oh oh... what a valid response to an argument flamebait... thats why AO is so much fun... yes lives are at stakes.. and no i'm not an armchair general... but you have to think of the entire world here, and not be so small minded. If the life of one child saved millions of people thereafter is it worth it? and if they gave their life as a sacrifice would we truly know, if so how many sacrifices have been given to us up till now?
oh oh... what a valid response to an argument flamebait... thats why AO is so much fun... yes lives are at stakes.. and no i'm not an armchair general... but you have to think of the entire world here, and not be so small minded. If the life of one child saved millions of people thereafter is it worth it? and if they gave their life as a sacrifice would we truly know, if so how many sacrifices have been given to us up till now?
Yeah, but I'm still waiting to hear proof that this war was worth it. So this war saved the " entire world "?
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feelÉØ´and ngrsonal posturing than logic or fact.
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
Quote:
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
Quote:
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
Quote:
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
Quote:
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in triplicate already.
He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ). He started a war without real provacation. The fact that they seem to be having such a hard time finding WOMD proves that the supposed threat was way over blown at best. And SDW this means he lied about their " proof ' that Saddam had WOMD. If they had proof where are they? They should have been easy to find. Most Bush supporters realize that now so they say " it doesn't matter. It was just good enough to get rid of Saddam. Forget our original reasons. "
I could go on but what's the point? I don't even like his quasi religious good ol' boy approach!
You could present your list but who would believe you? After all your crazy ramblings only desperate Bush supporters.
Come on! Tell us about the criminal liberal media again!
It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.
*The government was never shut down and the president was never removed from ovice
*it was not personal, it was illeagle and he was breaking the law. If he was not president he would have gone to court or/and been fired.
*if Bush has sexual relations with an inturn i would impeach him. this country has moral values (at least some of us)
your statement that, "they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy." means that you condone this activity. to you there was no reason to complain about his affair unless it is an attempt to attack his policy. Which is what the left does all the time. Us right wingers tend to use policy to debate policy.
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co....
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Fellowship
This is wishfull thinking
If the dems had something to say they would say it. instead of making thimselves look foolish by debating such important and newsworthy issues such as weather or not bush was AWOL or if he had a sock in his flightsuit to increase his manhood. The whole strategy is to attack bush attack attack. and bush is not attacking a n y b o d y!
if they are waiting to spring a last minute brilliant strategy they are sure acting dumb in the mean time. I am sorry to tell you that you have fools running for office. Clinton would not have done this. He would be debating a number of five point things by now.
You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in CØ?Îlica?¡ already.
You are correct that just because I state something, that doesn't make it "true". I do feel confident in my positions, though.
Now, for the second part: You HAVEN'T been over it in triplicate. Not at all.
To begin, we have this statement:
Quote:
He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ).
This is exactly the kind of statement I'm taking about. Clueless? That doesn't mean anything. You sound like friggin' Terry McCauliffe. Are you saying he just doesn't KNOW we have an economic slowdown right now? If you are NOT saying that, then what should he do? What would you do? What would the Democrats do? Did Bush cause the recession that started before he took office? You still, unbelievably, have NO ANSWER. You CAN'T answer because you have no specific policy that you can point to.
Quote:
He started a war without real provacation. The fact that they seem to be having such a hard time finding WOMD proves that the supposed threat was way over blown at best. And SDW this means he lied about their " proof ' that Saddam had WOMD. If they had proof where are they? They should have been easy to find. Most Bush supporters realize that now so they say " it doesn't matter. It was just good enough to get rid of Saddam. Forget our original reasons. "
Without provocation? That's an OPINION, jimmac. And it's one I disagree with BIGTIME. Iraq violated the 1991 ceasefire for one thing. They fired on our aircraft on hundreds of occassions. They expressed open hatred of the US after 9/11 and openly praised the attacks. Not even LYBIA did that, jimmac. We KNOW they had WOMD. We KNOW the inspectors weren't there for almost 5 years. We have FOUND banned weapons. The man violated resolution after resolution, seventeen of them to be exact. NO PROVOCATION??? The definition of provocation has changed. If you'd like to have the policy of waiting to be attacked again, then that's fine....but don't expect most of the country to agree with you.
WOMD: When is the deadline for finding them, jimmac? The same nations that wanted to NOT have a deadline for inspectors are now screaming for us to find the weapons RIGHT NOW...even though the war ended only about 30 days ago. We go through 30 days, and you scream: "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS!?!?! Bush must be lying!?!?!"
