| Author |
Message |
    
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 982
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 5:43 pm: | 
|
Come on folks its about the Bush family friends getting rich. And staying i power to get riecher, cough, I mean richer.
Iraq and the rebuilding contracts-
Joe Alba and the FEMA contracts-
Carlyle buying CSX-
Dubai based Halibutron Subsidiary getting Iran gas drilling contract.
21 US ports -- UAE getting the contract to operate.
The Family does business with 2 states that supported the 9-11 attackers. Saudi Arabia & the UAE. And after 9-11 the Family still does business with them-- they should have been attacked-- not Iraq.
Face it folks-- you can't trust the Family to protect the USA, the Bush Administration can't be trusted with National security. Because business comes first. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5246
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 6:44 pm: |
|
 |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:19 pm: |
|
Well, FOJ, let's not overdo it.
Remember that there are hardline, die-hard, "never-saw-a-Bush-action-that-they-didn't-like" MOL adherents around. Don't want to get their feathers ruffled about a paltry item like the security of the operations of 6 major US ports.
Why would anyone want to question that transaction? After all, port security is no more important than chemical plant, nuclear facility, or rail and tunnel security, and our chief executive is hardly focused on bothering about those.
What's the big deal? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 984
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:36 pm: |
|
Nah Innisowen-- for real--
fewer & fewer Americans, just dont trust Bush on National security anymore. Its about the deals he can make-- |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 855
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:05 am: |
|
Foj-
But the problem is even fewers Americans trust the Democrats on National Security...
Getting all huffy puffy about a port deal just to make up political ground on NS isn't going to change this perception overnight...
-SLK |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 856
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:07 am: |
|
foj-
Oh, so if the US decides to invade Saudia Arabia you would be for it?
Kind of hard to believe...
-SLK |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1599
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:15 am: |
|
Not according to the latest Rasmussen Poll, Scotis Lo Knows.
Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27263725.shtml
Bush is shooting his party in the foot to make his associates a buck. Sooner or later, all that incompetence, real or perceived, and all those crony deals, were going to catch up. Why do think the Repubs too are running far from Bush on this? The damage to the party though is irreversable. I can see the ads now...
You're unwavering support of this president is duly noted, and you will be justly rewarded for your blind trust. (Your prize: you may NOT get an abortion in South Dakota...Yippee!!!)
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 817
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:51 am: |
|
Oh, so if the US decides to invade Saudia Arabia you would be for it?
If they had gone there instead of Iraq, I'd have absolutely been for it. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 859
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:23 am: |
|
Robert-
If you have been paying attention, I do not have "blind trust" in anything, including our President.
Of course Bush has made some mistakes, some costly. But I am willing to treat him and anyone fairly regardless of party affiliation. That notion is much to be desired for many of you left leaning folks on this board.
What is occuring in SD has nothing to do with the Prez, and indirectly if most. If SD outlaws abortion then so be it. The state's legislature(a reflection of the populace-you know a representative democracy?) spoke and that is how are system of government works.
You did stay awake in US Govt. class right?
Madden 11-I appreciate your response but my questions was aimed at Foj....
-SLK |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 863
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
Robert-
And one recent poll doesn't mean crap. Let's look back at the last 6 years and see who was trusted with NS overall....
-SLk |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14645
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Dearest Madden11,
Let me make sure that I have this straight:
1) 9/11 is committed by 18 hijackers, 16 from Saudi Arabia
2) The Saudi government, at least publicly, is a supporter of the US while privately looking the other way as the US is trashed in their religious institutions
3) You are okay with us going into Saudi Arabia, "invading" as it were
But when
4) Iraq, (stop here: I know that Iraq was not involved in 9/11), disobeys years of UN sanctions
5) is believed to have WMD that could get in the hands of terrorists in a jittery post-9/11 world
6) you think the invasion should not have happened
Yeah, that makes sense.
P.S. What would you suggest that we do in Saudi Arabia? Blow up some oil refineries to show that it's not about the oil? Maybe a mosque or two?
|
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6843
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:39 am: |
|
After a weak Friday (in my opinion) THE KING OF ALL MOL RETURNS! Glad to see the Sbenois we all know and love...
|
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 967
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Re: the Dubai deal:
(Speaking of polls), There is a poll on the CSPAN web site that asks what
was the biggest issue last week. Eight issues where mentioned. Even with
Iraq potentially on the verge of civil war and over a hundred people dead there in days,
60% of the respondents said that the port deal was the most important event compared to only 19% saying that the Mosque blast was the most significant.
Where do we imagine the sentiments of those 60% lay, -with Bush? or elsewhere?
