| Author | Message | ||
     Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 1240 Registered: 6-2003 |
It certainly takes one to know one. | ||
| George W Bush Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 101 Registered: 9-2004 |
Wendyn, Look here's what we know about your husband. 1) He married a hot wife. 2) there is no way in hell he's not voting for Bush when push comes to shove.. Is there a good chance I'm 2 for 2? | ||
| Wendyn Citizen Username: Wendyn Post Number: 837 Registered: 9-2002 |
#1 is correct. We'll see how #2 falls out. I'm guessing he is more likely to skip voting entirely than to vote for the POTUS. | ||
| George W Bush Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 102 Registered: 9-2004 |
What bothers him about Bush? Is it the Iraq war, the war on terror, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Curious since you say he's a life time Republican. | ||
| Nohero Citizen Username: Nohero Post Number: 3880 Registered: 10-1999  |
More than one "lifetime Republican" is bothered about President Bush: You can read the rest at: http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657 | ||
| Wendyn Citizen Username: Wendyn Post Number: 839 Registered: 9-2002 |
Pretty much everything except the tax cuts, and the Patriot Act. He was never very political, mainly voted on an economic stance. But to be honest I am SO political, especially this year, he won't really talk about it with me. And give me some credit, last time I convinced him to vote FOR Bush (he was again undecided) because I really felt that Bush was the best match for hub's politics at the time. But this year I really want him to understand not only the economic/financial differences between the candidates but the foreign policy, social, environmental, etc. as well so he can make an informed decision. I'll just be happy if he votes at all since he is so disgusted with the campaign. So we will be watching the debates tonight, and I will try to keep my commentary down to a minimum. | ||
| George W Bush Citizen Username: Mondale Post Number: 103 Registered: 9-2004 |
Well one thing we can say about this year's campaign. It may be ugly but come the debates we're really getting what mounts to a true heavy weight fight. Well worth the price of admission. Personally speaking, I can't wait until tonight. I also think if Bush continues stressing the same things he's stressed over the last 4 years, he wins. Kerry has been all over the map. It's going to be hard for him to convince anyone he means what he says anymore. The anti-war candidate who voted for the war but actually voted to give the President the right to talk to the U.N..blah blah blah.. His logic stopped making sense the day he accepted the nomination. You also gotta love just how much smarter the Republicans are as opposed to the Dems. For instance, the first debate was supposed to be about domestic issues. Instead the Bush team negotiates to make it foreign policy. So this debate the most popular of the 3 will review Bush's strength. Another Democratic screw up. In return for the change of topic Bush agreed to a thrd debate which will draw half the viewers of the first. | ||
| Maple Man Citizen Username: Mapleman Post Number: 345 Registered: 6-2004  |
I'm wondering what would happen if one or the other candidate decided to say to hell with the rules tonight. What if one decided to directly ask the other a question? Would the other whine that his opponent isn't playing fair? Would they shut off the mikes? Arrest him? If I was Kerry, I'd do whatever I thought would help me win. If that means ignoring some of the debate rules tonight, I'd do it. What is Bush going to do if Kerry asks him a question? Complain that it's agains the rules? How would that look? Same goes for the moderator. If he asks follow up questions or does something else that violates the rules what will they do? Have him ejected from the hall? Bring in Larry King or Tony Danza from the wings as a replacement? The networks have already said they're paying no attention to the mandate on which camera shots they can use, so Kerry, Lehrer and Ifill (or Bush if he were to choose to) should take a cue and just do whatever the hell they please. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2503 Registered: 8-2003 |
Dr. F. is blinded by his hatred of Bush, as seen by his slam that Bush is a coward for having Cheney present at his 9-11 Commission testimony. By that reasoning, Clinton is a coward as well, we just don't hear the good Doctor say as much. TIME magazine, April 26 issue: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/subscriber/0,10987,1101040426-612309,0 0.html It's a disservice to history that Clinton's four hours of testimony on April 8 went unrecorded˜and that the commission has offered the same cloak of secrecy to Bush˜but sources close to the panel briefed TIME on the session. One commissioner described the atmosphere in the SKIF as "clearly not hostile." Clinton brought along Sandy Berger, his affable National Security Adviser, and Bruce Lindsey, his longtime friend and White House consigliere. The former President offered to stay "as long as any of you want," according to commission chairman Thomas Kean, a Republican, who wouldn't reveal anything else Clinton said. | ||
| DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 317 Registered: 7-2003 |
Clinton lied about getting a hummer from an intern. Bush lied to get us into a war. If you can't see the vast discrepancy there cjc, it's no wonder you support a moron. | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 188 Registered: 8-2004  |
Yeah, CJC, Clinton broke the law, Bush didn't. If you think Bush lied , then you can add another lie for Clinton, along with Kerry, France , Germany,Hans Blix,The UN,etc. Doc , when you say Bush lied , you lose credibility. | ||
| DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 320 Registered: 7-2003 |
Guy I'm sorry, but are you living in some fantasy world where Saddam had WMDs and was behind 9/11? It's been shown by several different parties he did not, and it's also been shown by any number of sources that the CIA was coerced into telling Bush what he wanted to hear. His neocons wanted a war they knew they couldn't justify, so Bush lied and continues to lie to make it happen. Get your head out of the sand. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3950 Registered: 1-2003  |
Bush may not have lied. It could have been a mistake. Take your pick. Neither is very palatable. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2506 Registered: 8-2003 |
Doctor, you need self-medication or some couch time. There are rationale points of view in opposition to Bush, but you aren't using them. You're seeing conspiracies and using code words like 'neocon.' | ||
| Guy Citizen Username: Vandalay Post Number: 189 Registered: 8-2004 |
Think again , Doc. Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's that have never been accounted for. He had chem and bio and on demand capability. He gave refuge to terorists. He had a decade long relationship with Al Qeda. It's all in the 9-11 Report, David Kay's report and the soon to be released Iraqi Survey Group Report. I never said Saddam was behind 9-11. Question for you Doc. Are small amounts of Chem and Bio agents and related technology just as dangerous as stockpiles? | ||
| notehead Citizen Username: Notehead Post Number: 1538 Registered: 5-2001  |
Cjc... just wondering... what does Clinton's being a coward or not have to do with anything? | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2507 Registered: 8-2003 |
Personally, nothing for me. I was referencing a point of attack in Dr. Falomar's post about Bush being a coward because Cheney was with him during 9/11 Commission testimony, when Clinton had Bruce Lindsey and Sandy "The Pants" Berger with him. | ||
| DrFalomar Citizen Username: Drfalomar Post Number: 321 Registered: 7-2003 |
Guy, CJC I know you never said Saddam was behind 911. BUSH said it. Bush still says it. And all those WMDs were destroyed. Bush knows this and does not care because facts are inconvenient to one who is ruled by ideology. As for CJC, "neocon" is hardly a code word. It's an abbreviation for neoconservative, a branch of conservatism just as the Religious Right is another. Now "conspiracy," that's a code word, used by people who can't refute an argument, but can only try to denigrate it and whoever would promote it. | ||
| cjc Citizen Username: Cjc Post Number: 2509 Registered: 8-2003 |
Neocon is code for Jew. And Bush never said Saddam was directly involved in 911, nor can anyone definitely say and prove what happend to the WMDs Saddam had. I'd also be interested to be shown the multiple sources that say the CIA was coerced. It wasn't in that bipartisan 9/11 Commission report. | ||
| Tom Reingold Citizen Username: Noglider Post Number: 3954 Registered: 1-2003 |
Neocon is code for Jew. What?! |
