
I was not referring to W’s interest or lack thereof in political polls. I was remarking upon the artificiality of the rightleft polemics that are polarizing the country.
Did that clear it up for you or did I use too many polysyllabic words?
WMD
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
So, basically it’s okay to offend Christians with your language and views. However, being so far on “the left” (as you put it) you would never insult any other group. Let’s say those that espouse a more liberal philosophy for example.
In that same vein I’m guessing you think it’s fine for the many liberal groups to lobby for their interests in Washington. Perhaps you need an infusion of tolerance for ALL groups who need and want to be heard.
If it offends you I’m sorry. Just as you don’t mind pissing off liberals, I don’t mind pissing off the righteous right. As I said before, I do not like those that are trying to infuse religion with politics, and they irritate me personally with their radical views (just like I irritate you with my radical views). There isn’t much more for me to say on this.[/quote]
The funniest part of ZEB’s comment on this is that he loves to gay bash (of course he’ll tell you he doesn’t but it’d be okay if he did because he’s a Christian.) God and 75%(his favorite statistical percentage) of America is on his side. But he gets all self-righteous when someone calls the Christian Right “jesus freaks”. Lord, I love irony.
I predict that ZEB will fire back demanding “proof”. He loves “proof”. He has no “proof”, therefore he wants “proof” from others.
Hilarious.
WMD
[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
If it offends you I’m sorry. Just as you don’t mind pissing off liberals, I don’t mind pissing off the righteous right. As I said before, I do not like those that are trying to infuse religion with politics, and they irritate me personally with their radical views (just like I irritate you with my radical views). There isn’t much more for me to say on this.
Ahh, but you don’t irritate me with your liberal views! In fact, I think it’s healthy to have two opposing sides, such as the two party system.
What offends me is that you don’t care if you berate Christians, but seem to be tolerant of other groups who are just as political.
[/quote]
You are SO going to hell…
[quote]Habitual wrote:
DERMO … sorry it took so long to respond to your reply. I no longer live in Cali, I was stationed there as a Marine. I have moved back to Louisiana after my tour.
WMD - computer tough guy!
Don’t mention it.
[/quote]
I’m not a guy.
Sorry if my posts make you feel shriveled. Perhaps you should take some testosterone supplements.
WMD
[quote]brainfreez wrote:
Does approval rating matter at all? He’s not running for re-election. he could be in the single digits he’s still be the most powerful man alive. [/quote]
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.
[quote]WMD wrote:
You are SO going to hell…[/quote]
WMD has proclaimed herself Goddess over all! LOL
[quote]WMD wrote:
Let’s see, you completely miss the point of this post but I’m the one who isn’t very bright. Interesting. Did you actually read it or did you just see my avatar and have a hissy fit?[/quote]
No - I understand the point of your post. Now what you wrote and what you think you wrote may not jive - but that is more of a YP than an OP.
You first remark was an equation that insinuated that the right manipulates polls, and media. I simply responded to that. The right could give a shit about the polls - unlike the perpetually in need of validation left that lives off polling data.
Coming from you - that’s…well…cute. Tell me - are you the pot or the kettle?
Just curious as to why - if that is truly what you were trying to say - you contribute to this artificiality by impuning those of a more conservative bent with your political math skills? I guess it’s Reagan’s fault, or Bush I’s, or Bush II’s. Couldn’t possibly be any of the rocket scientists standing on the left, huh?
As for the clarity of your message - I’ll tell you like an old Mexican hand told me one summer, “I can’t read your mind by looking at your ass”.
You let me know if you need help understanding that. Oh…and you might want to take in a math class, or two before combining it with poly-sci. It just makes you look even stupider.
[quote]Did that clear it up for you or did I use too many polysyllabic words?
[/quote]
Just because you do the Jumble every morning, and you have the word of the day emailed to you on yahoo ddosen’t mean that anyone else sees you for the genius you fashion yourself to be. But if it’ll give you some validation, and boost your frail ego -
Please quit using such big werds. U R so smart. U make me fill dum.
[quote]WMD wrote:
brainfreez wrote:
Does approval rating matter at all? He’s not running for re-election. he could be in the single digits he’s still be the most powerful man alive.
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.[/quote]
And he would beat what ever shit head the Deaniac-ran left put on the ticket against him.
It’s not that people are soooooo stupid that they’d vote for Bush regardless. It’s that they would rather have him than vote for the loser left, and their cadre of pussies.
