Either way, I’m going to vote for Bush in 2004. The Demoncat candidates are a joke.
I might agree with you except since your post Wesley Clark has announced his candidacy. I was unimpressed with the rest of the pack (Dean, Gebhart, Leiberman, etc.). Hope to see him and Bush in a debate. That would redefine “infotainment”.
Roy,
I don't trust Clark. I'm aware of his accomplishments in the military(Vietnam), but his views on immigration and multi-culturalism are complete opposite of mine. He is a staunch liberal and is in bed with the Clintons.
Clark's record in Kosovo is not one to be proud of and hilariously those actions ordered by Clinton were never mentioned by the anti-war crowd in America. I guess that was because, as Jenean Garafalafalo says(paraphrased), "it wasn't hip to protest Clinton".
Anywho, as a conservative, I would never vote for him, which beggs the question: Why would you vote for him? I though you were a conservative?
Dustin
Speaking of the war in Kosovo,
who were those guys making a big fuss about Clinton “putting our boys in harms way” ?? in an “unjustified war” -claiming it was their right and duty as Americans to voice dissent?
yep, that would be many of the same Republicans who branded anyone who voiced dissent concerning Iraq as “un-American” and not being patriotic.
but yes- Clark’s record should be looked at closer.
[quote]Anywho, as a conservative, I would never vote for him, which beggs the question: Why would you vote for him? I though you were a conservative?
[/quote]
Conservative yes… Hard to be a capitalist and NOT be conservative. But I think Bush is a bumbling idiot who posed as a moderate republican who was actually a fundamentalist idealogue. I think that conservatives have been duped, unless you happen to be friendly to the Bush family, in which case you will make billions in no-bid federal contracts that we the tax payers have to support.
Clark is an investment banker and consultant with a masters in economics, which he taught at West Point, where BTW, he had graduated first in his class many years before. He works with Stephens Inc., the largest Investment firm in the world outside of Wallstreet, and they are long time republican contributors, but my guess is that they will change gears for Clark. There was actually a RALLY on Wallstreet the day he announced his candidacy! I think that he is conservative in the areas that I want him to be conservative (fiscally and militarily), but relaxed on the social issues side. I am a live and let live person, and he seems to be closer to my views.
I have voted for many republicans in other elections in the past, but I have also voted for may Democrats. I guess I don’t really have a party that represents my views… I just look at the individual candidates. Being a capitalist with no interest in organized religion sort of seperates me from the current administration (think Ashcroft, Pryor). Plus, they are a pack of thieves who are going to load up while they can, and we are going to have to pick up the bill when the credit card they ran up needs to be paid.
Yea I am going to Vote for the Genaral … Every thing I read about him sounds very much along my line of thinking… And the repubs arguments about him just dont add up in my view, I just fell he is more qualified than Bush, I probally wouldnt had voted for any of the other dems…Big martin
“But I think Bush is a bumbling idiot who posed as a moderate republican who was actually a fundamentalist idealogue.”
Bumbling idiot? Well he certainly can't think on his feet like Clinton could, which isn't that important to me. He does have a college education, so I think calling him an bumbling idiot is a stretch. Moderate republican, I could agree with. Bush's foreign policy I agreed with by and large, but domestically he and the rest of the checkered pants republicans have been out to lunch. Bush won't confront our immigration problems and didn't have word to say when "Red" Davis basically gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in California by giving them a drivers license. Bush also spends money like it grows on trees, which is irritating as hell.
As far as Bush being a fundamentalist ideologue, I'm not sure I agree. By your definition, I would be considered a fundamentalsit ideologue, which I'm not.
I think there is more to Clark's candidacy than meets the eye. The support of the Clinton's looks suspicious and it would not surprise me at all if Hillary ends up running as Vice President under Clark or vice versa. This would obviously be the Democrat party's fream team. I hope I'm wrong though. The 2004 election could get interesting.
Dustin
If the Clark team was smart, which I assume they are, they will realize how detrimental that would be. There are many similarities between Clark and Clinton. Both are from Little Rock, both were Rhodes Scholars, both have extremely high IQs, but then the rivers diverge… Clark has none of the family credibility issues that Clinton had (no BJs in the oval office during his term, I’m sure), and Clark is also a decorated combat veteran, including a purple heart in Vietnam. Clinton was conciensiously opposing the war while in college at Oxford. Bush was AWOL.
I have issues with Bush’s military background to say the least. For someone who was a draft dodger and deserter in time of war, he sure loves to use this powerful military.
Back to topic though… Being that Clark is from Little Rock, he has gotten the support of some of the well known dems in Little Rock, like Skip Rutherford (president of the Clinton Library foundation and long time friend and confidant of Clinton). Clinton himself has offered him advice. Many Clinton democrats still live in the area, and have experience running a successful election, so you will see that happening. That does not a conspiracy make in my view. I think that you will not see Hillary joining the race. She would hurt her own credibility because she just made a strong statement to her NY constituants that she WOULD NOT run in this term. I think that if Clark lost this election you would most likely see her vying for the democratic nomination in 4 years.