Quote:
"They should have been easy to find
According to who? You? In a nation the size of California? Show us all how it's done, jimmac.
Quote:
I could go on but what's the point? I don't even like his quasi religious good ol' boy approach!
You could present your list but who would believe you? After all your crazy ramblings only desperate Bush supporters.
Come on! Tell us about the criminal liberal media again!
By the way you're still in check over that one
So, you don't like his personal demeanor. I can accept that. It's the only real point you have made....but I'll take it.
And the Criminal Liberal Media: It DOES exist. Obviously you don't watch much Peter Jennings and Dan Rather.
*The government was never shut down and the president was never removed from ovice
Yes. The government was shut down--at least partially--during Xmas of 1995. Here's a nice google search on the subject. And no, the president wasn't removed from office. But they sure as hell tried, didn't they?
Quote:
*it was not personal, it was illeagle and he was breaking the law.
Please show me the LAW that says it is illegal for the President to have an intern perform oral sex on him in the oval office.
Clinton was impeached for lying about whether or not he'd had sexual relations with Lewinsky. In a deposition about a land deal. They couldn't stick the land deal, and so they went after his relationship with Lewinsky.
Quote:
If he was not president he would have gone to court or/and been fired.
You analogy doesn't work, since he would be the boss. He's going to fire himself? For having an affair? For engaging in consensual sex acts between two adults?
Quote:
*if Bush has sexual relations with an inturn i would impeach him. this country has moral values (at least some of us)
Please show me where in the constitution it says that the president has to have "moral values"? And who determines what those are? Is there some measure I'm not aware of?
Quote:
your statement that, "they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy." means that you condone this activity. to you there was no reason to complain about his affair unless it is an attempt to attack his policy. Which is what the left does all the time. Us right wingers tend to use policy to debate policy.
A couple of things: 1) Your first point suggests that you are, in fact, NOT engaging any of this from a policy standpoint. 2) The current admin doesn't seem to have any policies other than hollow slogans ("No child left behind," "compassionate conservative," "Let's roll," "family values," and "Clinton Sucks"). I have no idea what their foreign policy is other than "bomb people" and "use the US military as a means of nation-building."
The one real danger of this tactic I'm hearing from the right--to claim the left has no policy--is particularly dangerous, since there's a powerful argument to be made that the current admin doesn't have any policy either.
You are quite a situation in CA. This is what happens when the Dems go an a tax and spend binge when things are good. It's the same thing in Washington, really...it's just that they can borrow more.
on paper democratic thinking works. And it would work if the dems did what they put on paper. My whole problem with Dems are that they have hidden agenda and spend money in stupid ways. They have no concept of running a business that can make a profit. and they feel that they know whats best for voters better than the voters. and their are so many examples of this.
1. greenpeace has banned the use of DDT and now people (africans i think) are dying from maleria and crops are dying so more starvation will occur. DDT has been the only proven way to eliminate maleria, it was the only thing that worked in this country and is the only know working cure. Gtrrnpeace has also petitioned and banned the making of roads so that africans could get fresh water but greenpeace tells them No you dont want a road that will ruin your invironment you should continue to fetch water from that infested stream.
2. is it in Texas that 58 dems left the country to hide out in a Hloiday inn in oreagon to avoid having to vote in something that they know that they will lose. Evidently a congress has to have 100 people present to vote inn something. And since Dems know what is better for people than the voters do they are boycotting because they are not getting their way. and guess who is paying for them to sit by the pool at the holiday inn.
3. Parks and recreation, Instead of using the money we give them to protect the parks, buy more land, etc. They spend it on sending hundreads of low income black families to visit the national parks for free. Did we vote to give low income blacks a free all expence paid vacation? does this solve anything? I would have prefered to just let them give the money to them for rent.
4. right now the dems have on the california ballet something that says that a man can dress like a woman if he wants to at work. and if this is voted in it will mean that if you will not be able to tell one of your male salesman that he can not wear a bra, eye makeuo and a skirt. If you do you will be sued for 150 thousand dollars. The number one rule ion business is that you do not offend your clients. would you buy a car from a transvite. How would you like it if your 4 year olds teacher was a cross dresser. do you want to have that conversation with your 4 year old. Please realize that I am pro gay rights. But I am also a business owner and since i am in CA the demm vote is powerful and it will probably pass.
