[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Don’t forget how you had to suppress votes AND cheat while counting to win.
RAPED DEMOCRACY TO GET SELECTED. That should be his motto. That’s how history will remember him.[/quote]
Utter bullshit. Just what I expect from someone that has zero understanding.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.
That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.
Maybe, just maybe…
[/quote]
I do that sometimes…
Guantanamo…
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…
Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…
Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…
I would not expect to convince anyone though…
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Don’t forget how you had to suppress votes AND cheat while counting to win.
RAPED DEMOCRACY TO GET SELECTED. That should be his motto. That’s how history will remember him.
Utter bullshit. Just what I expect from someone that has zero understanding.[/quote]
Fondled her a little bit against her will?
A little bit of inapprobriate tickling?
Its always nice to see the Democrats spit into the wind, they have no solutions now, and still wont have any in 08`, at least Bush had the balls to stir up the cesspool we all know as the " Middle East" in the first place. This war would have happened in 10 or 15 more years anyway, so why not expedite the situation, and call everyone “out”, and have them step up to the plate, so that the rest of the world can see whether these countries really can back up their “bold statements”, or are they just all talk.
In the end this could be a good way to get Iran to do something stupid, and get the rest of the world to turn against them, and eventually get them to stop funding all the terrorist groups, and maybe even start a little “civil” war amonst all the people of Iran, in hopes of having them push for their country to become a democratic government as well.
[quote]vroom wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
How much of this do you think can be blamed on the media. We live in an age where most people believe what the general media tells them. It reports sensationalism and it supports the liberal agenda - that is why you rarely see pictures of happy Iraqies, or the video of a young soldier that says he is not angry that he lost a leg giving freedom to the oppressed people over there.
Everyone wants us out of Iraq - we just need to get them to a point where we can leave and the oppression won’t start again.
Oh please. If everyone believes the media and the MSM is so liberal biased, do you really think Bush would have been in office twice?
Wake up.[/quote]
You are a perfect example of what is wrong in our country. And, I dont mean that offensively. You are obviously bright, yet you cannot see that the media programs that reach the largest audience have a liberal bias.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How about the ousting of Milosevicj? A brutal dictator who commited genocide and ethnic cleansing. Clinton got him out without 1 single US soldier getting killed.
Compare that to Bush’s record.
Also, remember the Republicans fought him every step of the way.
It took them years to change their mind. Now they’re convinced they did good by removing Saddam.
2 differences though. The oil. And the blood.[/quote]
Glad Milosevicj (is that spelled right?) is out. You sounded like you had an adult argument going. Then you bring up the war for oil stuff and threw intelligence out the window.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
vroom wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
How much of this do you think can be blamed on the media. We live in an age where most people believe what the general media tells them. It reports sensationalism and it supports the liberal agenda - that is why you rarely see pictures of happy Iraqies, or the video of a young soldier that says he is not angry that he lost a leg giving freedom to the oppressed people over there.
Everyone wants us out of Iraq - we just need to get them to a point where we can leave and the oppression won’t start again.
Oh please. If everyone believes the media and the MSM is so liberal biased, do you really think Bush would have been in office twice?
Wake up.
You are a perfect example of what is wrong in our country. And, I dont mean that offensively. You are obviously bright, yet you cannot see that the media programs that reach the largest audience have a liberal bias.[/quote]
Gee, I think the point is that if they were so influential, how did a Republican president get elected twice? What exactly are you complaining about? Either the media is VERY influential and not as liberal as you all whine about it being…or it is not very influential at all and no one is really listening to how liberal you claim they are.
Bush is not perfect and has trouble communicating his thoughts and ideas clearly to the average Joe. But, you would be hard-pressed to find another president who could perform better after two major USA soil terrorist attacks, a major natural disaster, and an oil crisis. Some presidents in the past had to deal with only one of these things and that almost sank them.
So considering what he has had to deal with he is not that bad.
I really think we should fuck free speech on the politics forum and ban JeffR.
