"Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached."
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.
If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.
Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.
Well, I was talking about whether or not his integrity is attackable. It is. The problem is that it just won't do any good. I would argue that it's not "superiority and knowingness" that's causing the Dems to lose political ground. That's what I hear all the time on Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bortz (sp?), and one would think that there were some talking points that came down from the RNC at some point about this. I think they've lost ground because they've moved more and more to the center (just look at Clinton) and have alienated the lefty base, which has run to Nader. And by moving to the center, that's put them in the same field as the moderate republicans, whose votes they're simply not going to steal.
Quote:
If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.
The problem with this is that a) Lieberman is unelectable, both because he always sounds like he's about to nod off and because he's got the albatross of 2000 around his neck and b) running a hawkish/centrist dem will alienate even more of the dems who aren't already going to vote for some third-party candidate.
I'm not sure that "anti-terror" is going to be the way to go, either. I mean, what's the other option? pro-terror? Jumping onto that train gets them nowhere, and it allows Bush to further establish national security as a domestic issue. If they're going to engage Bush in terms of the war on terror, it *has* to be in terms of continually raising the question of when it will end. The problem with this line, though, is that it allows Bush to say "When goodness and justice have prevailed over hatred and fear" or some such. But this argument allows them to raise questions about whether we're off nation-building and war-mongering. It also raises questions about whether or not Bush's "anti-terror" agenda is actually working. Is it making the world safer? But I'd like to see them avoid the issue of terrorism as much as possible. Anything they do makes Bush look good.
I'd like to see either Kerry or Dean get the nomination. Kerry's war record makes him good opposition to Bush, and Dean's a powerful speaker. And if either of them can hammer on the economy--lost jobs, tanked market, lack of economic agenda beyond "tax cuts," the squandering of the surplus, record deficits, expensive wars "while school closings are leaving many children behind" (man. That'd be a great play on one of Bush's campaign slogans), corporate scandals, rising gas prices, school closings, school closings, and school closings.
And school closings.
Quote:
Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.
Yup. There's going to be some blood shed in the next year. And every drop makes Bush's re-election more likely. Ugh.
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.
OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.
midwinter:
Quote:
h but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
The information is all out there. And it's hardly BS. The man was supposed to show up for duty. He didn't. For over a YEAR. He went AWOL, which after 30 days becomes desertion.
Please. "awolbush"? Yes, very credible. I read many of those documents, and many are weak and from sites dedicated to destroying Bush and Cheney. They don't incriminate him at all. I read through every link and they are just SOOOOO weak.
Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
Please. "awolbush"? Yes, very credible. I read many of those documents, and many are weak and from sites dedicated to destroying Bush and Cheney. They don't incriminate him at all. I read through every link and they are just SOOOOO weak.
Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
Keep going though, by all means. I like it.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. There were tornadoes.
Onward, though.
Whatever. Sorry you don't like the source. You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence--PICTURES even--that there are a missing 18 months in Bush's military record. I gave you TWO stories from reputable newspapers on the subject.
He was supposed to show up somewhere and didn't. That's AWOL. It lasted more than 30 days. That's desertion.
Note this: you say "Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later."
Nice little turn of phrase there. He didn't miss "some weekends"; he missed EVERY WEEKEND for over a year. But then, given your response you don't seem to have a problem with people in the military (or guard or reserves or whatever) just completely shirking their duties for over a year? And then with those same people using their military record as part of a campaign for the presidency? And then hanging around on aircraft carriers? And sending folks off into battle? Hell, the right had a hissy-fit every time that "draft-dodger" Clinton did anything with the military but THIS GUY gets a pass? Come on.
Regardless. You can put away the brush you're trying to paint me with. If you've read my earlier posts closely, you'll see that my raising this issue was simply a matter of pointing out that Bush's "integrity" isn't as unassailable as people seem to think. I even said that this was not a story that has gotten or will get any traction. And as I also pointed out above, the Bush team learned a crucial lesson from the Clinton team's greatest weakness with the media: if you don't comment on the story, the press moves on. It's brilliant, really. People bitch and moan for a day or two, and then they move on.
him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?