The point is that the democratic party waste money like no one else. Right now they are petetitioniong to have sexual understanding trainning in the boyscouts. Like it is the governments job to teach your kids that it is OK for a boy to love another boy in the boyscouts. Is nothing left to the parents anymore. I would be a believer in a big government. But, not anymore because a vote for big gov is a vote for big crazy government. Democrats take heed, look at what your dems are doing with the money. its like they are trying to bankrupt the country. Then again i am in CA so i am biase4d and i know it.
Quote:
[i]
How's the recall of Davis going? That would be something. [/B]
Davis recently released his plans for his next term and of course he blames the economy for tough times and plans to raise taxes across the board. Some of them them will even be trippled. He anounced several tax cuts as well but upon closer examination they were not tax cuts at all. He was just cutting down the amount that he was going to raise the tax. Plus he had several new domestic programs to spend money on. Basically his plans are to raise taxes and increase spending.
Yes, I think Davis will be recalled. over 100 thou signitures last time i checked
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. But I do love your really wild metaphorical examples " The criminal liberal media......Plastic, political, whores " Pretty colorful.
Don't believe me? Just keep watching.
Oh! Still in check.
I think that left wingers in this country are the only people in the world who think that SADDAm had no WOMD
2. is it in Texas that 58 dems left the country to hide out in a Hloiday inn in oreagon to avoid having to vote in something that they know that they will lose. Evidently a congress has to have 100 people present to vote inn something. And since Dems know what is better for people than the voters do they are boycotting because they are not getting their way. and guess who is paying for them to sit by the pool at the holiday inn.
This JC has to be a troll Democrat disguised as a Republican in order to make Republicans look like morons. There's no other explanation for passages such as above.
This really happened. Did you not hear about it? They literally hid out (and I think they are still there). I think the quorum was 100, too.
It's pretty ridiculous...but true!
They're still hiding out. They're in the Holiday Inn in Aardmore, OK. 53 of them. People are bringing them fruit baskets, from what I hear. Willie Nelson sent bandannas and whiskey. OK's newly-elected governor (a democrat) won't send in the state troopers to arrrest them (which is what the speaker of the house in Texas wants) and send them back.
The redistricting measure will apparently die tomorrow, and so they say they'll head back home so long as it won't get attached to any upcoming bills.
There are some really nasty politics going on down there in Texas.
They're still hiding out. They're in the Holiday Inn in Aardmore, OK. 53 of them. People are bringing them fruit baskets, from what I hear. Willie Nelson sent bandannas and whiskey. OK's newly-elected governor (a democrat) won't send in the state troopers to arrrest them (which is what the speaker of the house in Texas wants) and send them back.
The redistricting measure will apparently die tomorrow, and so they say they'll head back home so long as it won't get attached to any upcoming bills.
There are some really nasty politics going on down there in Texas.
It's apparently not the first time they've (Texas dems) done something like this. But it's understandable; their backs are against the wall, and there's nothing else they can do to stop a re-districting that's designed to consolidate Republican power in the state.
Comments
Originally posted by kraig911
oh oh... what a valid response to an argument
Yeah, but I'm still waiting to hear proof that this war was worth it. So this war saved the " entire world "?
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feelÉØ´and ngrsonal posturing than logic or fact.
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
Why WOMD has something do to with this thread is it's an example of how you are wrong about just about everything. The reasons you always have are born more of feeling and personal posturing than logic or fact.
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac:
Now that is rich. "Wrong about just about everything"? Such as? I maintain that WOMD will be found. To my knowledge, the most recetly discovered chem weapons trailer has not been disproven. There is overwhelming evidence: Odd chemical elements in the Euphrates, the trailers, documents, previous existence of said weapons, newly discovered ties to Al-Queda, even more recent ties to terror in Romania (check today's news), the absence of inspectors for almost five years....the list goes on. Knowing what we know, you are actually telling me that the weapons aren't there? Please.
Acutally, jimmac. that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Do you really feel this is an unreasonable scenario? If you do, then I maintain that YOU yourself are unreasonable. This a very plausible occurence given Iraq's ties to Syria. There were huge amounts of border traffic right up unilt the war began. Please tell me you will recant the above statement.
