where did all the Bush lovers go?

[The Power Hour]

Man this place was infested with 90% Bush homers, and now your all hiding in the closet of shame? :wakeup

[xrayzebra]

Who is hiding. I am not his "lover". But I do respect what he is trying to do.
Protect you and I. Guess you haven't been reading any post on here lately.

[Mombear]

If I voted for Bush ,I would hide also :lmao

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Not a Bush lover, but I support him. I've just come to the realization that there's a contingent on this board who spew nothing more than filth, venom, and insults, be it towards Bush, Republicans, or anyone who says anything positive about either, and they're so far out of touch with reality that there's no point having discussions with them.

So why waste my time?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

Not a Bush lover, but I support him. I've just come to the realization that there's a contingent on this board who spew nothing more than filth, venom, and insults, be it towards Bush, Republicans, or anyone who says anything positive about either, and they're so far out of touch with reality that there's no point having discussions with them.

So why waste my time?
you do know that applies to both sides don't you? I generally don't get into the rep vs dem arguments in here because they always end in insults... from BOTH sides.

[Al Sharpton]

Many Bush lovers are really Bush haters these days. They just don't have the sac to admit it,

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

you do know that applies to both sides don't you? I generally don't get into the rep vs dem arguments in here because they always end in insults... from BOTH sides.

I'll admit Bush isn't perfect. That's a far cry from claiming he was in on some sort of 9/11 conspiracy and other assorted bullshit like that you see from croutons and Dan.

I'd even be willing to give the left a chance, but not when their entire campaign platform consists of "Bush sucks, vote for us."

[gtownspur]

If I voted for Bush ,I would hide also :lmao


WHere to?

Spursreport?

If I had a sig like Mombear, and a 5000 dollar McDonalds tab, I'd hide too.

[Jackie]

So much for stay the course :lmao

[gtownspur]

So much for stay the course :lmao


So much for your significance in any matter.

[whottt]

If I voted for Bush ,I would hide also :lmao



If I was a member of the party that was too stupid to get Bush out of office...I'd just shut up.

Bush - loses popular vote in 2000 after 8 years of Democrats holding the white house.

What happens?

A terrorist attack on our soil.
Two wars.
An economic recssion.
Shrinking job market.


What do the Democrats do to capitalize on a guranteed win in the next election?

Bitch, politicze, manage to find an even bigger silver spoon uncharismatic douche bag, who's a traitor to boot, appoint Michael FAT FUCK Moore the head of the Democratic Party and give him the seat of honor at your convention...

What happens in the 04 election?

Bush actually gets more votes than any Presisdent in history and is the first president in 15 years to win a majority.


And you guys are on pace to outdo yourselves in 08...since not only are ya'll still doing stupid shit...you're stuck in the past and more worried about placing blame that will never be able to stick soley on Bush, and you attack the people that, correctly, realize ya'll are idiots, rather than coming up with a plan.



Yeap...Democrats: fucking brilliance at work.

And ya'll call Bush stupid...hilarious.

[gtownspur]

But...

BUt....

WMD's.....

Mark Foley....

[PixelPusher]

^I know blaming Democrats has developed into a high art form, considering their not in power and have little or no effect on policy or legistlation, but blaming them for voter stupidity in '04 takes the cake.

[gtownspur]

^I know blaming Democrats has developed into a high art form, considering their not in power and have little or no effect on policy or legistlation, but blaming them for voter stupidity in '04 takes the cake.


You're right.

Because the voters were too stupid to vote for a party with no plan and a douchebag fake.

[gtownspur]

I guess the democrats are too smart for the average voter.

U heard it here first.

Pixel said it.

[whottt]

Blaming the American people for your own inability to come up with anything reselembling a coherent platform or a viable candidate...is what takes the cake, it's also what gives away the whitehouse.


Were the voters stupid when they elected Clinton?

You guys have a shitty party and no fucking plan other than attacking Bush, and those prominent members of your party are even more unlikeable than Bush...that's why you don't have control of the country, and that's why you won't get it back until you illustrate the ability to do something else.

I'll take greedy corporate oil mongers over idiots, quitters, and traitors every single time.

Sincerely,

A guy who voted Democrat in 92, 96, and 2000.

[PixelPusher]

You're right.