As one correspondent said; "It can be explained in 20 minutes why the Dubai
deal is a good idea but it only takes 5 seconds to explain why it isn't. "
With Frist, Hassert, Tom Kean* and even Tom Delay, (DeLay trying desperately to look like he has any sort of meaningful influence), all making statements against this proposition it really-really puts Bush in a no-win jam especially since so-called "National Security" has been widely touted by many as Bush's strong card.
Will a President who has never yet used a veto in all his years as President actually use THIS issue to finally exercise that power? -That alone becomes quite a story;
potential headline: "Bush exercises veto power for the first time to insure the sale of American Ports management to a state-owned arab country".
Of course it doesn't help Bush that the same week that this deal was announced we have great near-out-of-control violence in the streets of Iraq with hordes of crazy looking gun-wielding "arabs" in the streets, a thwarted refinery bombing attempt in an "arab" nation and crazed "arabs" everywhere still pissed-off about a cartoon including Nigeria. (average Joe speaking: -"Moslems, Persians, Arabs, -whatever.")
I find it utterly amazing that for five long years Bush has fostered the fear of "Al Quada Al Quada Al Quada everywhere, -they are in your phones and in your libraries, they are in Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan, and Yemen, they are in Iran, they are in your soup and OF COURSE they were in Iraq conspiring with Saddam. RED ALERT RED ALERT, take off your shoes, surrender your cuticle scissors and watch old ladies being searched at the airport, and now, NOW he blithely not only expects but seems puzzled-like-the-idiot-he-is that the American public does not simply calmly accept the idea of Arabs running the ports of New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans and Miami, (Jeb Bush sez he "trusts his brother" but other people in Miami are not related).
_______________________________________
*From AP:
"Thomas Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey who led the bipartisan probe of the Sept. 11 attacks, said the deal was a big mistake because of past connections between the 2001 hijackers and the UAE.
"It shouldn't have happened, it never should have happened," Kean said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 818
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:38 pm: |
|
Sbenois--
Let me get THIS straight.
Invading Iraq is good because they MIGHT provide support to terrorists.
But invading Saudi Arabia, where they HAVE provided support to terrorists, is bad.
For the record, I'm not sure "invading" a country to root out al-Qaida is the best way to go about it...kind of like burning down the house to get rid of your mouse problem. Furthermore, if the point (as you allege) was truly to round up those slippery WMD's, then it turns out that invasion wasn't really the best strategy there either.
But if we were going to invade somewhere, then yes, we'd have a much better shot at breaking up al-Qaida if we'd invaded Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq.
What would you suggest that we do in Saudi Arabia? Blow up some oil refineries to show that it's not about the oil? Maybe a mosque or two?
Well, what did we do in Iraq, exactly? We found a way to topple that government without blowing up refineries or mosques. Didn't we?
If you're claiming that the point of an invasion is to stop the spread of terrorism, then being for the invasion of Iraq but against the invasion of Saudi Arabia is just ridiculous. |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6847
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Calling for an invasion of Saudi Arabia is idiotic.
How many UN sanctions have they violated to date? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 820
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:56 pm: |
|
Straw = U.N. Lover
That's a new development, to put it mildly.
Not sure how many U.N. Sanctions they violated, but haven't they had a connection or two to an attack or two on the United States?
Hard to believe some on the right have already forgotten 9/11... |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 719
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:58 pm: |
|
RL,
Irreversible? Nothing in politics is irreversible. The Dems should certainly parlay this into a political positive but they don't have a very good track record of doing this lately. This would be a huge issue if Bush were running but he isn't. How much effect will this have on the local Congressional races? I don't know. I'll wait until the public speaks. And polls don't count, ask President Kerry. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 987
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
Gee 43% trust DEMs on National security. I had no idea Rasmussen just did a poll on that question.
Southerner- I think your take on this issue is nearly spot on-- Now only IF the DEMS can take advantage-- yeah right- cough cough. |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6849
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:23 pm: |
|
Madden11. Here's you answer. 0. Under no circumstances could we or would we attack a nation that had nothing to do with 911 while not violating international law.
Bin Laden himself was tossed from Saudi Arabia by the Saudi family long before 911. (This is a fact that's new to you, I'm sure)
So to conclude here is what you are saying. You wanted war in the middle east, but you were hoping the U.S attacked the leaders who wear the towels on their heads. Saddam with his western style suits isn't nearly as bad. Right?
Thanks for your input. Hopefully the next Dem Presidential candidate tries throwing the same line of crap at Americans. That will be more than enough to assure another GOP W.H. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 822
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Dance, Straw, dance! Stir up that phony baloney righteous indignation! Keep pretending that there is no link between 9/11 and the Saudis, and project that racism as far and as fast as you can.
