What do you suppose a Gore administration would have done post 9/11? What policies and actions would he have taken that are in direct oppostion to Bush’s policies that would have us in a better state than where you think we are today?
Do you really expect me to speak on the behalf of a politician on the hypothetical policies he might have had regarding two of the most complicated things in the world- foreign policy and economics?
Fuckin christ, get real.[/quote]
Thats pretty much been the standard reply from the Dems for the past 7 years. Oppose Bush no matter what he does, but offer no alternatives.
Since you are readily able to provide a littany of Bush failures I was sure you would be able to provide at least one Democrat alternative.
I apologize for expecting too much. PM me your address so I can send you a trophy just for showing up
What do you suppose a Gore administration would have done post 9/11? What policies and actions would he have taken that are in direct oppostion to Bush’s policies that would have us in a better state than where you think we are today?
Do you really expect me to speak on the behalf of a politician on the hypothetical policies he might have had regarding two of the most complicated things in the world- foreign policy and economics?
Fuckin christ, get real.
Thats pretty much been the standard reply from the Dems for the past 7 years. Oppose Bush no matter what he does, but offer no alternatives.
Since you are readily able to provide a littany of Bush failures I was sure you would be able to provide at least one Democrat alternative.
I apologize for expecting too much. PM me your address so I can send you a trophy just for showing up[/quote]
I’ve been on this damn forum two years longer than you, don’t give me shit about not posting alternatives. I’ve been posting on politics for a long time, if you want to see my stances on shit, go look it up. I’m not listing everything hear for some bitch ass punk like you.
And again, you’re a fuckin moron if you expect me to answer for a politician on the policies he may or may not have had. Go look it up for yourself, Gore has been pretty fucking vocal about everything. Democrats have offered plenty of alternatives.
That was a nice attempt at spinning things though. Too bad the damn post was worthless otherwise.
What do you suppose a Gore administration would have done post 9/11? What policies and actions would he have taken that are in direct oppostion to Bush’s policies that would have us in a better state than where you think we are today?
Do you really expect me to speak on the behalf of a politician on the hypothetical policies he might have had regarding two of the most complicated things in the world- foreign policy and economics?
Fuckin christ, get real.
Thats pretty much been the standard reply from the Dems for the past 7 years. Oppose Bush no matter what he does, but offer no alternatives.
Since you are readily able to provide a littany of Bush failures I was sure you would be able to provide at least one Democrat alternative.
I apologize for expecting too much. PM me your address so I can send you a trophy just for showing up
I’ve been on this damn forum two years longer than you, don’t give me shit about not posting alternatives. I’ve been posting on politics for a long time, if you want to see my stances on shit, go look it up. I’m not listing everything hear for some bitch ass punk like you.
And again, you’re a fuckin moron if you expect me to answer for a politician on the policies he may or may not have had. Go look it up for yourself, Gore has been pretty fucking vocal about everything. Democrats have offered plenty of alternatives.
That was a nice attempt at spinning things though. Too bad the damn post was worthless otherwise.
[/quote]
way to pull seniority on me, as if that means shit.
I have seen your responses all over this forum and most of it is garbage name calling empty rh.etoric exemplified by your previous two post.
All emotion. Zero logic and reasoning. You make all libs proud.
Here are the RESULTS of Bush’s anti terror doctrine
Zero terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
Toppling of 2 ruthless regimes (Iraq, Afghanistan)
Capitulation of terrorist support by at least 2 other regimes(Libya,Sudan)
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil
Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Many would say he has spent too much of our money in thie field.[/quote]
I would agree with that. When Bush took office there was a balanced budget and a surplus. It took him less than a year to wipe that out. Oh, everyone got a $300 rebate which was a cover for the corporate payouts. Enron recived a 750 million dollar rebate which even after being convicted of everything under the sun, they weren’t required to pay it back. Right now Bush is fighting his own party in order to defend golden parachutes for his guilty friends. And you missed the chapter where he vetoed any kind of regultory action against corporate greed. My favorite is when he veto’d the bill making “gouging on gas prices during a national disaster illegal” this set a precedent and makes gouging legal. Too bad Ike was such a dud, we could be paying 9.00 a gallon. But to the mindless sheep he will always be a hero.
way to pull seniority on me, as if that means shit.
[/quote]
It does.
Absolute bullshit, but I’m not going to argue about that.