Don’t know if you saw this, but Clark is already beating Bush in the poles, 49 to 42, according to CNN. I realize that it is VERY early to bank anything on that, but it is a sure sign that people are frustrated with Bush. Seeing his cronies get billions in no-bid federal contracts while the US economy is in a steady decline only intensifies the desire to elect someone other than Bush. You certainly won’t see Clark fumbling a debate with Bush like you saw with Algore. Frankly, I doubt Bush’s handlers will LET him debate with Clark, based on the differing military backgrounds alone!
I don’t know if you read one of my earlier posts in response to one of your posts, but if you did you would realize that I don’t consider Christianity to be a bad thing, and I don’t consider all Christians to be fundamentalists, so I probably would not categorize you as such unless you were completely aligned with the “new world order” according to Bush/Aschcroft/Rove. So you don’t have to scroll up and search for it, I will quote and excerpt here:
I also said:
Have a great day!
Hmmm… Still waiting on those weapons of Mass Destruction. One thing has been accomplished under Bush though…
MORE SOLDIERS have DIED since that dimwit declared victory then had died during the actual conflict itself. More WILL die, and for what? They are obeying their orders, doing a good job, but why are they really there? When your brother dies in this war, or you father, or someone close to you, are you THEN going to be angry with Bush? Will it THEN offend you that he has kept the press away from the arriving coffins and not even shown up to pay any respect to the dead arriving here every day.
Why doesn’t he? There may be several reasons. First, he wants to keep as little notice to that going as possible, as it may start to crumble his public support for this stoo-pid war. The other reason is, maybe, just maybe, what little honor is left in him makes him realize that having neglected his duties when he was given the chance, he is not worthy of being in the presence of American soldiers coming home who actually did believe in something and died for it. He does not deserve to stand on the consecrated ground that their bodies are committed to.
None of his draft dodging cronies either. Doesn’t it strike you as odd that Rummy, cheney, Rove… all those guys got deferments or had letters written on their behalf to prevent them from having to fight, that THESE YAHOOS are sending our troops to thier deaths? Easy for them to do, since they have never faced death themselves.
Meanwhile, back in Iraq… STILL NO WMDs! Your president LIED. NOt about a blowjob either. He lied about something that is costing this country BILLIONS! YOU are going to pay for it! He LIED to get congressional support, and that is indisputable. How many of you have lost a family member due to this LIE. He LIED about something that will make many of his friends richer than they already were, which was outside of your concept of possible. He LIED about the links from Alqada and Iraq… he dropped the ball on the terrorist who bombed us at home. Where is Osama? How did this get off to Iraq? Osama was who we needed to go after. Why did that just fade away. Not every Americans attention span is that short. I am keeping these facts very clear in my head so when I can turn the lever I will be getting ANYONE but GW in office. And sadly, it will take more than two terms to dig our country out of the clusterfuck he has us in now.
Dude
Apparently you missed the MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner, so let me fill you in… Mission was accomplished!
We found the WMDs. Okay, no we didn’t.
We killed that motherfucker Saddam, Okay, no we didn’t. We don’t even know where the fuck Saddam is, or Osama Bin Laden either.
We stablized Iraq and made it into a democracy. Okay. no we didn’t. We don’t actually want a democracy, because the Iraqis will elect a Shi’ite government, and Bush doesn’t want that.
We wiped out a major source of terrorism, and we made the USA safer. Umm no we didn’t. We have created a whole new generation of terrorists, by invading a sovereign country in violation of international law.
Basically, America was humiliated and had the shit scared out of it on 9-11.
As a result, the President needed to lash out, not just out of fear, but in an effort to get revenge on somebody… anybody.
Plus, now when people talk about the first Bush’s presidency, they will stop saying how bad Bush1 screwed up by not finishing the job. So the family honor will be restored.
And of course, what is our oil doing underneath all that sand?
What is the exit strategy nowadays? It changes every couple of months.
We will stay, until we decide to go?
We can’t leave, because leaving now would be even more humiliating for us?
Sounds like a plan!
Okay, someone bumped this one. I read through some of the original posts, and it’s interesting to see the now discredited reasons for the invasion of Iraq posted here as fact. And why not? We typically believe the government and the media.
So, does anyone here still believe that we had to invade Iraq, and that the urgency of the invasion was such that we couldn’t wait for our allies or develop a plan for maintaining the peace following the fighting? Also, what do you all think of the lack of WMDs and the lack of any connection between Hussein and either al-Qaida or the 9/11 terrorist attacks?
For the record, I am a conservative-libertanian Republican. I supported (and still support) the first Gulf War. It was just, and we were right to fight it. I did oppose this war, as we were merely beating up a disarmed foe who did nothing to threaten the security of the United States. It also caused a large increase in government spending, which should always be opposed unless truly driven by necessity.
I’m still waiting for Dustin to chime in. He was so sure there were WMDs… Sadly he bought Bush’s lie as well. I want to see what he has to say.
And what about our resident “neutral” voice of reason, Mage. I know you are a staunch supporter of Bush. What do you make of all this? Do you still think that the president had a plan?
