[quote]JeffR wrote:
Hey, he’s not bush. That’s enough for me. He could be ANYBODY but Bush.
Signed,
dimwits.
[/quote]
There are fundamental diferrences between Kerry and Bush–those being that Kerry could possibly run a McDonalds without going bankrupt. Plus his wife could get him ketchup at a discount. Bush doesn’t even have what it takes to succeed in life without the Bush name.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, he’s not bush. That’s enough for me. He could be ANYBODY but Bush.
Signed,
dimwits.
There are fundamental diferrences between Kerry and Bush–those being that Kerry could possibly run a McDonalds without going bankrupt. Plus his wife could get him ketchup at a discount. Bush doesn’t even have what it takes to succeed in life without the Bush name.[/quote]
liftus,
That’s a nice, easy charge to make. Since we will never know how his life would have been different had his name been Smith, it’s also not very meaningful.
There is a saying that Bush uses: “I’ve inherited half my father’s friends and all of his enemies.”
That sounds about right. Couple that with the fact that George W. Bush won two terms. Add that in the second Presidental election he received more votes THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY, makes it difficult to say that his family name is what made him successful.
Not every person voted for the man due to his name. Further, he went further in politics than his father. Did nostalgia for George H.W. Bush REALLY translate into that many more votes?
kerry is a flat out joke. Now he’s Mr. anti-war, mister “bad joke”. Bush, for his scabs, is at LEAST consistent. He actually believes in something for more than one news cycle. While you will no doubt make the usual dem retort about him being “stubborn,” there are plenty of people who call that conviction.
What are kerry’s core values again?
In summary, that was a mildly amusing post. Yet, Bush is still more impressive than kerry.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
That sounds about right. Couple that with the fact that George W. Bush won two terms. Add that in the second Presidental election he received more votes THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY, makes it difficult to say that his family name is what made him successful.
[/quote]
That?s only because 51% of the population of the US are also idiots–actually, sheep is more like it.
If you scare people enough you can make them do what ever you want; that’s the first rule of fascism.
I can only say I saw him for what he is before the 2000 elections…a conservative jack ass.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.[/quote]
This is the lesser of two evils?
You’re either very stupid, or very masochistic.
Very likely both.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I know that many of you think he’s dumber than a sack of potatoes and dishonest. But I think it goes deeper than this.
He knew why he was elected. Yet he chose to do mostly the opposite of the views of those who elected him. Why? I don’t think its stupidity or anything like that. Who’s pushing the buttons on this man?
It may well be that he followed the script in his first term, but then got a mind of his own in the second term. He started doing this and the ‘powers-that-be’ didn’t like it(esp with regard to the USSC).
There’s a deeper reason here beyond duplicity or stupidity.
Thats just it. He did exactly what he said he was gonna do. You all knew he was an evangelical who cared more about loyalty than competence when you elected him. You knew he wanted tax cuts for the upper class citizens. You knew he was gonna spend like a mutha fucka when you reelected him. Just b/c the conservatives plugged up their ears and refused to believe a republican wouldn’t be fiscal, doesn’t mean they didn’t know.
And we were were going to vote for who, exactly? Big social program democrats? I don’t think so. Voting for a republican was like choosing the lesser of two evils. For me at least. I voted for big government spenders, as opposed to the even bigger government spenders.
By the way, why the hell should I care if the wealthy got a tax break (it wasn’t only the wealthy)? What is this obsession with other people’s wealth? It’s their money! They should get an even bigger tax break!
Now, if the Repubs will put up a true fiscal conservative, social program destroying, tax slashing zealot, I’ll happily vote for them again. However, there’s little chance I’d vote for the Democratic party, ever.
I’m just saying they weren’t tricked. They got exactly what they were promised.
Plus, he had to be nominated first.
Because despite all of his short commings he was still better than Kerry; still is actually.[/quote]
You must be convinced that Kerry would have gang raped your loved ones.
Or perhaps you’re convinced he already did.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
There are fundamental diferrences between Kerry and Bush–those being that Kerry could possibly run a McDonalds without going bankrupt. Plus his wife could get him ketchup at a discount. Bush doesn’t even have what it takes to succeed in life without the Bush name.
liftus,
That’s a nice, easy charge to make. Since we will never know how his life would have been different had his name been Smith, it’s also not very meaningful.
There is a saying that Bush uses: “I’ve inherited half my father’s friends and all of his enemies.”