[quote]WMD wrote:
…
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.[/quote]
He would probably get the pro-abortion vote.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.
He would probably get the pro-abortion vote.[/quote]
Sad but true…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.
He would probably get the pro-abortion vote.[/quote]
witty. but still a cheap shot
Rainjack said “Bush could give a shit about the polls. he’s proved that time and again.”
How exactly has he proven that? He is the photo-op president - how many has he done in recent weeks? The housebuilding with Laura especially strained credulity…he seems very unfamiliar with how to properly use leverage when wielding a hammer. Given the number of speeches and photo opportunities, I would say that he cares a lot about polls, even if only as a means to accomplish his agenda. And that is a good thing - he is our elected representative, and should be acting in accordance with the will of the majority of the country. He obviously cares a lot about what his christian base thinks (see the Wead tapes, where he discusses his reluctance to “kick the gays”), and he should pay attention to polls, and care about the feelings of the entirety of the country.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
WMD wrote:
…
Actually he could kill a baby on TV and some people would think he did it for national security. And they’d vote for him, running or not.
He would probably get the pro-abortion vote.
witty. but still a cheap shot[/quote]
yup.
[quote]dermo wrote:
Rainjack said “Bush could give a shit about the polls. he’s proved that time and again.”
How exactly has he proven that? He is the photo-op president - how many has he done in recent weeks? The housebuilding with Laura especially strained credulity…he seems very unfamiliar with how to properly use leverage when wielding a hammer. Given the number of speeches and photo opportunities, I would say that he cares a lot about polls, even if only as a means to accomplish his agenda. And that is a good thing - he is our elected representative, and should be acting in accordance with the will of the majority of the country. He obviously cares a lot about what his christian base thinks (see the Wead tapes, where he discusses his reluctance to “kick the gays”), and he should pay attention to polls, and care about the feelings of the entirety of the country.
[/quote]
My young ill-informed liberal friend - You are describing things that Presidents do all the time. Photo-ops are part of the job. It has nothing to do with poll numbers.
Bush has proven his ambivalance towrds the polls in his actions - not his pictures. This is something that the Wag-the-dog left just doesn’t get. Agree with him or not - like him or not - Bush will do what he is convinced is the right thing. The War on Terror, Privatized Soc Sec accounts, Dept of Homeland Security, Medicare reform, tax cuts, spending increases, Even his nomination of Harriet Miers as justice on the USSC - all of these things were actions taken by Bush that met with conflicting poll numbers - yet he has never acquiesced from his positions on them.
Like him or not - hell, like the issues or not - you can’t deny the stiff neck Bush possesses.
Do you honestly believe that the recent spate of “important” speeches have nothing to do with flagging poll numbers? I agree that GW is a man of his convictions (although I think that he initially opposed the Department of Homeland Security…maybe I am mistaken). But as a president with very amibitious aims, he realizes that he needs the popular support of the country; he is not running for re-election, but the congressmen are. I think that he is very concerned with poll numbers.
Before gaining office in 2000, he campaigned against nation-building, criticized Clinton for having no exit strategy in Kosovo, and termed gay marriage “a state’s issue”. He changed his stances on those issues, the first two perhaps due to 9/11, but his position on gay marriage was altered to suit his christian, conservative base (the James Dobson, Pot Robertson crowd).
GW is very concerned with poll numbers, to the extent that he will manipulate the media (his administration paid radio pundit Armstrong Williams $240,000 of taxpayer money to promote “No Child Left Behind”, and paid 2 other journalists less money to hawk administation policies), and compromise his positions on social policies (gay marriage). That said, I assume that this is true of most successfull politicians, and is a necessary evil of the political game. This is an indictment of the political system and the media, not specifically of the President.
WMD… You are completely right, after all my time Iraq that aint shit compared to your posts. Get over yourself little girl.
[quote]Habitual wrote:
WMD… You are completely right, after all my time Iraq that aint shit compared to your posts. Get over yourself little girl. [/quote]
Dude… quit w/ the sexist crap capiche?
[quote]thabigdon24 wrote:
Habitual wrote:
WMD… You are completely right, after all my time Iraq that aint shit compared to your posts. Get over yourself little girl.
Dude… quit w/ the sexist crap capiche?[/quote]
It would appear he is running out of insults. He can make posts degrading everyone he thinks is a liberal, but God forbid someone make a comment about how the entire two party system is full of shit. I personally can’t wait for the next one liner Habitual can throw together. Maybe hair color or the model of the car WMD drives will be the next target. Let’s watch.