There’s plenty of facts interspersed in there. If you don’t like my style, fuck off.
There were zero before 9/11. Does that mean every president previous did a good job?
Not to mention he only changed things after the government agencie massively botched it. This should have been uncovered while Bush was in office, had they been doing their job. But no, Bush fixed evvverrrything. Right.
Iraq had no onnection to 9/11, despite all the neocon attempts to “prove” it, which they never did.
So we’re just going to go around toppling regimes that we think are ruthless now? Great foreign policy. More dead soldiers and more taxes to pay for wars in countries that hate us anyway.
Half of Iraqis think that attacks on American troops in Iraq are OK.
Yup. Sure did win that one.
Afghanistan remains to be seen. I hope it works, but I hear the Taliban is getting stronger in a land that’s been lawless for a millenium. Not that we shouldn’t have gone in there, but I don’t know if it will ever pan out besides the short term goal of removing them.
If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
That’s all completely unfounded, bullshit Neocon propaganda. You have no idea what he would have done, or how he would have responded. I know you like to think that he would have ruined the country, but he could never wreck it worse than Bush has. Never.
I bet, however, he wouldn’t have gotten all flustered and attacked the wrong fucking country in his zeal for revenge.
There were zero before 9/11. Does that mean every president previous did a good job?
[/quote]
Really?
Well, unless you count the Oklahoma City bombing (Clinton administration);
The World Trade Center bombing (Bush I administration);
The Senate bombing (Reagan administration);
The Statue of Liberty bombing, LAX bombing, and Laguardia Airport bombings (Carter administration),
Bombings during the Nixon and Ford Administrations that are too numerous to list;
The Sunday Bomber bombings (Johnson administration);
The Mad Bomber of NYC (Roosevelt administration);
The Boeing 247 bombing (Hoover administration);
Wall Street bombing and Tulsa Race Riot bombings (Coolidge administration);
Haymarket square anarchist bombings (Harding administration)…
Other than those, and the hundred or so that were less flamboyant, then yes, I guess it’s accurate to say that there has never been a terrorist act committed on US soil.
There were zero before 9/11. Does that mean every president previous did a good job?
Really?
Well, unless you count the Oklahoma City bombing (Clinton administration);
The World Trade Center bombing (Bush I administration);
The Senate bombing (Reagan administration);
The Statue of Liberty bombing, LAX bombing, and Laguardia Airport bombings (Carter administration),
Bombings during the Nixon and Ford Administrations that are too numerous to list;
The Sunday Bomber bombings (Johnson administration);
The Mad Bomber of NYC (Roosevelt administration);
The Boeing 247 bombing (Hoover administration);
Wall Street bombing and Tulsa Race Riot bombings (Coolidge administration);
Haymarket square anarchist bombings (Harding administration)…
Other than those, and the hundred or so that were less flamboyant, then yes, I guess it’s accurate to say that there has never been a terrorist act committed on US soil.
[/quote]
Michael Anthony Richards bombing on stage. Don’t forget that one. Threw the nation into turmoil.
Good job Goebbels. You can make anything sound good huh?[/quote]
Yes, everyone who does not agree with you must be a Nazi. (hypocrite.)[quote]
Please. This was certainly one of the worst in history.
He lied and knived his way into one of the most unpopular wars in the history of America.[/quote]
Oh yeah, he lied…Prove it. (I keep asking, and nobody can.)
Al-Quada was the wrong country?[quote]
…and either through complete ignorance or absolute dishonesty (and either is inexcusable) he involved America in the unprovoked attack on a soverign nation under the banner of “Pre-emption”. Coincidentally, this lets us start whatever war we want without losing the “moral high ground.”[/quote]
This was actually the continuation of the previous war. It was simply the end of a cease fire. But I love how you like to put things.
It was a “sovereign” nation. How many non-sovereign nations are there anyway? Unprovoked? I guess firing on our planes on an almost daily basis, attempting the assassination of a former sitting president, and violating the cease-fire agreements, (along with repeatedly stating publicly that he was at war with us,) is unprovoked.