Because the voters were too stupid to vote for a party with no plan and a douchebag fake.
Yes, shame on Democrats for not convincing the evangelical crowd that Bush wasn't annointed by Dobson...er, God to lead this Nation into a new Golden era of theocracy. Shame on Democrats for not convincing Farmer Bob to take time off from listening to Rush on the AM and consider that Saddam Hussein didn't order the 9/11 attack.

[gtownspur]

Yes, shame on Democrats for not convincing the evangelical crowd that Bush wasn't annointed by Dobson...er, God to lead this Nation into a new Golden era of theocracy. Shame on Democrats for not convincing Farmer Bob to take time off from listening to Rush on the AM and consider that Saddam Hussein didn't order the 9/11 attack.

If that's the case, then you should just not run against republicans since your party seems severly butt hurt over these elections.

[PixelPusher]

I'm not a Democrat.

[whottt]

Democrats don't believe America has any problems or enemies other than Bush..he's the only guy they seem to be capable of attacking and America is the only bad guy they seem to be able to find...


Argue all you want, but that is the perception of Joe Public and it doesn't matter what Bush or the Republicans do until that changes.

Why is Bush in the whitehouse? He blames the terrorists...

Why aren't the Democrats? They blame Bush.

Democratic philosophy:

Attack the President.
Attack the country.
Attack the American public.

Attack any and every thing except the actual fucking terrorists and shitty allies.


That's what the Democratic Party stands for today...and it will never regain control of the whitehouse as long as that is the party line.

Give me the warhaks and oil barons...at least we know they want to live here.

[jochhejaam]

Yes, shame on Democrats for not convincing the evangelical crowd that Bush wasn't annointed by Dobson...er, God to lead this Nation into a new Golden era of theocracy. Shame on Democrats for not convincing Farmer Bob to take time off from listening to Rush on the AM and consider that Saddam Hussein didn't order the 9/11 attack.
Nope. Shame on them for thinking that Blame Game St. and No Plan Pl. were the roads that led to the White House.
Pathetically unopportunistic.

[PixelPusher]

I guess the democrats are too smart for the average voter.

U heard it here first.

Pixel said it.

Take "democrat" out of it. The average American voter is too stupid. period.

[gtownspur]

Take "democrat" out of it. The average American voter is too stupid. period.


If I do then that would mean that the average stupid voter is smarter than the average democrat.

[boutons_]

Whott the fuck?

What did the Repugs do from 1994 to 2000? They witch-hunted and hammered the Clintons with pure bullshit charges that were ALL dismissed, the impeachment went limp and couldn't butt-rape Clinton. The witch-hunts had to be serious distractions for Clinton doing his job.

In dubya's case, he has had the SC and both Houses of Congress on his side. The Dems, and the press, have not seriously impeded dubya and dickhead as they proceeded to fuck up the war on terror and fuck up the federal govt.

The Repugs allowed the WTC attack to occur by doing not one fucking thing about al-Qaida and the intense warnings about attacks on US soil. Then they fucked up by starting the wrong war against the wrong country, the war the Repugs are losing and don't know how to proceed in.

And you expect people to shut the fuck up about these motherfucking Repugs? It's a free country, asshole, we can say whottever the fuck we want to against the crimes of the Repugs. Faux-macho badass wimps like you will never shut us up.

[whottt]

*takes boutons off of ignore for a second* it's been so long since I did that I forgot how to do it.


Anyway...

Yes, the Republicans did the exact same thing in the 90's...they also didn't get the Presidency and likely wouldn't have in 2000 either if Gore hadn't taken it for granted he was going to win...if the tool had actually won his own fucking home state we wouldn't be having this convo now.

Nice moral equivalancy that proves you are too stupid to learn from the past...

Nothing the Republicans did hurt Clinton, and their efforts only made them look like whining assholes. And you are right, they did the exact same thing, just as futiley and unpopularly as the Democrats are doing now, and it was the exact same result. Except the Democrats are doing it in the middle of a war after we were attacked, which makes them not only come off as whining assholes, but Anti-american as well.

Yeap...I view you exactly as the mid 90's Republicans were viewed, only slightly worse because of the Anti-Americanism...and that's exactly the way the American public views you...

It's like you're Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh, if you took away their redeeming qualities..er..quality...and you are viewed as the mainstream crat, the freaking moderate lmao.


BTW darling, never call someone a wimp when your name is boutons and you are using words like faux....JMO, tinkerbell.

Back on ignore you go.

*flush*

Do try and be a good little turd and not float back up, won't you?