Just make sure you don't dance so fast that the scales fall from your eyes.
All hail Straw, mighty defender of the UN! |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 969
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
"Under no circumstances could we or would we attack a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11 while not violating international law. "
-Straw
"no credible evidence" that Iraq cooperated with al-Qaida in the plot against the United States.
-The 9/11 Commission
___________________________
But, fear not, even America's great and wise moralist has now finally seen the truth, (partly-sort -of);
the United States should leave Iraq "as fast as humanly possible" because "we just can't control these crazy people".
-Bill O'Reilly 2/23/06
|
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
It's Bizarro World this week on MOL. Libs have come out in favor of ethnic profiling, invading Saudi Arabia without UN consent and now agree with Bill O'Reilly.
Strange Days indeed. |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6851
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Guy,
That's what they do. They've also been quoting Tom Kean lately. I mean what's next? Ronald Wilson Reagan??
I've said it once but I need to say it again..
LIBERALS ARE MORONS. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 721
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Guy,
I noticed that as well. Taking a step back from the normal political one upsmanship, this type of week only proves that politicians are politicians. For all the bluster about civil rights and caring for the world, the Dems are no different from Repubs other than they aren't in power. I am at least very happy to see the Dems finally playing some real issue politics for a change. After basically a few years of nothingness - Sheehan, Plame, Diebold, Abramoff, just to name a few of the more recent nothingness, the Dems finally are attempting to take advantage of an admin fumble.
Lastly, I knew it was bizarro world when Foj said I was dead on. I'm generally dead on but since I'm dead on an issue she agrees with then she can say it. I was dead on about Plamegate being nothing and I'm dead on about this wiretapping issue that it will only hurt the Dems politically to push it, although they may have some legitimate questions. Luckily for them this port issue was handed to them on a silver platter. I sure wish the Dems would go back defending terrorist phone calls. It would make life easier for us conservatives. Do we finally have a game this election season? |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 823
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Libs have come out in favor of ethnic profiling, invading Saudi Arabia without UN consent and now agree with Bill O'Reilly.
First of all, objection to the port deal has nothing to do with ethnic profiling. It has to do with handing our housekeys over to a foreign government with known ties to bin Laden and terrorism. Their ethnicity is not a factor, at least not to me.
Secondly, nobody is calling for an invasion of Saudia Arabia. I'm just of the opinion that it would have been a more appropriate target than Iraq, if busting up al-Qaida's support network was in fact our goal.
And finally, O'Reilly is agreeing with us, not the other way around.
But you gotta love MOL's Wacky Wingers...the best in the world when it comes to completely missing the point. |
Brokeback Straw
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6853
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Your point being that we should bomb the •••• out of Saudi Arabia was not missed.
We heard your main point loud and clear.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:01 pm: |
|
What's also funny is we're pointing out how Kean, George Will, O'Reilly et al agree with us and you still insist it's just "libs." heh-LOW! |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 825
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:10 pm: |
|
Your point being that we should bomb the •••• out of Saudi Arabia was not missed.
We heard your main point loud and clear.
I don't have the time to sit here and correct your misinterpretations on multiple threads. I'm happy to have folks read what I wrote above (as opposed to your sadly bungled reading of them) and come to their own conclusions.
Now don't you have a letter of support you should be writing to the U.N.? Or a fan letter to our friends in the Saudi royal family who refused to answer for some mysterious fundraising, then stonewalled us when we wanted to track terrorist bank accounts?
Those wacky wingers...hopeless, hapless, and clueless. |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:43 pm: |
|
Madden, based on you objection to the UAE port deal, I would hope you would also support detaining all passengers arriving from the UAE , since this country is such a threat.
In fact why are we allowing Boeing to sell 10 billion worth of airplanes to a country who had ties to flying planes into the WTC.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 867
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:11 pm: |
|
Madden11-
Isn't this one of your posts?:
"Oh, so if the US decides to invade Saudia Arabia you would be for it"?
If they had gone there instead of Iraq, I'd have absolutely been for it."
So, what are we misintepreting? Pretty •••••• painting yourself in a corner, huh?
-SLK |
steel
Citizen
Username: Steel
Post Number: 970
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Re: O'Reilly,
If "libs" had agreed with O'Reilly in NOVEMBER when he said that "anyone who thinks that we should leave Iraq immediately is a pinhead" -THAT would have been surprising.