You ignore all the reasons, and act like there was no reason.[quote]
Then he fucked up managing the war after his Mission Accomplished bullshit, and kept us there for what, six years now?[/quote]
Yes he did fuck this part up. If we go in, we needed to go all in, and not play the politically correct bullshit I saw throughout this conflict. And I use the term conflict because the actual war ended when Saddam was captured. I find it funny that the definition of war has changed.[/quote]
His surge has NOT been successful…[/quote]
Are you fucking kidding me? You call him a liar, and actually attempt this?[quote]
…and America is blowing billions while our economy falls into shambles and the dollar is at it’s lowest point in years.[/quote]
The military budget has surprisingly not increased significantly. But Bush, and the Republicans, have been terrible about their spending. And that Medicare spending increase? Absolutely ridiculous. That would be a more accurate complaint then the bullshit your spewing.[quote]
He endorses torture…
Uh, yeah, right. If you have a distorted idea of what torture is.[quote]
…has invaded the private rights of all Americans and demolished freedom with his remarkable Patriot Act…[/quote]
Then it’s a good thing the Democrats let it expire… Oh wait, they didn’t. They actually voted to keep it running while complaining about it.[quote]
…taken the teeth out of the EPA and replaced it with big business interests, and still is the first retard president to issue a tax break during a war. Yea, that worked out.[/quote]
Oh my god, are you an environmental nut? The EPA has been terrible, becoming an absolute bureaucracy. There has been a local fight over the nutty idea of protecting some “rare” cockroaches. (Or where they beetles?)[quote]
Yea, let’s put this piece of shit murdering asshole back in office for another four years, maybe he’ll nuke a few million Chinese next and gas prices will go down because there’s no one but Americans to consume it.[/quote]
Retarded, murdering, asshole… You are so unbiased. (You’d think he was Jewish they way you talk about him.)
And that is completely coloring your beliefs. All your opinions are filtered through hate.
You can disagree with people without hating them. You can look at this objectively if you try, and not judge actions based on whether you like the guy or not.
I have plenty of problems with Bush and his administration. But I can find fault objectively without hating the guy. He is far from being a great president. But I can disagree with a person without hating them, and do not believe in hating a person for not agreeing with me.
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil
Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
[/quote]
It’s completely stupid to even pretend you KNOW this would have been true.
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil
Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
It’s completely stupid to even pretend you KNOW this would have been true.[/quote]
I wouldn’t go so far as to question my intelligence, but I am sure you would agree that it is not a farfetched extension of the policies of a certain President who occupied the White House from 1993-2000
Good job Goebbels. You can make anything sound good huh?
Yes, everyone who does not agree with you must be a Nazi. (hypocrite.)
[/quote]
You guys use your bullshit phrases against us. I’m entitled to do the same.
He said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. They didn’t.
He said Iraq had WMD. They didn’t.
You can go here for other ones, or to the other countless websites that outline his bullshit. But these are the most important ones.
Cute. But you know I was referring to Iraq.
Oh was it? That’s cute too. That’s a real spin doctorish way to put it.
“No, we didn’t start another one, we’re just picking up where we left off… ten years ago… even though you didn’t do anything…you don’t like it? Screw you! America, Fuck yea!”
C’mon.
Ho ho, you’re kicking ass today. All kinds of witty and shit.
Please. We ignored everything until Bushy decided that they were somehow involved in 9/11, contrary to any evidence otherwise.
W was a sad, pathetic clown who wanted to live up to daddy’s name and be a wartime president. He picked a fight, got us into it without any logical reasoning, and now we’re stuck.
There was no reason for this war. At all. You fucks just won’t admit it, and that’s fine. But history will judge it.
How? It went from a conventional war with standing armies to an urban guerilla war in the cities.
The only people that call it a “conflict” are the politically correct ones you hate.
I’m too tired to cite sources and go back to looking shit up.
There are varying viewpoints on whether this worked or not. 50 percent of the people still don’t think it did. THis is not a black and white issue either.
I said America is spending billions. You said they’ve been terrible about their spending.
That’s… um… the same… ?
LOL. And what, amigo, is your crystal clear vision? He’s said he supports it. What more do you want? I take it back. You’re off the ball now.
They have been huge vaginas in dealing with that issue. The behavior of the democrats on this still disgusts me. They should have walked out of congress before voting to keep that running.
It was pitiful indeed.
Excuse me? Are you accusing me of anti-semitism? I’ll hold my tongue because I figure I’m reading this wrong.
[quote]
Disgusting. Yes, I hate that man, and I’ve said it before- I don’t wish death on anyone, but if he died, I wouldn’t mind. And I will be celebrating on Jan. 20, and hoping that America is never so stupid ever again.
And that is completely coloring your beliefs. All your opinions are filtered through hate.