[JoePublic]

Democrats don't believe America has any problems or enemies other than Bush..he's the only guy they seem to be capable of attacking and America is the only bad guy they seem to be able to find...


Argue all you want, but that is the perception of Joe Public and it doesn't matter what Bush or the Republicans do until that changes.

Why is Bush in the whitehouse? He blames the terrorists...

Why aren't the Democrats? They blame Bush.

Democratic philosophy:

Attack the President.
Attack the country.
Attack the American public.

Attack any and every thing except the actual fucking terrorists and shitty allies.


That's what the Democratic Party stands for today...and it will never regain control of the whitehouse as long as that is the party line.

Give me the warhaks and oil barons...at least we know they want to live here.

My perception is that this administration and republican congress has:
raised the deficit to record levels.
taken us into a war that is FUBAR.
protected a pedophile for their own political gain.
endorses torture yet condemns it worldwide.
is the most secretive administration in decades.

and the above post proves how hypocritcal the republican is.
They attacked Clinton
They attack anyone who doesn't believe as they do
If you are against them you are terrorist supporter
They spout Christianity yet attack innocent victims of disease

[Spam]

Bush sucks ass!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v220/kmmrky/dontblame.gif

[whottt]

Why do the Bush lovers lose it so fast? They must feel guilty for Voting for that asshole :lmao


oh wow
the guy whos big achievement in life is not living in a dumpster yet
is talking shit to me?
what ever shall i do
i better hide before he smacks me with some naked photos of his sister
his other big achievement

[101A]

I voted for Bush twice.

I believe the administration got us into a war in Iraq without anticipating what MANY were trying to tell them would happenv - and many soldiers have lost their lives for a war that didn't need to be fought.

I believe that they have not controlled spending, and that as a conservative have been largely betrayed.

I beleive that Rumsfeld, and others in high levels of power at the WH should have resigned in '04; and Bush would have been justified in picking a new running mate.

I believe that our president is oratorially challenged to the degree that it is, in fact, a national embarassment.

The REALLY sad part of all of that? I would STILL vote for him over either Gore or Kerry.

[NASCARdad]

Bush is a great example of why term limits should be abolished for the office of the President.

[boutons_]

So now the infamous faggot Whott defends/absolves dubya by blaming the Dems for not defeating dubya in 2000. perfect! I do, too.

The Repugs and Dems are responsbile for "broken goverment" but only the Repugs have been initiating and maintaining the worst of the polarizing, inflammatory, divisive, smash-mouth, no-compromise tactics

Why does whott insist talking about Dems? They have been out of the picture for 6+ years.

"too stupid to learn from the past."

The Repugs went after the Clintons out of pure gotcha, witch-hunting partisan viciousness, with no real substance as the dismissed suits and failed impeachment demonstrated.

The Dems, and a minimum of 50% of the USA, are attacking the Repugs for permitting the WTC, for lying the USA way into a phony, unnecessary war, a war financed by foreign debt, for fucking up FEMA to give us Katrina, for spending the country in huge deficits, are ALL LEGITIMATE ATTACKS and in no way "morally equivalent" to what the Repugs did to the Clintons in the 90s.

[clambake]

It doesn't bother whottttt that bush has killed our reputation.
It doesn't bother him that they accepted for shit inteligence, because they had already made up their minds about invasion.
It doesn't bother him that they flat out lied about Niger and terrorist meetings with Saddam.
It doesn't bother him that our kids are coming home in boxes, 100's of 1000's of innocent Iraqis, and stealing our money to do it.
Now he calls them "shit allies".

Who the fuck would trust us now?

[DarkReign]

Bush is a great example of why term limits should be abolished for the office of the President.

This guy is comedy gold. For a loooooong time I thought you were real.

[nkdlunch]

so there are 3 Bush lovers left in here?? thats sad :lol

I am guessing by now the majority of Bush haters are non-democrats like myself, so there is no more "only democrats hate bush". Let's face it, Bush has royally fucked all of us over, democrats and non-democrats.

[01Snake]

so there are 3 Bush lovers left in here?? thats sad :lol

I am guessing by now the majority of Bush haters are non-democrats like myself, so there is no more "only democrats hate bush". Let's face it, Bush has royally fucked all of us over, democrats and non-democrats.

So how did he fuck you over? Or are you just mad about the wall they want to build? :lol

[Ocotillo]

In many ways, but how about created more anti-American terrorists then existed pre-9/11.