Well, I don't so much disagree with you...I don't think you put it quite strongly enough. The dems don't have a "leadership" and they don't have a direction. If someone wants to vote for a right-wing party they will vote Republican. There isn't enough political space for "republican lite". The dems have one decent potential candidate...Dennis Kucinich. But honestly folks, can you hear "President Kucinich"? I can't.
actually, i'd say the biggest problem for Dems. is that in this thread alone there have been a few people who say "well, we have a lot of canidate, but the only viable canidate is X"
but there's been three or four "canidate X's" now. go back a few years. Reps. had McCain and Bush. we got ****ed over and ended up with Bush, but there were only two real canidates in the running.
if you have 6, that just divides things up to many different ways. i guess it's early and it will pan out to be just a few by the end, but i really want some good democratic leadership. nothing is worse than when one party runs through whatever crap they want without a real hard fight from the other side.
Then, they should have RESPECTFULLY disagreed with him on "their" issues, like the economy. They should have said "Look, we respect the President a great deal and think he has done a tremendous job with the war on terror. That being said, we do disagree with his POSITIONS on other issues. Here is our plan for...
The left does not use logic when dealing with issues. for them it is a religion. they are activist. The fact that right wing policy is working occurs to them as if sombody has disproved a chapter in the bible. They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil and must be beat down at all cost.
Your advise assumes the ability to think rationally on their part. They ignore all facts against their policy and feal no reason to back up policy with facts and they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally. If I were on the left the I would add a few colorful words to the above and finish with a statement that is powerful and has complete agreement from everybody even though it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Such as "a desk bound president or wraped in an american flag" and i would finish with "A presidency should consist of truth and honesty." But since I am not a democrat I will attempt the much more difficult task of backing up my statements with facts.
They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil :
They can not pick and choose between right and wrong. For them it is about pleasing everybody all of the time. Their rules are against an individual accountability. Everything is based on feelings. they would have us be a sensetive nation where we do not ever hurt anybodys feelings. Kids in school play sports where the winning team and the loosing team all get trophys. they did not want us to go to war so as to avoid hurting fealings or Gasp, have people disagree with us. Who cares if it is right or wrong we must not offend china, france or germany.
For example-14 people illeagle aliens died of starvation trying to cross into the deseart from mexico into the US. Its not their fault, its not the smugglers that they paid 1400 each to's fault. Its not the fault of the people who owned the land that they died on. No it is the United States fault for not putting water stations in the the middle of the desert. In other words because the US did not help Illeagle Aliens sneak into our country we are being sued for 42 million dollars.
I can give many examples but this is new news that i just heard tonight.
they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally.:
The actors agains SUVs. like more than half of them have SUVs at home.
Sean Penn who is anti death penalty, anti war and anti Guns has a licence to carry a concealed weapon and carries guns in his glove container and trunk.
Rich people whold never use public health care are so sure that we all need FREEEEEE public health care like in france. I forget who but a star just moved out of france because he had to pay 65% of his income in taxes.
not to mention that FREEEE health care will suck. I have had to use gov health care and trust me you do not want it. Are any of you aware of how many people in FRance and every country with gov health care fly to the US for opperations every year. French people who can afford it do not go to doctors in france. and if we had public health care rich people in this country would use private doctors because it will be superior. It will break us and it is not free.
Them Democrats of today are not the democrats of 20 years ago. They will break our country and we need to protect our country from their distructive beliefs.
Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.
Thanks for making my point again. another accusation which is created from twisting words and is not based on facts at all. This claim has been disproved several times. But that matters not just like I still hear the Left argue that Bush actually lost the election even though each and every group (including there own) who counted came up with a Bush win. WE dont need Facts says the left we have feelings
" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had. "
PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.
so this is another typical leftest responce. and the funny thing is that he/she actually thinks that they made a point to the post which was
" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.
Ohh I dont know about that. I know democrats who are going to vote for Bush because he is the only one that they feal will deal with terrorizm and keep them safe. I mean even they do not like his domestic policy.
I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger!