Once again, I quote:
I just had to post this again so I could get a good laugh. EVERY ONE of my positions is based on logic and an underlying moral code. I am more than happy to defend any such position in detail. The fact is that I (and many others) have been proven RIGHT on nearly everything liberals oppose. Liberals were wrong during the cold war, wrong during the Great Society, wrong during the stagflation era, wrong for Iraq in 1991, and wrong again with this war. More importantly, they were wrong on national security during Clinton's term and CONTINUE to be wrong on their strategy to attack Bush. It has failed, is failing, and will fail again in 2004. It's time for new leadership...that's the point. There hasn't been a Democratic President on the right side of most issues since JFK.
Once again, though....jimmac still hasn;t answered my question without resorting to the very rhetoric he accuses me of using: "What, speciffically, has the President done that you disagree with?"
That question can't be answered with some democratic catch phrase, like "tax cuts for the rich" or "he's a war monger", or "he wants to take away my civil rights". I want REAL reasons and positions, jimmac. Ask me the same about our previous President and I will present to you a whole LIST of factual, speciffic things that he did. I will then offer OPINIONS on more subjective aspects (personality, etc).
Go ahead, jimmac. Prove that I base my positions on nothing but emotion. I'm game.
You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in triplicate already.
He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ). He started a war without real provacation. The fact that they seem to be having such a hard time finding WOMD proves that the supposed threat was way over blown at best. And SDW this means he lied about their " proof ' that Saddam had WOMD. If they had proof where are they? They should have been easy to find. Most Bush supporters realize that now so they say " it doesn't matter. It was just good enough to get rid of Saddam. Forget our original reasons. "
I could go on but what's the point? I don't even like his quasi religious good ol' boy approach!
You could present your list but who would believe you? After all your crazy ramblings only desperate Bush supporters.
Come on! Tell us about the criminal liberal media again!
By the way you're still in check over that one.
Originally posted by trumptman
It ticked them off so bad they shut down the government, they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy.
*The government was never shut down and the president was never removed from ovice
*it was not personal, it was illeagle and he was breaking the law. If he was not president he would have gone to court or/and been fired.
*if Bush has sexual relations with an inturn i would impeach him. this country has moral values (at least some of us)
your statement that, "they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy." means that you condone this activity. to you there was no reason to complain about his affair unless it is an attempt to attack his policy. Which is what the left does all the time. Us right wingers tend to use policy to debate policy.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
I would speculate as that is all it is that the democrats are waiting a little longer into this to define themselves. If they get into details it will all get washed away and forgotten. If they wait until a time closer to the election and lets say "given democrat running for pres" articulates a vast agenda for the country this will contrast to some degree with that of Bush and co....
This is a sort of a wait and see kind of situation.
Fellowship
This is wishfull thinking
If the dems had something to say they would say it. instead of making thimselves look foolish by debating such important and newsworthy issues such as weather or not bush was AWOL or if he had a sock in his flightsuit to increase his manhood. The whole strategy is to attack bush attack attack. and bush is not attacking a n y b o d y!
if they are waiting to spring a last minute brilliant strategy they are sure acting dumb in the mean time. I am sorry to tell you that you have fools running for office. Clinton would not have done this. He would be debating a number of five point things by now.
You can maintain anything you want. It doesn't make it true however.
I really don't see any point going the very points we've been arguing about for over a year now. Why don't I like Bush? As if I haven't gone over it in CØ?Îlica?¡ already.
You are correct that just because I state something, that doesn't make it "true". I do feel confident in my positions, though.
Now, for the second part: You HAVEN'T been over it in triplicate. Not at all.
To begin, we have this statement:
He's clueless about the economy ( even some Greenspan has doubts about his approach ).
This is exactly the kind of statement I'm taking about. Clueless? That doesn't mean anything. You sound like friggin' Terry McCauliffe. Are you saying he just doesn't KNOW we have an economic slowdown right now? If you are NOT saying that, then what should he do? What would you do? What would the Democrats do? Did Bush cause the recession that started before he took office? You still, unbelievably, have NO ANSWER. You CAN'T answer because you have no specific policy that you can point to.
He started a war without real provacation. The fact that they seem to be having such a hard time finding WOMD proves that the supposed threat was way over blown at best. And SDW this means he lied about their " proof ' that Saddam had WOMD. If they had proof where are they? They should have been easy to find. Most Bush supporters realize that now so they say " it doesn't matter. It was just good enough to get rid of Saddam. Forget our original reasons. "
Without provocation? That's an OPINION, jimmac. And it's one I disagree with BIGTIME. Iraq violated the 1991 ceasefire for one thing. They fired on our aircraft on hundreds of occassions. They expressed open hatred of the US after 9/11 and openly praised the attacks. Not even LYBIA did that, jimmac. We KNOW they had WOMD. We KNOW the inspectors weren't there for almost 5 years. We have FOUND banned weapons. The man violated resolution after resolution, seventeen of them to be exact. NO PROVOCATION??? The definition of provocation has changed. If you'd like to have the policy of waiting to be attacked again, then that's fine....but don't expect most of the country to agree with you.