[01Snake]

In many ways, but how about created more anti-American terrorists then existed pre-9/11.

So thats personally fucked YOU over??

[Crookshanks]

In many ways, but how about created more anti-American terrorists then existed pre-9/11.

And how do you know that? Did you take a poll in all the terrorist training camps?

[johnsmith]

And how do you know that? Did you take a poll in all the terrorist training camps?

Agreed, I don't know how everyone "knows" that there are now more terrorists then before. I've never understood this argument.

[clambake]

You see snake, the world doesn't like superpowers to start wars based on whimsical or capricious reasons. It makes them nervous. It makes them think that it could happen to them, any of them, pick a country, any country. It brings them closer to each other, and farther away from us.

I know this doesn't interest you or affect you PERSONALLY because you don't give a shit about people from other countries or the half of America that disagrees with you.

We are due for another Archie Bunker.

[clambake]

They admit that much inside this administration, the state department, the pentagon.

This is where they use the "number killed" as a measuring stick.

[Ocotillo]

And how do you know that? Did you take a poll in all the terrorist training camps?

I have read intelligence reports from our own government and have a basic understanding of human nature to understand this has happened.

[Ocotillo]

So thats personally fucked YOU over??

Yeah, it has. I live in this country so it affects everyone of us.

[johnsmith]

I have read intelligence reports from our own government and have a basic understanding of human nature to understand this has happened.


Which intelligence reports........and sorry, you don't understand the nature of terrorists. Would you fly a plane full of people into a building? Would you strap a bomb to yourself and head out to the mall? Would you kidnap another human being and then chop their head off? Probably not, therefore you don't understand.

[Ocotillo]

Which intelligence reports........and sorry, you don't understand the nature of terrorists. Would you fly a plane full of people into a building? Would you strap a bomb to yourself and head out to the mall? Would you kidnap another human being and then chop their head off? Probably not, therefore you don't understand.

I said I understand human nature. There is more intense hatred for America these days as a result of our occupation of Iraq. The NIE states the number of terrorists is growing because of Iraq. Take your stupid friggin' blinders off for once and understand the Iraq debacle is that, a debacle and a failure of the administration.

[JoeChalupa]

What is more important is where the Bush lovers will be on election day and I have a feeling that the republican machine will get their base out and that is where the democrats may fail. If too many believe the damn liberal media and stay home?
Be afraid....be very afraid.

[johnsmith]

I said I understand human nature. There is more intense hatred for America these days as a result of our occupation of Iraq. The NIE states the number of terrorists is growing because of Iraq. Take your stupid friggin' blinders off for once and understand the Iraq debacle is that, a debacle and a failure of the administration.


Hey, I don't think the war in Iraq is a good thing. I thought it was when my government told me that there were WMD's over there, when I found out they were wrong, I didn't and don't think it's a good thing. I've just never understood the argument regarding "more terrorist now then ever" because I've never seen a report, statistics or anything that would make me think that. They hated us before, they hate us now.

I'm not attacking you in regards to this, I'm attacking the concept, so go easy.

[xrayzebra]

^^Don't confuse him with facts johnsmith. There were no terrorist in the world
until Bush became President. When Clinton was in office, no one attacked us, we
lived in paradise and it was only a blow job.

Bush causes global warming, Hurricanes, Bird Flu, More than likely somehow caused
AIDS, Messes around with the Secretary of State, Never works, Can barely Speak,
Has a diminished mental capacity, lowered taxes only for the rich. On and On and
on.

But those that accuse Bush of all these things are far superior to you and I. What
do we know? Obviously nothing.

[boutons_]

"Be afraid....be very afraid."

I'm actually not too afraid, since the Dems controlling only the House, the most probable change, won't be able to stop or undo the damage the Repugs have done in the past 6 years. The Exec will continue enriching and protecting and favoring the corps (gutting Sarbanes-Oxley, etc) and the super-rich, continue to un-govern and mis-govern the country.

The Repugs' legislative record these six years has been truly do-nothing, and I figure that will continue even worse with the Dems controlling the House and dubya successfully vetoing anything the Dems actually get through both the House and Senate (ie, nothing).

Vicious, smash-mouth, no-compromise partisanship will continue in Congress, with no progress being made.

The war in Iraq will continue to bleed and kill the US military badly, and bleed the US govt deeper into debt (a key ideological objective of the Repugs), as Iraq is lost and now longer winnable for any serious observer.