That sounds about right. Couple that with the fact that George W. Bush won two terms. Add that in the second Presidental election he received more votes THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY, makes it difficult to say that his family name is what made him successful.
Not every person voted for the man due to his name. Further, he went further in politics than his father. Did nostalgia for George H.W. Bush REALLY translate into that many more votes?
kerry is a flat out joke. Now he’s Mr. anti-war, mister “bad joke”. Bush, for his scabs, is at LEAST consistent. He actually believes in something for more than one news cycle. While you will no doubt make the usual dem retort about him being “stubborn,” there are plenty of people who call that conviction.
What are kerry’s core values again?
In summary, that was a mildly amusing post. Yet, Bush is still more impressive than kerry.
JeffR
[/quote]
Well, it’s good to know that someone is still having fun.
So Bush is consistent eh? Was he consistent when he told people Rummy would be here to stay, than threw him out a couple of weeks later?
Was he consistent when he was pretending the situation in Iraq was ok, then perhaps not? Was he consistent when it looked as if he was taking the advise and looking for a political solution, starting talks with Syria and Iran, then back paddle when they responded positively and came with a half baked Surge strategy.
That is consistent?
But Kerry is flipflopping?
That’s not even mildly amusing. That’s bewildering.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
That sounds about right. Couple that with the fact that George W. Bush won two terms. Add that in the second Presidental election he received more votes THAN ANYONE IN HISTORY, makes it difficult to say that his family name is what made him successful.
That?s only because 51% of the population of the US are also idiots–actually, sheep is more like it.
If you scare people enough you can make them do what ever you want; that’s the first rule of fascism.
I can only say I saw him for what he is before the 2000 elections…a conservative jack ass.[/quote]
Sorry, liftus. If you summarily dismiss 62,040,606 people as “sheep”, then you obviously are not worth talking to.
JeffR
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership
[quote]JeffR wrote:
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership[/quote]
That’s a good point. Why can’t Belgium, France, Germany and all these other peace lovers go into Darfur?
Hmmm…maybe if they wait for the USA to do something, they can then criticize our actions: “They only went into Darfur because they’re after the SAND. That stuff in short supply so those greedy Americans want to control the precious SAND of Darfur!!”
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership
That’s a good point. Why can’t Belgium, France, Germany and all these other peace lovers go into Darfur?
Hmmm…maybe if they wait for the USA to do something, they can then criticize our actions: “They only went into Darfur because they’re after the SAND. That stuff in short supply so those greedy Americans want to control the precious SAND of Darfur!!”
[/quote]
Because Europe is being slowly converted to a radical islamic state. Peace is not in there best interest.
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
So Bush is consistent eh? Was he consistent when he told people Rummy would be here to stay, than threw him out a couple of weeks later?
Was he consistent when he was pretending the situation in Iraq was ok, then perhaps not? Was he consistent when it looked as if he was taking the advise and looking for a political solution, starting talks with Syria and Iran, then back paddle when they responded positively and came with a half baked Surge strategy.
That is consistent?
But Kerry is flipflopping?
That’s not even mildly amusing. That’s bewildering.[/quote]
So are your assesments. I guess they don’t teach critical thinking skills in Belgium, huh?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership
That’s a good point. Why can’t Belgium, France, Germany and all these other peace lovers go into Darfur?
Hmmm…maybe if they wait for the USA to do something, they can then criticize our actions: “They only went into Darfur because they’re after the SAND. That stuff in short supply so those greedy Americans want to control the precious SAND of Darfur!!”
[/quote]
You know by making that mocking little joke, you’ve revealed the reason we’re NOT over their?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership
That’s a good point. Why can’t Belgium, France, Germany and all these other peace lovers go into Darfur?
Hmmm…maybe if they wait for the USA to do something, they can then criticize our actions: “They only went into Darfur because they’re after the SAND. That stuff in short supply so those greedy Americans want to control the precious SAND of Darfur!!”
You know by making that mocking little joke, you’ve revealed the reason we’re NOT over their?[/quote]
Is there significant oil in Haiti, Bosnia, Vietnam?
Was the fight in Somalia over oil?
Panama? Grenada?
How far back do you feel like going?
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
JeffR wrote:
reckless,
Didn’t know they let you out!!! That’s great news for us all!!!
Hey, could you guys step in and take care of darfur please.
They need help.
The U.S. is pretty busy in Iraq.
Please show some leadership
That’s a good point. Why can’t Belgium, France, Germany and all these other peace lovers go into Darfur?