WOMD: When is the deadline for finding them, jimmac? The same nations that wanted to NOT have a deadline for inspectors are now screaming for us to find the weapons RIGHT NOW...even though the war ended only about 30 days ago. We go through 30 days, and you scream: "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS!?!?! Bush must be lying!?!?!"
"They should have been easy to find
According to who? You? In a nation the size of California? Show us all how it's done, jimmac.
I could go on but what's the point? I don't even like his quasi religious good ol' boy approach!
You could present your list but who would believe you? After all your crazy ramblings only desperate Bush supporters.
Come on! Tell us about the criminal liberal media again!
By the way you're still in check over that one
So, you don't like his personal demeanor. I can accept that. It's the only real point you have made....but I'll take it.
And the Criminal Liberal Media: It DOES exist. Obviously you don't watch much Peter Jennings and Dan Rather.
*The government was never shut down and the president was never removed from ovice
Yes. The government was shut down--at least partially--during Xmas of 1995. Here's a nice google search on the subject. And no, the president wasn't removed from office. But they sure as hell tried, didn't they?
*it was not personal, it was illeagle and he was breaking the law.
Please show me the LAW that says it is illegal for the President to have an intern perform oral sex on him in the oval office.
Clinton was impeached for lying about whether or not he'd had sexual relations with Lewinsky. In a deposition about a land deal. They couldn't stick the land deal, and so they went after his relationship with Lewinsky.
If he was not president he would have gone to court or/and been fired.
You analogy doesn't work, since he would be the boss. He's going to fire himself? For having an affair? For engaging in consensual sex acts between two adults?
*if Bush has sexual relations with an inturn i would impeach him. this country has moral values (at least some of us)
Please show me where in the constitution it says that the president has to have "moral values"? And who determines what those are? Is there some measure I'm not aware of?
your statement that, "they impeached him over oral sex. The made it personal because they couldn't deal with him on policy." means that you condone this activity. to you there was no reason to complain about his affair unless it is an attempt to attack his policy. Which is what the left does all the time. Us right wingers tend to use policy to debate policy.
A couple of things: 1) Your first point suggests that you are, in fact, NOT engaging any of this from a policy standpoint. 2) The current admin doesn't seem to have any policies other than hollow slogans ("No child left behind," "compassionate conservative," "Let's roll," "family values," and "Clinton Sucks"). I have no idea what their foreign policy is other than "bomb people" and "use the US military as a means of nation-building."
The one real danger of this tactic I'm hearing from the right--to claim the left has no policy--is particularly dangerous, since there's a powerful argument to be made that the current admin doesn't have any policy either.
WOMD: When is the deadline for finding them, jimmac?
Apparently it's already up, since the WOMD detection teams have already left empty-handed.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You are quite a situation in CA. This is what happens when the Dems go an a tax and spend binge when things are good. It's the same thing in Washington, really...it's just that they can borrow more.
on paper democratic thinking works. And it would work if the dems did what they put on paper. My whole problem with Dems are that they have hidden agenda and spend money in stupid ways. They have no concept of running a business that can make a profit. and they feel that they know whats best for voters better than the voters. and their are so many examples of this.
1. greenpeace has banned the use of DDT and now people (africans i think) are dying from maleria and crops are dying so more starvation will occur. DDT has been the only proven way to eliminate maleria, it was the only thing that worked in this country and is the only know working cure. Gtrrnpeace has also petitioned and banned the making of roads so that africans could get fresh water but greenpeace tells them No you dont want a road that will ruin your invironment you should continue to fetch water from that infested stream.
2. is it in Texas that 58 dems left the country to hide out in a Hloiday inn in oreagon to avoid having to vote in something that they know that they will lose. Evidently a congress has to have 100 people present to vote inn something. And since Dems know what is better for people than the voters do they are boycotting because they are not getting their way. and guess who is paying for them to sit by the pool at the holiday inn.
3. Parks and recreation, Instead of using the money we give them to protect the parks, buy more land, etc. They spend it on sending hundreads of low income black families to visit the national parks for free. Did we vote to give low income blacks a free all expence paid vacation? does this solve anything? I would have prefered to just let them give the money to them for rent.