-Obviously, (which you guys really full-well know), "we" are pointing out that now even the sad likes of O'Reilly, (DeLay, George Will, Buckley, Kean, Frist, Hassert, et all) are managing to CHANGE their previously fond views, (imagine our excitement that truth and common sense can actually find it's way into the skulls if not the hearts of such persons), of the dangerous idiot President in the face of SO much consistent, for SO long, empirical evidence of the foolhardiness of blindly sticking with the malfeasance and incompetence of King George and his many various corrupt disasters and lying poses.
MOL is still waiting for it's own "right wing" to join the rest of the learning Republican party instead of STILL clinging to this charade of gamemanship and insisting on trying to be correct in their original pronouncements of Bush "leadership". Apparently some of them will ride the stock of George Bush all the way down like it was Enron. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14646
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:35 pm: |
|
Madden11,
You would have been in favor of us invading Saudi Arabia if the goal was specifically to break up a.q?
Perhaps not your first choice, but you would have supported it?
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 988
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 7:13 pm: |
|
Gotta be the funniest thread in a while. I say nuke the UAE and Saudi Arabia, Eff 'em up. They support the folks who flew planes into US buildings on 9-11.
DO IT--- its the war on terra, right, just DO IT> |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 826
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 7:54 pm: |
|
SLK:
Can you tell the difference between this:
If they had gone there instead of Iraq, I'd have absolutely been for it.
and this:
we should bomb the •••• out of Saudi Arabia
Just in case you can't, there is a little difference in tense, for one thing. "Should have" and "should" are not the same thing.
I also never said anything about bombing. I swore I wouldn't waste time retyping my own words just to appease the wacky winger faction, but what the hell:
I'm not sure "invading" a country to root out al-Qaida is the best way to go about it...kind of like burning down the house to get rid of your mouse problem.
If that reads the same to you as "we should bomb the •••• out of Saudi Arabia," I'm afraid that's your problem.
Now who else is piling on:
Madden, based on you objection to the UAE port deal, I would hope you would also support detaining all passengers arriving from the UAE , since this country is such a threat.
You don't have to detain ordinary citizens. You have to keep our port security information out of the hands of their government. I can't believe you really think that's the same thing. When you fly into Newark, are you presented with security information, building plans, etc upon arrival? No. But if you were hired to manage the airport, I'd say you probably would be. See the difference yet?
You would have been in favor of us invading Saudi Arabia if the goal was specifically to break up a.q?
Perhaps not your first choice, but you would have supported it?
I honestly don't know. Right off the bat, please re-read what I re-typed above. I don't believe that invading a country is the best way to dismantle a stateless terror network.
All I'm saying is that there was (and probably still is) a lot more al-Qaida support in SA than in Iraq. Having said that, my support for an invasion would require a few things: a competent government to run it, copious evidence that it is necessary, and enough international support to make sure that, if things don't go as planned, there are enough shoulders to bear the load. We had none of those things prior to invading Iraq, nor do we today.
At the time we invaded Iraq, it didn't seem like a good idea to me, but I was willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt. At the time, I was one of many who believed that, whatever you thought about Republicans, they at least knew how to wage a war. Knowing what I know now, I'm hard pressed to think of any military action that I would trust this administration to handle. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 870
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:57 pm: |
|
tulipitis or madden11itis-I am trying to determine which is more deadly.... |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3271
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:12 pm: |
|
slk: I've been at a neighborhood dinner party, give me a break!!
From what I read of Madden, I am entirely in agreement. I understand that Madden is not supporting an invasion of Saudi Arabia. Madden is supporting looking at how much closer Saudi Arabia's attachment to Al Quaida is than Iraq's.
Not a really difficult concept.
Trying to communicate with you republicans is like stepping onto a pile of angry vipers.
Don't like it.
Sorry things aren't going your way. You may not know it, but you must sense a change in the climate toward your party and your cause. As others have said, why don't you work on getting your president to perform in ways that don't threaten or antagonize over half the population of the US?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 724
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 9:32 pm: |
|
tulip,
That is the same post I read about 2 years ago. You Repubs have blown it and will be swept from power.
I would think a good lib like yourself would finally have enough sense to wait for results. If you are already celebrating your November victory I say drink up. I just can't wait to read MOL the day after. Something tells me this half of the population you currently tout due to polling data will be the same half of the population you derise and call names.
As much as I agree that this is a political blunder by the Repubs, it is only March and since we seem to have a new political emergency every 6 days, I wouldn't get to carried away with this latest one. It was only 3 weeks ago that the wiretaps were going to bring us conservatives to our knees, then it was a drunk VP shooting randomly at his friends. Now it is this one. I say, the Dems should use it as a political issue for as long as they can, but don't get carried away.