Hmmm…maybe if they wait for the USA to do something, they can then criticize our actions: “They only went into Darfur because they’re after the SAND. That stuff in short supply so those greedy Americans want to control the precious SAND of Darfur!!”
You know by making that mocking little joke, you’ve revealed the reason we’re NOT over their?
Is there significant oil in Haiti, Bosnia, Vietnam?
Was the fight in Somalia over oil?
Panama? Grenada?
How far back do you feel like going?
JeffR
[/quote]
I’m just saying that the US, any nation for that matter, rarely, if ever, starts a war for moral reasons.
We didn’t go to Iraq to take-down Saddam, we went because it was profitable in both money and politics for the people in a position to make war to do so. More so, politics. DO I think Bush satrted the war to get reelected? No. Do I think the idea crossed his mind when he was debating what to do about 9/11? Yes. Do i think we went to Iraq for oil? No. Do I think the boost in profit given to Halliburton and other such companies was purely coincidental? Hell no!
We don’t go to war for moral reasons. We go to either protect our selves when their is a threat, or we SAY we’re protecting ourselves whens it’s profitable economically or politically.
FYI: I’m using the term “Moral” to represent issues of morality, and am not saying that the reasons we go to war are unmoral, but that we don’t go to war over an issue based in morals or ethics.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Sorry, liftus. If you summarily dismiss 62,040,606 people as “sheep”, then you obviously are not worth talking to.
[/quote]
I look around me and that’s all I see so I think its more than that…more like…290,000,000ish.
But that’s ok…sheep live happier lives when they have some one to herd them.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I look around me and that’s all I see so I think its more than that…more like…290,000,000ish.
But that’s ok…sheep live happier lives when they have some one to herd them.[/quote]
That is a very informed and impressive attitude you exhibit toward people and politics.
Well, that is, if you were in high school.
Hate is a strong word.
Do I believe he thinks he is doing what he believes to be best for the U.S?
Yes.
Do I agree with his chosen course?
No.
And I believe he has been manipulated by those he trusts the most to go in directions that he may not have chosen himself.
The man has the one of the toughest jobs in the world,bar none.
And I believe he was not really well qualified for it,in more ways than one.But I don’t doubt his personal sincerity.His associates,on the other hand,I don’t trust for a second.
So I don’t approve of the job he has done,but ‘hate’?
Emotionally charged rhetoric that I personally despise.It doesn’t help constructive debate in any shape or form whatsoever…
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
We don’t go to war for moral reasons. We go to either protect our selves when their is a threat, or we SAY we’re protecting ourselves whens it’s profitable economically or politically.
[/quote]
Tell this to the THOUSANDS of families who lost loved ones to liberate Europe from the Nazis. We didn’t HAVE to do that; they were evil and we dealt with them as they deserved.
Of course, eventually the Soviets would have defeated the Nazis, and then all of Europe could have been their playground. How moral that would be!!!
BTW: ‘Their’ and ‘There’ have different meanings. Please learn which goes where…or there, as the case may be…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
We don’t go to war for moral reasons. We go to either protect our selves when their is a threat, or we SAY we’re protecting ourselves whens it’s profitable economically or politically.
Tell this to the THOUSANDS of families who lost loved ones to liberate Europe from the Nazis. We didn’t HAVE to do that; they were evil and we dealt with them as they deserved.
Of course, eventually the Soviets would have defeated the Nazis, and then all of Europe could have been their playground. How moral that would be!!!
BTW: ‘Their’ and ‘There’ have different meanings. Please learn which goes where…or there, as the case may be…
[/quote]
So you’ve completely forgotten Pearl Harbor? We didn’t get into WWII for moral reasons alone. It might have played some role, but we were inevitably going to be a part of it. We were protecting ourselves, not marching into France to free it from Nazism.
We DID free Europe. And it WAS deserving. And we DID put the Nazi’s into their place. But not because they were evil. Remember Stalin? We were allies with him. And he was pretty damn evil.
And BTW: New York has a retarded policy known as the “holistic” approach to teaching English. Instead of being taught grammar and how to write well, we read a whole bunch of books are they assume we’ll magically become better at grammar and writing. I know the differences between there and their, but as it’s not been ingrained into me, I screw it up sometimes. I apologize and will try to make more grammatically correct posts in the future.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That is a very informed and impressive attitude you exhibit toward people and politics.
Well, that is, if you were in high school.
[/quote]
You think fear didn’t have anything to do with the 2004 elections?
Democrats also voted out of fear… just different fears than the other 51% of the country.