The Exec will keep the US military in Iraq, and rummy at DoD, at least until Jan 2009, and hand the whole fucking pile of shit of a poison pill to the next Exec who will be pilloried by the Repugs for "losing Iraq".

[ChumpDumper]

I've just never understood the argument regarding "more terrorist now then ever" because I've never seen a report, statistics or anything that would make me think that.You didn't hear about the National Intelligence Estimate that said this?

[johnsmith]

You didn't hear about the National Intelligence Estimate that said this?


No, I honestly didn't hear about that. Link please.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

[clambake]

Another little thing you won't here from your government.

Do you think that there has been only 103 attacks this month?

More like 2103 attacks. This number is a closely guarded secret, and Al-Sadr is winning at the table.

[101A]

Another little thing you won't here from your government.

Do you think that there has been only 103 attacks this month?

More like 2103 attacks. This number is a closely guarded secret, and Al-Sadr is winning at the table.


I may be naive, and somewhat simple minded, but in my mind, militarily

2103 attacks for 103 killed != "winning"

Also, 2103 attacks in a month - right before an election in the U.S.

Guess we know who the insurgents want to win, huh?

[clambake]

Do you think they only attack US troops?

Most attacks are aimed at infrastucture and people that cooperate with the US.

Winning belongs to Al-Sadr. He owns Maliki.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, the attacks sure got Bush to flip-flop on "stay the course" and timelines didn't they?

[101A]

Well, the attacks sure got Bush to flip-flop on "stay the course" and timelines didn't they?


I believe polls did that.

[ChumpDumper]

I believe polls did that.And they were influenced by...?

[AFBlue]

I voted for Bush twice.

I believe the administration got us into a war in Iraq without anticipating what MANY were trying to tell them would happenv - and many soldiers have lost their lives for a war that didn't need to be fought.

I believe that they have not controlled spending, and that as a conservative have been largely betrayed.

I beleive that Rumsfeld, and others in high levels of power at the WH should have resigned in '04; and Bush would have been justified in picking a new running mate.

I believe that our president is oratorially challenged to the degree that it is, in fact, a national embarassment.

The REALLY sad part of all of that? I would STILL vote for him over either Gore or Kerry.

Well said.

[clambake]

Knowing what you know and you would still vote for him?

Chumps right, we are doomed.

[johnsmith]

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf

"The Iraq conflict has become the "cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry
on the fight."

Alright, to me this supports the notion that terrorists are using Iraq as a recruiting tool but in the end, if we do our jobs correctly and eliminate the threat in Iraq, then it will hamstring the rest of the terrorists efforts.

But thanks for the link, that was interesting stuff and why I've never seen it, I have no idea.

[101A]

And they were influenced by...?


Exactly my point, frankly.

(I'm not calling dissenters unpatriotic - I am just talking about the dynamics of an ununited US @ war post-Vietnam)

The insurgents are killing people because of the effect that it has on the media in this country - and the way it emboldens the anti-war croud to make more noise. If this country spoke with a single, unified voice, IMO, the insurgency would end - there would be no point; they CAN"T defeat the US militarily. What it boils down to is a very bloody public relations battle.

[clambake]

Pretty close. Not so much a tool, more like a machine. These "terrorist" as you call them are not flowing over the borders, their being bred from within.

[101A]

Knowing what you know and you would still vote for him?

Chumps right, we are doomed.

Over Kerry and Gore?

Yes.

:depressed

[clambake]

I think statements like " the next attack will be in the form of a mushroom cloud" turns the weak into obedient little republicans.

[ChumpDumper]

That's the price of being in a democracy. I don't even think the polls say most folks want to cut and run, they've simply lost faith in the plan that they were never privy too, which is a paradox in itself. They simply want results and a way to judge the efficacy of our policy for themselves. After three years, they dont want to take anyone's word for it anymore.

[AFBlue]

Knowing what you know and you would still vote for him?

Chumps right, we are doomed.

Yes, in 2004. My personal opinion on the decision to enter Iraq not withstanding, we were emersed in a long-term conflict that any military member could tell you was not going to meet a swift resolution...especially with the goal of establishing "stability". So the question became, do I want President Bush to continue leading the country through this situation he initiated, or do I want Kerry to come in and bring something new. Well the something new sounded good, until....