Yes, but it is not making Bush Stronger it is making the left weak. People are getting sick of this crap and not only are they going to vote for Bush they are going to vote against every single dem on the card. They act like children they should be treated like children.
the days of accusations having credibility because things are said on TV are comming to an end.
Vote them out I say. All of them. we need to purify the pack. The next generation of Dems that come up may be worth voting for if we do this now
I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.
I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.
and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.
Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense.
Comments
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.
If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.
Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.
Originally posted by Existence
But the American people did not elect GWB so your reasooning is flawed.
Ah, But I didn't say " elect " I said we would have a republican next.
This is precisely the kind of rhetoric that is causing the Dems to slip into obsolesence. Examine the tone--there's a superiority and knowingness to it that grates with the public. It won't help them.
Well, I was talking about whether or not his integrity is attackable. It is. The problem is that it just won't do any good. I would argue that it's not "superiority and knowingness" that's causing the Dems to lose political ground. That's what I hear all the time on Limbaugh, Hannity, and Bortz (sp?), and one would think that there were some talking points that came down from the RNC at some point about this. I think they've lost ground because they've moved more and more to the center (just look at Clinton) and have alienated the lefty base, which has run to Nader. And by moving to the center, that's put them in the same field as the moderate republicans, whose votes they're simply not going to steal.
If they want the presidency they need to co-opt Bush's strengths and highlight his weaknesses. Put Lieberman on the ticket, who the closest thing they have to a hawk and can convincingly pull off a stance which is anti-terror, and then hammer at Bush's total lack of a coherent domestic agenda.
The problem with this is that a) Lieberman is unelectable, both because he always sounds like he's about to nod off and because he's got the albatross of 2000 around his neck and b) running a hawkish/centrist dem will alienate even more of the dems who aren't already going to vote for some third-party candidate.
I'm not sure that "anti-terror" is going to be the way to go, either. I mean, what's the other option? pro-terror? Jumping onto that train gets them nowhere, and it allows Bush to further establish national security as a domestic issue. If they're going to engage Bush in terms of the war on terror, it *has* to be in terms of continually raising the question of when it will end. The problem with this line, though, is that it allows Bush to say "When goodness and justice have prevailed over hatred and fear" or some such. But this argument allows them to raise questions about whether we're off nation-building and war-mongering. It also raises questions about whether or not Bush's "anti-terror" agenda is actually working. Is it making the world safer? But I'd like to see them avoid the issue of terrorism as much as possible. Anything they do makes Bush look good.
I'd like to see either Kerry or Dean get the nomination. Kerry's war record makes him good opposition to Bush, and Dean's a powerful speaker. And if either of them can hammer on the economy--lost jobs, tanked market, lack of economic agenda beyond "tax cuts," the squandering of the surplus, record deficits, expensive wars "while school closings are leaving many children behind" (man. That'd be a great play on one of Bush's campaign slogans), corporate scandals, rising gas prices, school closings, school closings, and school closings.
And school closings.
Sadly, we first need to spend the better part of a year watching them fight one another...this is the homecourt advantage of the incumbent.
Yup. There's going to be some blood shed in the next year. And every drop makes Bush's re-election more likely. Ugh.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.
OK, I'll bite. The economy is not in the toilet. It certainly isn't great. I'm not really sure your serious, jimmac. Barring anything ridiculous, Bush will be reelected easily. The only variable that matters anymore is the economy, and if it improves significantly at all, it's all over for the dems. If you deny this, you are simply not living in reality.
midwinter:
h but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
I'm going to have to ask you to back that up. I've never heard that charge before. It's stuff like this that is exactly the point. Attacking Bush like that isn't going to work. I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger! I don't even know why you bother with this shit.
Have fun:
The actual documents:
http://users.cis.net/coldfeet/document.htm
More documents:
http://www.awolbush.com/ (scroll down a bit for the photos of documents)
The original Boston Globe story from 2000.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...rd_duty+.shtml
A Wash. Post story on how no one can find any record of Bush showing up in Alabama for service.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...¬Found=true
A nice timeline from Mother Jones
http://www.motherjones.com/news/outf...ma_217_01.html
The information is all out there. And it's hardly BS. The man was supposed to show up for duty. He didn't. For over a YEAR. He went AWOL, which after 30 days becomes desertion.