I liken it to a baseball team that is behind 14-1 but they finally get a double to the gap and they are screaming and hollering like they just scored 10 runs. As bad as this issue is for the conservatives it isn't like they caught us taking bribes from lobbyists. Oh yeah, that was last month's political emergency! |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3272
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:07 pm: |
|
southerner: Well, if you have to jump on anyone who questions your president's decisions, actions or behaviors, you have to take the heat right back. Call us all "libs" (whatever you mean by that) or "morons" or whatever, you all sound enraged. You are the ranters. Calm down. Obviously, 2008 is not a shoo-in for anyone. We shall see, OK?
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 729
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:32 pm: |
|
I use the term lib as an endearing term. You can call me con or neo-con any time. I had to laugh when you equate lib with moron. I sure don't. As for enragement, I'm not. My team is ahead 14-1. All we have to do is hold serve.
Your just a little upset, that we started an illegal war, outed a CIA agent, took bribes, rigged the elections, wiretaps anybody anywhere anytime, and have a VP that can shoot people anywhere anytime and you still can't find a winning issue. Part of me thinks Rove is orchestrating all this just for fun. It's like telling a child you are going to take him/her to Chuck E. Cheese then you end up at a diner on Route 22. He's all excited until the last minute when they pull in the parking lot. Please don't state publicly that the Dems are sucking you in again? All Kerry had to do was beat the dumbest President in history. Even Carter beat Ford!! |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3274
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:48 pm: |
|
You may be right. |
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 827
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Your just a little upset, that we started an illegal war, outed a CIA agent, took bribes, rigged the elections, wiretaps anybody anywhere anytime, and have a VP that can shoot people anywhere anytime and you still can't find a winning issue.
Sorry, was there another election since all these things came out? Until there is, how do you know they aren't winning issues? Some of them haven't even played all the way out yet, and a party leader with an approval rating stuck in the low 40s is not what you'd call a hopeful sign for the future. Some things are too easy for even the establishment Democrats to botch...
Having said that, though, why do you assume that what upsets us about these things is that we can't find a winning issue? Some (most) things have more far-reaching consequences than who wins an election. That's like saying "Well, you're just upset over 9/11 because it was good for Bush." Isn't it possible that there's something else there to be upset about?
In your point of view, if an action or decision has no negative political ramifications, does that mean it was the right thing to do? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 995
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 11:42 pm: |
|
These Repubs-- cant even run a war. And these DEMs cant even fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Bush cant empty his boot of water- even if you put the directions on the sole. America seems to be catching on to the fact that the Bush Crime Family is about business deals- not national security. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2623
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 12:57 am: |
|
There is no such thing as a liberal. A liberal is just someone who is winning an argument with a bigot. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 730
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 9:39 am: |
|
anon,
There are a lot of folks who call themselves liberal and are proud of it. For you to mock them is amazing.
Foj,
Even if you are correct, I don't think a Bush will be running in the next election or even in 2008. You should save your mantra for 2012 or 2016 when Jeb is on the national ballot.
Madden,
I hear you and of course I disagree with your characterization. And I do believe Bush started this so called "illegal war" during his first term. All I can say is from the day Gore started the legal proceedings in Florida, the diehard Dems have been out to get Bush. Unlilke many of my fellow Republicans or conservatives, I understand and respect this. I realize politics is a dirty, dirty game. I wish we could all work for the right things to do but that is no longer an option. We just don't agree what the right things are. It really is not very complicated. I believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do. I think the Bush tax cuts were the right thing to do and I like the wiretapping. I also believe the American electorate supports these decisions. The man was re-elected so someone supports him. And if the Repubs maintain Congress in November then what will your conclusion be? At some point you Dems need to understand your philosophy has not moved in step with the American psyche. A few tweaks here and there and you will be okay though. Good luck in the pursuit. Us conservatives look forward to the summer/fall political battle. I'm glad to see you guys are finally engaged. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4418
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, February 26, 2006 - 9:15 pm: |
|
Quote:All I can say is from the day Gore started the legal proceedings in Florida, the diehard Dems have been out to get Bush
Bush began legal proceedings, not Gore. See
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/ARTICLES/pe2000timeline.php
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/13/got.here/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20001217pztimeline.asp
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm
experts agree, the first legal action is a request for an injunction against a hand-recount by the Bush camp. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 736
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 6:18 pm: |
|
tom,
Don't bother me with facts! Okay, Bush started it. Another successful Republican move! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4424
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, February 27, 2006 - 10:10 pm: |
|
 |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page