Kerry abandoned his more extreme position to become more attractive to the "centralist" public and in doing so, did little to establish himself as the different, better alternative. I wanted the guy to stand up for his beliefs and the more I watched him the more dissapointed I became. When it came down to it, I wasn't convinced that he had a legitimate plan for "way ahead" in Iraq and if he wasn't going to be much different then the current president, I'd rather not switch administration, which has an unbelieveable ripple effect down to field-level military decisions, in the middle of this conflict.

Having said that, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2000, knowing what I know now, because the decision to enter Iraq, and the policy of pre-emptive strike, were definitively the work of this administration.

The point is that, while I don't wholeheartedly agree with Whott, I believe the Democratic party failed to inspire and instill confidence in its candidate's leadership ability during what was sure to be a difficult time ahead.

2008 should be interesting...trust me, I'm looking forward to it.

[101A]

That's the price of being in a democracy. I don't even think the polls say most folks want to cut and run, they've simply lost faith in the plan that they were never privy too, which is a paradox in itself. They simply want results and a way to judge the efficacy of our policy for themselves. After three years, they dont want to take anyone's word for it anymore.


Four Years.

I agree completely - but that doesn't change the dynamic of what the insurgents are trying to accomplish.

Al Sadr is in REAL good position to take over after we leave - which he is obviously gunning for.

[clambake]

Bush called Al-Sadr a terrorist and a wanted man. Now, Al-Sadr is calling the shots. Is that called "standing firm to your beliefs". Is that called inspiration and instilling confidence? Bush is backpedaling, but still cheerleading.

[101A]

I think statements like " the next attack will be in the form of a mushroom cloud" turns the weak into obedient little republicans.

I think you should try to understand that intelligent people can disagree; can, and have legitimate differences on how they feel obstacle ought to be addressed and tackled.

[101A]

Bush called Al-Sadr a terrorist and a wanted man. Now, Al-Sadr is calling the shots. Is that called "standing firm to your beliefs". Is that called inspiration and instilling confidence? Bush is backpedaling, but still cheerleading.


Who are you debating? I don't see a single Bush apologist in this thread.

[clambake]

That mushroom cloud statement was used for the sole purpose of re-election.

It worked.

[101A]

That mushroom cloud statement was used for the sole purpose of re-election.

It worked.

The reelection, as P Tony pointed out, I believe, was much more a rejection of Kerry than an endorsement of anything Bush did.

I didn't even remember the "Mushroom Cloud" line until you brought it up. Kerry's indecisiveness and "finger in the wind" politics are what I remember about that election.

[AFBlue]

Exactly my point, frankly.

(I'm not calling dissenters unpatriotic - I am just talking about the dynamics of an ununited US @ war post-Vietnam)

The insurgents are killing people because of the effect that it has on the media in this country - and the way it emboldens the anti-war croud to make more noise. If this country spoke with a single, unified voice, IMO, the insurgency would end - there would be no point; they CAN"T defeat the US militarily. What it boils down to is a very bloody public relations battle.

A Jihadist's goal is not to create doubt about current foreign policy decisions in an effort to force change of those policies in the current administration and/or create enough doubt to force the public to change administrations in another country.

They want to kill "westerners" because of everything they represent, it's that simple.

I guarantee you that if we stood with one voice, they would fight us. As long as we're "imposing" on their way of life they'll fight...no matter how united we are.

[101A]

Yes, in 2004. My personal opinion on the decision to enter Iraq not withstanding, we were emersed in a long-term conflict that any military member could tell you was not going to meet a swift resolution...especially with the goal of establishing "stability". So the question became, do I want President Bush to continue leading the country through this situation he initiated, or do I want Kerry to come in and bring something new. Well the something new sounded good, until....

Kerry abandoned his more extreme position to become more attractive to the "centralist" public and in doing so, did little to establish himself as the different, better alternative. I wanted the guy to stand up for his beliefs and the more I watched him the more dissapointed I became. When it came down to it, I wasn't convinced that he had a legitimate plan for "way ahead" in Iraq and if he wasn't going to be much different then the current president, I'd rather not switch administration, which has an unbelieveable ripple effect down to field-level military decisions, in the middle of this conflict.

Having said that, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2000, knowing what I know now, because the decision to enter Iraq, and the policy of pre-emptive strike, were definitively the work of this administration.

The point is that, while I don't wholeheartedly agree with Whott, I believe the Democratic party failed to inspire and instill confidence in its candidate's leadership ability during what was sure to be a difficult time ahead.

2008 should be interesting...trust me, I'm looking forward to it.