You can disagree with people without hating them. You can look at this objectively if you try, and not judge actions based on whether you like the guy or not.
I have plenty of problems with Bush and his administration. But I can find fault objectively without hating the guy. He is far from being a great president. But I can disagree with a person without hating them, and do not believe in hating a person for not agreeing with me.[/quote]
I’ve said it before. I liked how he was with gun laws (namely, he didn’t make any) and I like how he was with the immigrant issue. I really thought it showed alot of forward thinking on his part, and I was impressed.
I can disagree with people without hating them too. Alot of my friends are soldiers who are Republicans.
But Bush? No. The man has done too much wrong for me to think that he is anything more than a worthless human being.
way to pull seniority on me, as if that means shit.
It does.
I have seen your responses all over this forum and most of it is garbage name calling empty rh.etoric exemplified by your previous two post.
Absolute bullshit, but I’m not going to argue about that.
All emotion. Zero logic and reasoning. You make all libs proud.
There’s plenty of facts interspersed in there. If you don’t like my style, fuck off.
Here are the RESULTS of Bush’s anti terror doctrine
Zero terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11
There were zero before 9/11. Does that mean every president previous did a good job?
Not to mention he only changed things after the government agencie massively botched it. This should have been uncovered while Bush was in office, had they been doing their job. But no, Bush fixed evvverrrything. Right.
Toppling of 2 ruthless regimes (Iraq, Afghanistan)
Iraq had no onnection to 9/11, despite all the neocon attempts to “prove” it, which they never did.
So we’re just going to go around toppling regimes that we think are ruthless now? Great foreign policy. More dead soldiers and more taxes to pay for wars in countries that hate us anyway.
Half of Iraqis think that attacks on American troops in Iraq are OK.
Yup. Sure did win that one.
Afghanistan remains to be seen. I hope it works, but I hear the Taliban is getting stronger in a land that’s been lawless for a millenium. Not that we shouldn’t have gone in there, but I don’t know if it will ever pan out besides the short term goal of removing them.
Capitulation of terrorist support by at least 2 other regimes(Libya,Sudan)
If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
That’s all completely unfounded, bullshit Neocon propaganda. You have no idea what he would have done, or how he would have responded. I know you like to think that he would have ruined the country, but he could never wreck it worse than Bush has. Never.
I bet, however, he wouldn’t have gotten all flustered and attacked the wrong fucking country in his zeal for revenge.
That all you got superstar? Pathetic.[/quote]
Thanks for affirming your self anointed status on these boards
With all due respect to a man of your status
As far as attack on US soil and sovereignity I give you:
USS Cole - 2000 (President Clinton)
US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998 (President Clinton)
Khubar Towers, Saudi Arabia - 1996 (President Clinton)
WTC 1993 (President Clinton)
Each one of those attacks and the corresponding lack of a firm cohesive response directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Put the direct blame on Clinton’s weak terrorism policies which emboldened them to attack us on our soil
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil
Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
It’s completely stupid to even pretend you KNOW this would have been true.
I wouldn’t go so far as to question my intelligence, but I am sure you would agree that it is not a farfetched extension of the policies of a certain President who occupied the White House from 1993-2000[/quote]
I’m not questioning your intelligence despite what it my post might appear as, I’m just questioning the your opinion on the matter.
The biggest flaw with it is that September 11th changed a lot of things on the handling of these issues. The level of this attack was far and away more devastating than any previous terrorist attack on US soil. It is just impossible to guess how Gore would have reacted if given the same situation.
I don’t think it would be too far fetched think the Bush and congress would not have deviated far from the Clinton admins. and the respectful congress’ ways. The only reason I see this as possibly being true is that 9/11 was the catalyst in all of this and without it I don’t see us in Iraq right now or going after the terrorists over seas.
Personally I am much more of an isolationist and don’t agree with either administration’s foreign policy one bit. That was just my take that the situations dictated the actions more than the respectful administrations.
As far as attack on US soil and sovereignity I give you:
USS Cole - 2000 (President Clinton)
US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998 (President Clinton)
Khubar Towers, Saudi Arabia - 1996 (President Clinton)
WTC 1993 (President Clinton)
Each one of those attacks and the corresponding lack of a firm cohesive response directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Put the direct blame on Clinton’s weak terrorism policies which emboldened them to attack us on our soil[/quote]
My personal opinion is that we have not been attacked here in as long because we have woken up at defending ourselves better within our own borders. Also we are being attacked overseas in battle virtually every day.