Cheers
Scott
Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
Keep going though, by all means. I like it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Please. "awolbush"? Yes, very credible. I read many of those documents, and many are weak and from sites dedicated to destroying Bush and Cheney. They don't incriminate him at all. I read through every link and they are just SOOOOO weak.
Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later, and this is a news story? Obviously, it isn't. And don't give me your "the media sat on it" crap: If it would have hurt him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
Keep going though, by all means. I like it.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. There were tornadoes.
Onward, though.
Whatever. Sorry you don't like the source. You asked for evidence. I gave you evidence--PICTURES even--that there are a missing 18 months in Bush's military record. I gave you TWO stories from reputable newspapers on the subject.
He was supposed to show up somewhere and didn't. That's AWOL. It lasted more than 30 days. That's desertion.
Note this: you say "Bush missed some weekends of part-time military service in 1972, which he made up later."
Nice little turn of phrase there. He didn't miss "some weekends"; he missed EVERY WEEKEND for over a year. But then, given your response you don't seem to have a problem with people in the military (or guard or reserves or whatever) just completely shirking their duties for over a year? And then with those same people using their military record as part of a campaign for the presidency? And then hanging around on aircraft carriers? And sending folks off into battle? Hell, the right had a hissy-fit every time that "draft-dodger" Clinton did anything with the military but THIS GUY gets a pass? Come on.
Regardless. You can put away the brush you're trying to paint me with. If you've read my earlier posts closely, you'll see that my raising this issue was simply a matter of pointing out that Bush's "integrity" isn't as unassailable as people seem to think. I even said that this was not a story that has gotten or will get any traction. And as I also pointed out above, the Bush team learned a crucial lesson from the Clinton team's greatest weakness with the media: if you don't comment on the story, the press moves on. It's brilliant, really. People bitch and moan for a day or two, and then they move on.
Originally posted by SDW2001
him significantly, they would have harped on it forever.
This argument is a PERFECT illustration of why the democratic party is where it is right now. The fact that people like you even expend energy on this instead of working an agenda is why the party is failing miserably.
He's dead right.
Ask yourself honestly now: Do you disagree with me?
Well, I don't so much disagree with you...I don't think you put it quite strongly enough. The dems don't have a "leadership" and they don't have a direction. If someone wants to vote for a right-wing party they will vote Republican. There isn't enough political space for "republican lite". The dems have one decent potential candidate...Dennis Kucinich. But honestly folks, can you hear "President Kucinich"? I can't.
but there's been three or four "canidate X's" now. go back a few years. Reps. had McCain and Bush. we got ****ed over and ended up with Bush, but there were only two real canidates in the running.
if you have 6, that just divides things up to many different ways. i guess it's early and it will pan out to be just a few by the end, but i really want some good democratic leadership. nothing is worse than when one party runs through whatever crap they want without a real hard fight from the other side.
people get sloppy that way.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Then, they should have RESPECTFULLY disagreed with him on "their" issues, like the economy. They should have said "Look, we respect the President a great deal and think he has done a tremendous job with the war on terror. That being said, we do disagree with his POSITIONS on other issues. Here is our plan for...
The left does not use logic when dealing with issues. for them it is a religion. they are activist. The fact that right wing policy is working occurs to them as if sombody has disproved a chapter in the bible. They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil and must be beat down at all cost.
Your advise assumes the ability to think rationally on their part. They ignore all facts against their policy and feal no reason to back up policy with facts and they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally. If I were on the left the I would add a few colorful words to the above and finish with a statement that is powerful and has complete agreement from everybody even though it has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Such as "a desk bound president or wraped in an american flag" and i would finish with "A presidency should consist of truth and honesty." But since I am not a democrat I will attempt the much more difficult task of backing up my statements with facts.
They can not believe that it is true, to them it is Evil :
They can not pick and choose between right and wrong. For them it is about pleasing everybody all of the time. Their rules are against an individual accountability. Everything is based on feelings. they would have us be a sensetive nation where we do not ever hurt anybodys feelings. Kids in school play sports where the winning team and the loosing team all get trophys. they did not want us to go to war so as to avoid hurting fealings or Gasp, have people disagree with us. Who cares if it is right or wrong we must not offend china, france or germany.