Good post...

I would agree with your statement about 2000, except I'm not convinced that Al Gore would have even gone after Afghanistan with a real deployment. I'd like to think he would have, and gotten OBL - and ended with that, but I am not convinced.

I'd go back and send more money and support to McCain in the '99 primary if I had it to do over again.

[clambake]

Instilling fear and attacking is what won the election.

[101A]

A Jihadist's goal is not to create doubt about current foreign policy decisions in an effort to force change of those policies in the current administration and/or create enough doubt to force the public to change administrations in another country.

They want to kill "westerners" because of everything they represent, it's that simple.

I guarantee you that if we stood with one voice, they would fight us. As long as we're "imposing" on their way of life they'll fight...no matter how united we are.

Do you see the escalation this month as a coincidence then? How does your premise jibe with all of the targeting of innocent civilians in Iraq? The Jihadists are being controlled by politicos.

[clambake]

Afghanistan was an American, united effort.

How could we have let that re-emerge.

[AFBlue]

Good post...

I would agree with your statement about 2000, except I'm not convinced that Al Gore would have even gone after Afghanistan with a real deployment. I'd like to think he would have, and gotten OBL - and ended with that, but I am not convinced.

I'd go back and send more money and support to McCain in the '99 primary if I had it to do over again.


Good point about Bush's resolve amidst the 9/11 crisis. I just think that after he handled that so decisively and the US was clearly behind him, he decided that was carte blanche to carry out other items on his agenda that he deemed critical....and he was right.

[101A]

Instilling fear and attacking is what won the election.

"I voted for it, before I voted against it", as much as a cliche as it is is the "Dukakis in a tank" moment of that election.

Democrats are convinced it was fear in '04 and Willie Horton in '88, but it wasn't.

[AFBlue]

Do you see the escalation this month as a coincidence then? How does your premise jibe with all of the targeting of innocent civilians in Iraq? The Jihadists are being controlled by politicos.

Point conceded.

[101A]

Afghanistan was an American, united effort.

How could we have let that re-emerge.


Are you asking how can Afghanstan now be a problem internationally & militarily, or are you asking how it became an issue in this thread?

Internationally & Militarily? The quagmire in Iraq.

In this thread? I did it.

[boutons_]

I think Gore would have gone after the Taliban and Al-quaida just like duyba.

He wouldn't have gone into Iraq, putting the US and the world and Israel in much more secure position now that with dubya losing Iraq.

And Gore probably would not have fucked up FEMA so badly that contributed so much to killing New Orleans.

He and Dems would have actually respected the govt enough to actually make an effort to run it seriously, something the Repugs refused to do.

The Dems are responsible for letting dubya get elected and wreak his havoc and murder on the world. dubya is still fully responsible for his shit, but the Dems were enablers.

[clambake]

Where is the end to this? It didn't matter to me what either one of them said. After it became clear that bush lied us to war, it was game over for me.

I voted for it before I voted against it, stay the course. Which of these would you serve the American public?

[101A]

Point conceded.

You are new to the forum. The civility hasn't been driven out of you yet.

From the SpursTalk political forum bylaws:

Never concede a point. When faced with an argument you cannot quickly refute you have two courses of Action:

1. XRZ Method: Quickly peruse the internet for another political blog with intelligent posters arguing you side of the issue. Cut and paste their posts as you own.

2. BTNS Method: Call the other poster names, and post ridiculously long articles from obscure sites which you purport to completely legitimize your position, when in fact the article is unrelated and written by extreme partisans.

[101A]

Where is the end to this? It didn't matter to me what either one of them said. After it became clear that bush lied us to war, it was game over for me.

I voted for it before I voted against it, stay the course. Which of these would you serve the American public?

Kerry was not clear on what he was going to do about the war. I have seen nothing to suggest it would be any different now, had he been elected.

Nixon PROMISED to get Vietnam over with after it drove LBJ from office; didn't work for him

[AFBlue]

I think Gore would have gone after the Taliban and Al-quaida just like duyba.

He wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan.

And he probably would not have fucked up FEMA so badly that contributed so much to killing New Orleans.

He and Dems would have actually respected the govt enough to actually make an effort to run it seriously, something the Repugs refused to do.

The Dems are responsible for letting dubya get elected and wreak his havoc and murder on the world. dubya is still responsible for his shit, but the Dems were enablers.

