...In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.
And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them. Many of their families on the homefront - mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and children - were forced to raise the money to buy it for them. Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor. Today, I call on President Bush to support a law now in Congress to reimburse each and every family who had to buy the body armor this Administration failed to provide.
This is the man you're supporting. This guy voted against nearly everything he's talking about above...including the $87B war funding request for....wait for it.... materials for the troops. He voted against 17 major weapons systems. He voted to cut intelligence.
Exactly, and the uneducated people in America do not know any better. They think, "this guy will help me get more money-I dont know how but he says he will."
Pfft!
these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million
Kinda like when Dean "suggested that America should be planning for a time when it is not the world's greatest superpower: 'We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military.' "
Here, let me close that door so you can open it into your face again...
All these candidates are going to say stuuuuupid things... Bushie ain't too far, just wait. He may say stupud things like the "imports" comment, but Kerry does not back up what he says with his meanie face. Like "who are the 'crooks' and what have they done" and "what international leaders" ?
C'mon Johnnie. Play ball when you flap your elitist northeastern gums.
The title of this thread is a no-brainer. All politicians lie. All of them. It is called "electibility." Of what I have seen, the only one that is honest about who and what he is- is "NADAR.
OK a few things.
1. China will be bigger than us someday. Economy, military, everything. They're just bigger. Period. They already have a larger standing Army and where do you think most of our trade deficit goes?
2. elitist northern gums huh? Why the HELL are you quoting something Kerry said when he did not know the MIC was on? It was an offhand comment just like when Bush called a reporter a "Major league asshole." I didn't see him backing that one up.
3. Do you understand the concept of "electibility"? It has nothing to do with who is honest about who he is yada yada. Bush is an extremely dishonest President. Sure Clinton was too. But so is Bush. What about the cocaine he did, going AWOL, the Iraq pre-war intel, the Cheney energy meetings, lies about anything scientific at all from global warming to energy use to stem cells, what about virtually every number he quoted in debates, like all his blather about how his tax cut is great for poor people etc? But I digress. The point is "Nadar" has less electibility than even Al Sharpton. Maybe even Kucinich. Hell liberals (like me) hate him more than Republicans!
these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million
What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.
Republicans think they Republicans based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a republican one thinks that they represent equal opportunity, and steady-minded policy. They think that a Republican has a responsibility for himself, and they want to fight the evil liberals who want nothing but to take their money away at the benefit of do-nothings. More social/economic friction against less social/economic friction and value of the individual....
This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78.
Republicans think they Republicans based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a republican one thinks that they represent equal opportunity, and steady-minded policy. They think that a Republican has a responsibility for himself, and they want to fight the evil liberals who want nothing but to take their money away at the benefit of do-nothings. More social/economic friction against less social/economic friction and value of the individual....
This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78.
What a sad case you are. Liberals think they are so enlightened, they think the Republicans are selfish do nothings...it can go on and on.
Maybe this Spain attack will show more people that Bush was right, defense is a priority...where does Kerry stand on that? I dont think he even knows. The Democrats dont have a Democrat running this year. They have a do-nothing wannabe.
What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.
No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc...
No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc...
They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.
1. Yep. China is a problem. But our technology will most certainly outdo theirs on the battlefield. Sure, mass numbers, but with early 80s equipment?
2. Take a pill man. Bush has elitist NE gums too, a Maine Yankee playing cowboy Texas dress-up. Mic or no mic, he said it. Talk to HIM about it. There was no need for B/C to back up the "asshole" thing. Everyone knows that reporter was one of the most anti-Bush attack dogs in 2000. Would I have said it? No... bad politics. Just like Kerry's politics. But you must have missed my earlier post... Bush's comment was about a reporter, Kerry's was about his opponent. (Let's not rehash this again in this thread as in the 3+ others)
3. Be careful with that word. "Hate" - We are competitors, not enemies. And major points for rattling off that string of Bush flusterclucks- (not worth my time) As far as electibility, my PoliSci MA would point to "yes" I do understand that topic. Politicans have to appear as moderate as possible to get elected in America, and this requires a certain level of disingenuous-ness, if a person has any sort of idelogical foundation whatsoever. Except for McCain. He changes sides more than a basketball.
Just remember how to to tell when a politician is lying: His lips are moving. Both of these bozos will say what ever they can get away with to get elected. Bush is going to be far more conserative throughout his campaign as he is the sitting president. Kerry in the next couple of days is going to have to throttle back his comments as he will have to shift his campaign strategy from trying to reach the far left liberals who vote in the primaries, to reach the vast middle america voting block who will decide who is going to be president. Not the 125,000 who voted in Iowa, that set this whole Kerry phenomana going!
They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.
Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question?
Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question?
How do you know they avoided it? Jesus, you are a total pessimistic cynic.
Comments
...In dangerous parts of Iraq, our helicopters are flying missions without the best available anti-missile systems. Un-armored Humvees are falling victim to road-side bombs and small-arms fire and the Bush Administration waited through month after month of ambushes to act.
And tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that - with danger around every corner - there wasn't enough body armor to protect them. Many of their families on the homefront - mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and children - were forced to raise the money to buy it for them. Families should be sending pictures and care packages to Iraq - and the Department of Defense should be sending the body armor. Today, I call on President Bush to support a law now in Congress to reimburse each and every family who had to buy the body armor this Administration failed to provide.