For example-14 people illeagle aliens died of starvation trying to cross into the deseart from mexico into the US. Its not their fault, its not the smugglers that they paid 1400 each to's fault. Its not the fault of the people who owned the land that they died on. No it is the United States fault for not putting water stations in the the middle of the desert. In other words because the US did not help Illeagle Aliens sneak into our country we are being sued for 42 million dollars.
I can give many examples but this is new news that i just heard tonight.
they continuously try to pass laws that do not apply to them personally.:
The actors agains SUVs. like more than half of them have SUVs at home.
Sean Penn who is anti death penalty, anti war and anti Guns has a licence to carry a concealed weapon and carries guns in his glove container and trunk.
Rich people whold never use public health care are so sure that we all need FREEEEEE public health care like in france. I forget who but a star just moved out of france because he had to pay 65% of his income in taxes.
not to mention that FREEEE health care will suck. I have had to use gov health care and trust me you do not want it. Are any of you aware of how many people in FRance and every country with gov health care fly to the US for opperations every year. French people who can afford it do not go to doctors in france. and if we had public health care rich people in this country would use private doctors because it will be superior. It will break us and it is not free.
Them Democrats of today are not the democrats of 20 years ago. They will break our country and we need to protect our country from their distructive beliefs.
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh but it is. The problem is that no one seems to care or notice. He should've been arrested immediately upon setting foot on that carrier. He went AWOL in 1972 and is technically a deserter, which means he should be courtmartialed and then impeached.
Thanks for making my point again. another accusation which is created from twisting words and is not based on facts at all. This claim has been disproved several times. But that matters not just like I still hear the Left argue that Bush actually lost the election even though each and every group (including there own) who counted came up with a Bush win. WE dont need Facts says the left we have feelings
Originally posted by jimmac
" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had. "
PS. Make no mistake he'll lose the next time around. I'm as sure of this as I was when Clinton was apologizing on TV and I turned to my friend and said " We're going to have a republican president next time. ". And no I'm not psychic it's just common sense.
so this is another typical leftest responce. and the funny thing is that he/she actually thinks that they made a point to the post which was
" he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
its just common sense
Originally posted by midwinter
Well, I was talking about whether or not his integrity is attackable. It is.
So, attack it then. I doubt you can.
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah but if the economy's still in the toilet it makes Bush's chances slim.
Ohh I dont know about that. I know democrats who are going to vote for Bush because he is the only one that they feal will deal with terrorizm and keep them safe. I mean even they do not like his domestic policy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I actually hope people keep spouting off BS like this. It will just make Bush stronger!
Yes, but it is not making Bush Stronger it is making the left weak. People are getting sick of this crap and not only are they going to vote for Bush they are going to vote against every single dem on the card. They act like children they should be treated like children.
the days of accusations having credibility because things are said on TV are comming to an end.
Vote them out I say. All of them. we need to purify the pack. The next generation of Dems that come up may be worth voting for if we do this now
Originally posted by JC
I hate to say this but it seems like they actually Hate Bush. They just can not wait for an opportunity to attack him. They really hate him, everything bush does they seem to see it as an evil plot. Whatever Bush says they take the complete opposite stance, it does not seem as if they even think things out whatever Bush says is Bad, if it sounds good it must be because Bush is lying.
I keep hearing comments like Bush is obvilusly incompetant and he is a fool. the people who believe in him are fools or are duped.
and these things are all groundless. the facts suggest that Bush's intelect is a matter of record and he is one of the most honest presidents we have had.
they Hate him.
and it would be a mistake to let such a childless group of people who seem to react so emotionally run a country.
Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense.
Originally posted by BR
Substitue Clinton for Bush. The statement still makes sense.
except that critisisms agains clinton are factually based.
Clinton has been a proven Liar, cheater, etc. etc
Originally posted by JC
The left does not use logic when dealing with issues....
Originally posted by SDW2001
This is NOT intended to start a flame war.