I guarantee the Katrina disaster happens under whatever administration was in place at that time. The US Government is a huge institution filled with insurmountable barriers to change...aka "red tape". The government is so often "responsive" and not preventative because it doesn't have eyes and ears big enough to forsee catastrophes until they occur. FEMA is better now, the FAA is better now, but I doubt anything would have been done before Katrina and before 9/11.

It's not a problem of President or Party, it's a problem of organizational structure and established policies.

[Ocotillo]

Good post...

I would agree with your statement about 2000, except I'm not convinced that Al Gore would have even gone after Afghanistan with a real deployment. I'd like to think he would have, and gotten OBL - and ended with that, but I am not convinced.



I think he would. Recall, Gore has been on the right side of these middle eastern issues. He supported Gulf War I. He opposed the Iraq War when it was being undertaken and that was tantamount to political suicide.

Kerry was on the wrong side of both issues. He opposed GWI and voted for the Iraq War.

Gore would have been a great president and the Republicans recognized that and that is why the smear campaign of him in 2000 took place. So many of the things attributed to him (inventing the internet, Love Story, etc...) were set in motion by his political opponents to make him look foolish and/or dishonest. What puzzled me is the press not only did they not correct those "myths" they went on to have fun repeating them themselves.

I truly believe if Gore had won, he would have gone on to have an even more successful presidency then Clinton and he did not share Clinton's weakness of infidelity to dog him either.

[AFBlue]

You are new to the forum. The civility hasn't been driven out of you yet.

From the SpursTalk political forum bylaws:

Never concede a point. When faced with an argument you cannot quickly refute you have two courses of Action:

1. XRZ Method: Quickly peruse the internet for another political blog with intelligent posters arguing you side of the issue. Cut and paste their posts as you own.

2. BTNS Method: Call the other poster names, and post ridiculously long articles from obscure sites which you purport to completely legitimize your position, when in fact the article is unrelated and written by extreme partisans.

Point taken you dipshit! :lol

working on the article....

[101A]

It's not a problem of President or Party, it's a problem of organizational structure and established policies.

Gospel.

[101A]

I think he would. Recall, Gore has been on the right side of these middle eastern issues. He supported Gulf War I. He opposed the Iraq War when it was being undertaken and that was tantamount to political suicide.

Kerry was on the wrong side of both issues. He opposed GWI and voted for the Iraq War.

Gore would have been a great president and the Republicans recognized that and that is why the smear campaign of him in 2000 took place. So many of the things attributed to him (inventing the internet, Love Story, etc...) were set in motion by his political opponents to make him look foolish and/or dishonest. What puzzled me is the press not only did they not correct those "myths" they went on to have fun repeating them themselves.

I truly believe if Gore had won, he would have gone on to have an even more successful presidency then Clinton and he did not share Clinton's weakness of infidelity to dog him either.


You DIMM-O-CRAP elitist revisionist a-hole, I've never read anything so stupid, ingnorant and short-sighted in my entire life!!



See, Phat Tony, that's how you respond when someone makes a pretty good point.

[clambake]

I still like Xray and whottttt and nascardad.

It's like early evolution revisited.

[AFBlue]

You DIMM-O-CRAP elitist revisionist a-hole, I've never read anything so stupid, ingnorant and short-sighted in my entire life!!



See, Phat Tony, that's how you respond when someone makes a pretty good point.


Much better than my "dipshit" comment. I'll have to learn how to be superiorly condesceding and cleverly insulting to keep pace in this forum... thanks for the advice you pompous, thick-headed imbecil. I've heard more compelling arguments from a 5yr old on the benefits of mass consumption of halloween candy.

[AFBlue]

Though the subject of this thread is undoubtedly aimed at the posters in this forum, I would like to comment on the general shift away from the president's position by prominent Republicans. It makes me wonder who will be the leading candidate in '08 and how their position will differ on the issue of Iraq and the general policy of pre-emptive strike. It also makes me wonder how much weight Bush has in determining congressional race outcomes. He's stumping in my neck of the woods (literally) for the second time in as many weeks because the democrat currently has the edge in a close race. And where I am, that's basically unheard of...of course the "democrat" also hates mexicans, so they're both pretty popular (sarcastic, but sadly too true).

I'll be interested to see the outcome and will keep y'all posted.

[Ocotillo]

lol @ you guys.

I sometimes get out of sorts and will shoot a personal insult but that usually has more to do with the sort of day I am having on this side of the screen then personal animosity toward anyone.