With a Gore administration we would have had:
Appeasment resulting in Mulitple attacks on US Soil
Criminal Investigations instead of military action causing a vast decrease of our civil rights that would make you beg for the Patriot act
Increased liberal propoganda about why we should understand the plight of the terrorists and empathize with their actions
It’s completely stupid to even pretend you KNOW this would have been true.
I wouldn’t go so far as to question my intelligence, but I am sure you would agree that it is not a farfetched extension of the policies of a certain President who occupied the White House from 1993-2000
I’m not questioning your intelligence despite what it my post might appear as, I’m just questioning the your opinion on the matter.
The biggest flaw with it is that September 11th changed a lot of things on the handling of these issues. The level of this attack was far and away more devastating than any previous terrorist attack on US soil. It is just impossible to guess how Gore would have reacted if given the same situation.
I don’t think it would be too far fetched think the Bush and congress would not have deviated far from the Clinton admins. and the respectful congress’ ways. The only reason I see this as possibly being true is that 9/11 was the catalyst in all of this and without it I don’t see us in Iraq right now or going after the terrorists over seas.
Personally I am much more of an isolationist and don’t agree with either administration’s foreign policy one bit. That was just my take that the situations dictated the actions more than the respectful administrations.[/quote]
The intent of my post was to try to show what might happen if a different strategy was pursued than Bush’s.
Many liberals disagree with the way George W is handling the war on terror, but is it hard to believe that any other less proactive strategy would have led to the same results which is the shrinking of the terrorist organizations and there ability to project their power and ZERO attacks on our soil.
Is there any other strategy that would not require the use of military forece, avoided putting our soldiers in harms way, and achieved the same results?
As far as attack on US soil and sovereignity I give you:
USS Cole - 2000 (President Clinton)
US Embassy Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania - 1998 (President Clinton)
Khubar Towers, Saudi Arabia - 1996 (President Clinton)
WTC 1993 (President Clinton)
Each one of those attacks and the corresponding lack of a firm cohesive response directly led to the 9/11 attacks. Put the direct blame on Clinton’s weak terrorism policies which emboldened them to attack us on our soil
My personal opinion is that we have not been attacked here in as long because we have woken up at defending ourselves better within our own borders. Also we are being attacked overseas in battle virtually every day.
It’s all a matter of perception really.[/quote]
Yes we have woken up. it was a huge wake up call. We were very complacent. I still hate having to take my shoes off at the airport though.
If the enemy is dumb enough to expose themselves by attacking our deployed troops, they will wind up dead.
When you call this a lie you start to lose credibility irish. Every intelligence agency in the world also believed this so were they also lying?
I understand opposition to the war - that is a very legitimate argument to make but to call Bush a liar is ignoring everything they had to go on. It means that all these itelligence agencies knew Bush was distorting their info but did not say anything.
That is quite a stretch. And he also fooled every Senator and Congressman who had access to the same intelligence. How likely is that?
Just be a little fair here on this one. It was not a lie.
[quote]DisgraceOfTheIrish wrote:
dhickey wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Oh, Bush’s humanitarian efforts…was he on tour with Angelina and Brad?
You are way over your head here. This isn’t GAL or SAM. We expect (most of the time)well thought out logical posts. Your posts so far are the equivilant of mental diarrhea.
Start taking your own fucking advice.[/quote]
You are about as well equipped slimjim. Your post above looked like a cut and paste job from one of 6 million posts on the daily kos. no actual facts or original thought. Way to go. Please take Irish out of your username. You’re embarrassing the rest of us.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
DisgraceOfTheIrish wrote:
dhickey wrote:
slimjim wrote:
Oh, Bush’s humanitarian efforts…was he on tour with Angelina and Brad?
You are way over your head here. This isn’t GAL or SAM. We expect (most of the time)well thought out logical posts. Your posts so far are the equivilant of mental diarrhea.
Start taking your own fucking advice.
You are about as well equipped slimjim. Your post above looked like a cut and paste job from one of 6 million posts on the daily kos. no actual facts or original thought. Way to go. Please take Irish out of your username. You’re embarrassing the rest of us.
[/quote]
LOL.
You come through with a couple dozen halfwitted posts where you bob and weave through my questions and never answer anything, and now you’re telling me to change my screen name?