This is the man you're supporting. This guy voted against nearly everything he's talking about above...including the $87B war funding request for....wait for it.... materials for the troops. He voted against 17 major weapons systems. He voted to cut intelligence.
What total bullshit.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
Exactly, and the uneducated people in America do not know any better. They think, "this guy will help me get more money-I dont know how but he says he will."
Pfft!
these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million
Kinda like when Dean "suggested that America should be planning for a time when it is not the world's greatest superpower: 'We have to take a different approach [to diplomacy]. We won't always have the strongest military.' "
Here, let me close that door so you can open it into your face again...
All these candidates are going to say stuuuuupid things... Bushie ain't too far, just wait. He may say stupud things like the "imports" comment, but Kerry does not back up what he says with his meanie face. Like "who are the 'crooks' and what have they done" and "what international leaders" ?
C'mon Johnnie. Play ball when you flap your elitist northeastern gums.
The title of this thread is a no-brainer. All politicians lie. All of them. It is called "electibility." Of what I have seen, the only one that is honest about who and what he is- is "NADAR.
OK a few things.
1. China will be bigger than us someday. Economy, military, everything. They're just bigger. Period. They already have a larger standing Army and where do you think most of our trade deficit goes?
2. elitist northern gums huh? Why the HELL are you quoting something Kerry said when he did not know the MIC was on? It was an offhand comment just like when Bush called a reporter a "Major league asshole." I didn't see him backing that one up.
3. Do you understand the concept of "electibility"? It has nothing to do with who is honest about who he is yada yada. Bush is an extremely dishonest President. Sure Clinton was too. But so is Bush. What about the cocaine he did, going AWOL, the Iraq pre-war intel, the Cheney energy meetings, lies about anything scientific at all from global warming to energy use to stem cells, what about virtually every number he quoted in debates, like all his blather about how his tax cut is great for poor people etc? But I digress. The point is "Nadar" has less electibility than even Al Sharpton. Maybe even Kucinich.
Originally posted by SDW2001
This from a former Deaniac. Yeeeah!
Was that THIS "Yeeeah!" ???
8)
Originally posted by a_greer
these are the same people that buy crap from guys on tv who says that this magic pill will(fill in the blank) or this workbook will make you an instant million
What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Was that THIS "Yeeeah!" ???
8)
<picks up megaphone> close GB and step away from the keyboard...
This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78.
Originally posted by billybobsky
Republicans think they Republicans based on a definition that they think it stands for. By being a republican one thinks that they represent equal opportunity, and steady-minded policy. They think that a Republican has a responsibility for himself, and they want to fight the evil liberals who want nothing but to take their money away at the benefit of do-nothings. More social/economic friction against less social/economic friction and value of the individual....
This parody brought to you by the letters M, E, S, I, A, T, O, and H, and by the number 14.78.
What a sad case you are. Liberals think they are so enlightened, they think the Republicans are selfish do nothings...it can go on and on.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
What kind of argument is that? The Republicans want you to be educated, they want everyone to have an equal opporunity to be educated and thus be able to wade through the potential downfalls within the system.
No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc...
Originally posted by billybobsky
No. Just no. No Child Left Behind is a exactly the opposite of its name... Regardless, if you really think the republicans want the american public to be educated they would have come out saying that the american public is wrong about its belief that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11... etc etc etc...
They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
What a sad case you are. Liberals think they are so enlightened, they think the Republicans are selfish do nothings...it can go on and on.
Huh? Do you know what satire is?
God, satire is dead...
I like how you insist on saying what liberals think and all...
1. Yep. China is a problem. But our technology will most certainly outdo theirs on the battlefield. Sure, mass numbers, but with early 80s equipment?
2. Take a pill man. Bush has elitist NE gums too, a Maine Yankee playing cowboy Texas dress-up. Mic or no mic, he said it. Talk to HIM about it. There was no need for B/C to back up the "asshole" thing. Everyone knows that reporter was one of the most anti-Bush attack dogs in 2000. Would I have said it? No... bad politics. Just like Kerry's politics. But you must have missed my earlier post... Bush's comment was about a reporter, Kerry's was about his opponent. (Let's not rehash this again in this thread as in the 3+ others)
3. Be careful with that word. "Hate" - We are competitors, not enemies. And major points for rattling off that string of Bush flusterclucks- (not worth my time) As far as electibility, my PoliSci MA would point to "yes" I do understand that topic. Politicans have to appear as moderate as possible to get elected in America, and this requires a certain level of disingenuous-ness, if a person has any sort of idelogical foundation whatsoever. Except for McCain. He changes sides more than a basketball.
Originally posted by a_greer
<picks up megaphone> close GB and step away from the keyboard...
Coolest post this week.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
They never said that. Its called aiding and abetting terrorism and terrorists.
Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question?
Originally posted by billybobsky
Yes they didn't say that. Why didn't they set the record straight when the polls came out saying that by far most americans believed he was responsible for 9/11? In fact, why did cheney et al. avoid the question?
How do you know they avoided it? Jesus, you are a total pessimistic cynic.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
How do you know they avoided it? Jesus, you are a total pessimistic cynic.
Because I saw the interviews... Not a pessimistic cynic... A realistic one.