Bush held terrorists responsible for their actions. He was by far the best of the options in both elections.
Me Solomon Grundy
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
How about the ousting of Milosevicj? A brutal dictator who commited genocide and ethnic cleansing. Clinton got him out without 1 single US soldier getting killed.
Compare that to Bush’s record.
Also, remember the Republicans fought him every step of the way.
It took them years to change their mind. Now they’re convinced they did good by removing Saddam.
2 differences though. The oil. And the blood.[/quote]
I doubt it is worth responding to our local pet troll, but there is no international privilege to intervene militarily on account of genocide. Nor did Clinton get Congressional approval or UNSC to intervene.
Does that bother me? Of course not - I think the UN as arbiter of when nations are ‘permitted’ to use armed force is a sad joke. But to those that chastise Bush for acting unilaterally in violation of some international proceduralism, it is dishonest to give Clinton a pass.
A few quick thoughts on Bush:
He has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.
He has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.
But - would I have voted differently given the same choices in 2004? No, because at least Bush sees our fight against Islamism in the correct terms.
And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself. It will be because the GOP has not governed well and lost touch with the vast majority of the middle-class-ish vote, which the current crop of politicians most certainly have.
It won’t be because the Democrats stole an election or that Democrats put the people under some kind of groupthink trance that tricked them into voting against their interests or any of the other usual scapegoats the Left has proffered in response to being resigned to the political wilderness. It won’t be a conspiracy or propaganda, it won’t be the Jewish lobby.
If the GOP loses, it’s because they blew it when they fell victim to the same excesses they rebelled against in 1994.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the Democratic party - nay, the biggest - is the assigning of blame to some other external force as to why they lost a given election. It is never their fault. Democrats have really yet to sober up and say “you know, our ideas and/or our leaders just don’t resonate with the voting public - we need to reform” - there is always the excuse that the Democrats’ ideas are ideologically pure and flawless, but someone keeps them out of power by cheating.
The GOP - like the Democrats of the past 10 years - have no one to blame but themselves should they lose.
[quote]Rockscar wrote:
The only thing retarded here is saying Bush is the worst president ever.
[/quote]
No, Ronald Regan was the worst president, then LBJ, and then George II.
Our job is not to support the president but to hold him and his administration responsible for the safety and security and the general “wellness” of the country. On all three counts he has failed miserably.
If we are not asking our leaders questions–even if we perceive the office of the PoUSA to be in good standing–then as citizens of a democracy we are ensuring it’s destruction as witnessed in the last 6 yrs.
Wave your banners and shout your “hoorahs” if you feel it necessary but it does not help to just laud the status quo when there are severe discrepancies in said status quo affecting our country.
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?
President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.
That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.
Maybe, just maybe…
I do that sometimes…
Guantanamo…
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…
Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…
Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…
I would not expect to convince anyone though…
[/quote]
Hey orion,
Thanks for chiming in.
I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.
Bad Guys: “I surrender.”
Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.
JeffR
[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.
That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.
Maybe, just maybe…
I do that sometimes…
Guantanamo…
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…
Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…
Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…
I would not expect to convince anyone though…
[/quote]
Hey orion,
Thanks for chiming in.
I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.
Bad Guys: “I surrender.”
Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.
JeffR
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Gee, I think the point is that if they were so influential, how did a Republican president get elected twice? What exactly are you complaining about? Either the media is VERY influential and not as liberal as you all whine about it being…or it is not very influential at all and no one is really listening to how liberal you claim they are.
[/quote]
This isn’t really true. It depends on your baseline – if the baseline is really more conservative than liberal, but the media makes the elections closer than they would be otherwise, even if they don’t change the outcome.
In this country, registered Dems run around 25% and registered Republicans run around 34% - so there is assumedly less ground that needs to be won by Republicans. However, the elections have been closer to 50% – media influence? Maybe, maybe not – but you can’t simply dismiss it based on the election results.