4. right now the dems have on the california ballet something that says that a man can dress like a woman if he wants to at work. and if this is voted in it will mean that if you will not be able to tell one of your male salesman that he can not wear a bra, eye makeuo and a skirt. If you do you will be sued for 150 thousand dollars. The number one rule ion business is that you do not offend your clients. would you buy a car from a transvite. How would you like it if your 4 year olds teacher was a cross dresser. do you want to have that conversation with your 4 year old. Please realize that I am pro gay rights. But I am also a business owner and since i am in CA the demm vote is powerful and it will probably pass.
The point is that the democratic party waste money like no one else. Right now they are petetitioniong to have sexual understanding trainning in the boyscouts. Like it is the governments job to teach your kids that it is OK for a boy to love another boy in the boyscouts. Is nothing left to the parents anymore. I would be a believer in a big government. But, not anymore because a vote for big gov is a vote for big crazy government. Democrats take heed, look at what your dems are doing with the money. its like they are trying to bankrupt the country. Then again i am in CA so i am biase4d and i know it.
[i]
How's the recall of Davis going? That would be something. [/B]
Davis recently released his plans for his next term and of course he blames the economy for tough times and plans to raise taxes across the board. Some of them them will even be trippled. He anounced several tax cuts as well but upon closer examination they were not tax cuts at all. He was just cutting down the amount that he was going to raise the tax. Plus he had several new domestic programs to spend money on. Basically his plans are to raise taxes and increase spending.
Yes, I think Davis will be recalled. over 100 thou signitures last time i checked
Originally posted by jimmac
" Sure sacrifices had to be made, but I see it as a stroke of brilliance. "
For George Bush that is................
huh?
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm sure they just shipped them out of the country when they heard there was going to be a war. Uh, huh.
Yeah, that's about it in a nutshell. But I do love your really wild metaphorical examples " The criminal liberal media......Plastic, political, whores " Pretty colorful.
Don't believe me? Just keep watching.
Oh! Still in check.
I think that left wingers in this country are the only people in the world who think that SADDAm had no WOMD
Originally posted by jimmac
Yeah, but I'm still waiting to hear proof that this war was worth it. So this war saved the " entire world "?
well what proof are you looking for?
what do you want
what would make it WORTH IT for you
Originally posted by JC
2. is it in Texas that 58 dems left the country to hide out in a Hloiday inn in oreagon to avoid having to vote in something that they know that they will lose. Evidently a congress has to have 100 people present to vote inn something. And since Dems know what is better for people than the voters do they are boycotting because they are not getting their way. and guess who is paying for them to sit by the pool at the holiday inn.
This JC has to be a troll Democrat disguised as a Republican in order to make Republicans look like morons. There's no other explanation for passages such as above.
This really happened. Did you not hear about it? They literally hid out (and I think they are still there). I think the quorum was 100, too.
It's pretty ridiculous...but true!
Originally posted by SDW2001
^
This really happened. Did you not hear about it? They literally hid out (and I think they are still there). I think the quorum was 100, too.
It's pretty ridiculous...but true!
They're still hiding out. They're in the Holiday Inn in Aardmore, OK. 53 of them. People are bringing them fruit baskets, from what I hear. Willie Nelson sent bandannas and whiskey. OK's newly-elected governor (a democrat) won't send in the state troopers to arrrest them (which is what the speaker of the house in Texas wants) and send them back.
The redistricting measure will apparently die tomorrow, and so they say they'll head back home so long as it won't get attached to any upcoming bills.
There are some really nasty politics going on down there in Texas.
Originally posted by midwinter
They're still hiding out. They're in the Holiday Inn in Aardmore, OK. 53 of them. People are bringing them fruit baskets, from what I hear. Willie Nelson sent bandannas and whiskey. OK's newly-elected governor (a democrat) won't send in the state troopers to arrrest them (which is what the speaker of the house in Texas wants) and send them back.
The redistricting measure will apparently die tomorrow, and so they say they'll head back home so long as it won't get attached to any upcoming bills.
There are some really nasty politics going on down there in Texas.
What a ridiculous move.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What a ridiculous move.
It's apparently not the first time they've (Texas dems) done something like this. But it's understandable; their backs are against the wall, and there's nothing else they can do to stop a re-districting that's designed to consolidate Republican power in the state.