Come on guys… Do I need to start this in a new thread to get your attention?
I miss BabyDoll…
“I’m still waiting for Dustin to chime in. He was so sure there were WMDs… Sadly he bought Bush’s lie as well.”
Yeah, I guess I bought the "lie". Just like many Democrats, Bill Clinton, France, Germany, etc, etc. All of the aforementioned believed that Saddam had WMDs. If you, Lumpy, and Monsiour Trotsky want to run around calling Bush a liar, go ahead.
To be fair, I think it would be more accurate to say that the intelligence was inconsistent and based on what Bush and Blair had to go with, they felt Saddam posed a imminent threat. Clinton said so himself as far back as 1998. Saddam hated the U.S and Israel and was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iraq was a haven for Al-Queda and other terrorists, now it is not.
What I just said has been mentioned in threads like this for about the past year. I don't believe Bush intentionally lied and put soldiers in harms way for economic gain. That seems like a rather inefficient way of making money. It also indicates that Bush put his political life on the line for economic gain, which is a ridiculous argument. Roy, this sort of thing I expect from Lumpy and company, but not from you. A supposed conservative that is echoing the far-left's conspiracy theories. Michael Moore would be proud.
I have said all I'm going to on this topic. If you've noticed I haven't posted on political topics in a while and I'm sick of talking about it. I expect a response from you and that is fine. I will not reply back.
Dustin (Betting that Babydoll is busy doing some serious deadlifts right now)
I would love to comment right now, but I have to work to pay for illegal alien or other lazy assed welfare recipient to sit around and do nothing.
Me Solomon Grundy
Word Solomon.
"Saddam hated the U.S and Israel and was attempting to acquire nuclear weapons.
Iraq was a haven for Al-Queda and other terrorists, now it is not."
Is hating America or Israel a crime? Should we invade and occupy every nation with a leader who hates America? I don’t recall us going to war against the Soviet Union, although those leaders hated us. Should we attack and occupy only weak nations that were previously disarmed by the United Nations? Well, it does make for an easy victory.
As for the comment about Al-Qaida, that is a humorous statement. These folks hated Saddam Hussein and his secular government. However, the country seems to be filled with terrorists now.
I encourage you to continue living your fantasy – it’s easier than having to actually think.
I had the unfortunate experience of browsing through this thread and I saw one post that was particularly alarming and hateful. I am asking the person who posted the picture of Pope John Paul II with President Bush to please take it down off of this thread. Pope John Paul II stance against the war was out of pure, sincere, and true love for every human being. He never once attempted to dehumanize and humiliate President Bush. This picture mocks the Pope’s frail physical condition and relinquishes his moral guidance for millions of devout Catholics as nothing more than a hateful attack on President Bush.
His leadership in the anti-war movement was based on a genuine and sincere love, not a hatred of President Bush. For those of you against the war, understand the Pope’s love for human dignity is pure, whether it’s against all war, against the genocide known as abortion, or the death penalty.
I ask all of you who are against the war with all sincerity, are you really against war because you value human life, or is it an extension of a blind hatred of President Bush?
I am against the war, however I support President Bush and I support our troops. I realize there are things I do not know that the president and his top aides do know. 9/11 shows very clearly that evil does exist in this world.
I would never attempt to humiliate, dehumanize and mock someone who supports the war. Again I ask, please take down that picture of the Pope John Paul II out of respect for those of us, of which I am one, who look at him as our shepard, moral teacher, and hero.
mark r,
“Should we attack and occupy only weak nations that were previously disarmed by the United Nations?”
My God!!! WHO DISARMED IRAQ??? Are you kidding me? The un? My God, man, don’t you remember the weapons inspectors being expelled from Iraq in 1998? Don’t you remember the ineffectual and pathetic number of un resolutions against the saddam’s regime since 1991?
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you would write this. You are, after all, the same guy who claimed to have shrugged 1,000 pounds.
“Iraq was a haven for Al-Queda and other terrorists, now it is not.”
Ah…You’re a good puppy, go eat some more of that crap your media feeds you.
In case you ever bother to actually go find the truth, maybe you will find that Osama always considered Saddam’s regime impure due to that permissive atittude that Saddam bastard always had towards Christians and other religions and actually despised him. He allowed churches in Iraq and this was no good to Islamic fundamentalists.
Anyone knows how many innocents were killed to this point by our illegal occupation of Iraq? Are you all celebrating the round 4 digit numbers??
Let’s go save (bomb) some more opressed people, let’s start with Saudi Arabia and China!! Ops, these are the good cooperative dictatorships that serve our interests, I tend to forget that. Stupid me.
So did you nationalistic brainwashed paranoidal fools missed me or not??
How’s your imaginary war on terror??
How’s the gas prices obver there?? Still polluting a lot??
Are you voting for that bush imbecil again??
Feeling good??
The UN inspection teams were REMOVED by the UN in 1998 with the backing of Clinton.
They were not kicked out by Iraq as is widely believed. That is a convenient excuse.
Many of these inspectors have since come forth and stated the facts.
Oh threads such as this causes tears of nostalgia to well up… I’m getting verklempt…