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
You are a perfect example of what is wrong in our country. And, I dont mean that offensively. You are obviously bright, yet you cannot see that the media programs that reach the largest audience have a liberal bias.
[/quote]
Terrribleivan,
Hello!? How can all news media that is 90% owned by only 5 media giants be liberal?
There are approximately 9 companies worldwide that control 99% of all media. They represent other non-liberal corporations in retrun for profit (advertising). Not only that, since all MSM is based on ratings they only air what sells because that is what their bottom line requires. So it is the mainstream audience that is to blame on what gets aired.
Time Warner and Disney are the two biggest media corps with a $46 billion market-share total. Do you really think these are liberal companies? The largest media holdings company though not exclusively media is GE (they own NBC and Sony with a $80 billion marketshare). Again, I ask you is this a company with liberal leanings?
If anything MSM is dumbed-down for redneck (read, unsophisticated), middle America and that is where the bigest bias is laid. It’s because the general public is too lazy or too stupid to think for themsleves so they rely on MSM to give them all information (and accept what they are told) instead of finding out for themselves (or scrutinizing what they are being told).
Now, I would like you to cite one media program or independent news organization with at least one example of liberal bias with specific information that makes it biased…you owe it to us “libs” for your comments.
LIFT
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hello!? How can all news media that is 90% owned by only 5 media giants be liberal? [/quote]
What does corporate ownership have to do with whether the media is liberal or not? Corporate ownership is irrelevant.
‘Corporations’ aren’t inherently conservative, or I should say, non-lefty.
Why wouldn’t they be? I am not claiming they are liberal or not - but why would you automatically assume the corporations would tilt right?
George Soros has more money than all of us put together - and almost single handedly annhiliated England’s bank. He is an unapologetic market raider, and yet is wildly left of center.
And the Left is supposedly the self-appointed stewards of Reason? Awful.
The mere existence of corporate structure and millions of dollars of profit is in no way, shape, or form indicative of political leanings. If you need further edification - go see how much money Hollywood bankrolls every year. The existence of our entertainment industry is an indisputable refutation of your silly claim.
So predictable. Every leftist in the house can’t wait to shout from the rooftops how ‘middle America’ is a bunch of stupid cattle and how in contrast, the self-satisfied Leftist is the proud Enlightened one.
Number one - is there any real reason folks wonder why the Left cannot win an election, when the Democratic Party claims to be the representative of the ‘common man’ while having this vicious view of the selfsame ‘common man’ they claim to champion?
If only - if only - we could put a couple of the ‘common men’ in the same room with these insufferable left-wing snobs for five minutes alone.
Number two - get out and meet ‘middle America’. And then get back to me. I have criticism of some of the more banal aspects of American society, but the assumption that middle America is patently stupid is nothing more than a transparent opportunity to make yourself feel better about yourself.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
“Couldn’t defeat W” means during the elections.
That’s my new strategy, repost and state the obvious.
Maybe, just maybe…
I do that sometimes…
Guantanamo…
Guantanamo, Guantanamo, Guantanamo…
Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention, Geneva Convention…
Geneva, Geneva, Geneva Convention…
I would not expect to convince anyone though…
Hey orion,
Thanks for chiming in.
I wanted to let you know the practical implication of the Supreme Court Ruling.
Bad Guys: “I surrender.”
Good Guys: Squeeze trigger.
JeffR
[/quote]
Well, that will help with the data-mining…
I mean they could react in a zillion different ways, like getting competent agents on the ground, but if shoot first ask questions later is all they will come up with…
… well, we are all fucked anyway.
Islam terrorism has won the war of ideas and ideals, lets dig a hole in the ground and hide…
300 billion sunk in Iraq and that is the ultimate answer: Boom, you?re dead.
My one time super-special- pro- US-conservative-offer:
Give me 100 billion and I find a better way. Not a perfect one, just something not incredibly stupid. 50 for me, 50 to implement it…
The fact that I actually could, should give you nightmares…
Alas it does not, Go Bush, Go…