How could anyone vote for George W. Bush?
- Thread starter ZForce915
- Start date
famousmort
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
The quote is sometimes attributed to the Reagan landslide, sometimes to Nixon's re-election. A New York film critic, shocked at the Republican victory, cries: "How could he have won? I don't know anyone who voted for him!" Just because you can't see anyone voting that way doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people who will.
I'd like to bring it back to the topic title. I, for one, will be voting for Bush. There are many different issues to consider, as discussed by the previous posters. The most important issue to me is national security. After all, the tax rate doesn't matter when the rich man and the poor man are dead (though, it's good to know the government will no longer be charging people for the luxury of being dead). Between Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, GWB is the clear choice.
Kerry's declared position on the terror war is that he will do more to work with our allies and respect their positions to get better results from them. The Kerry position on the Iraq war could therefore be described as for the war, but only if our allies (specifically France and Germany, but ignoring all of Europe south or east of Berlin) agree it's the right thing to do. Acting to strike against terrorists and those who support/shelter them is not something we can necessarily always come to a concensus on, especially when our "allies" have conflicting interests. Knowing what's right and knowing what's needed are useless if you cannot act independently. Pres. Bush has proven that he will act proactively and independently for our interests.
Does anyone else realize if we had a President Gore right now that not only would 9-11 have happened, but we'd still be at the United Nations arguing over what kind of sanctions to put on Afghanistan???
Speaking of Afghanistan, where's that pipeline the war protesters told us would be coming if we invaded?
I'd like to bring it back to the topic title. I, for one, will be voting for Bush. There are many different issues to consider, as discussed by the previous posters. The most important issue to me is national security. After all, the tax rate doesn't matter when the rich man and the poor man are dead (though, it's good to know the government will no longer be charging people for the luxury of being dead). Between Pres. Bush and Sen. Kerry, GWB is the clear choice.
Kerry's declared position on the terror war is that he will do more to work with our allies and respect their positions to get better results from them. The Kerry position on the Iraq war could therefore be described as for the war, but only if our allies (specifically France and Germany, but ignoring all of Europe south or east of Berlin) agree it's the right thing to do. Acting to strike against terrorists and those who support/shelter them is not something we can necessarily always come to a concensus on, especially when our "allies" have conflicting interests. Knowing what's right and knowing what's needed are useless if you cannot act independently. Pres. Bush has proven that he will act proactively and independently for our interests.
Does anyone else realize if we had a President Gore right now that not only would 9-11 have happened, but we'd still be at the United Nations arguing over what kind of sanctions to put on Afghanistan???
Speaking of Afghanistan, where's that pipeline the war protesters told us would be coming if we invaded?
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='chosen1s'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']
I am going to try to answer your question as best as I can.
1. From what I believe and have read they did have an idea that there was some sort of terrorist threat. They never really saw it as a serious one though and that is troubling to me. The book that recently came out by Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" says how there was evidence of a possible attack in the future, but not enough was done. Plus if Gore was in office when that happened the repubs would want his head on a stick.
2. The newest book byBob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" that came out says how Bush had planned to go into Iraq no matter what. Woodward alleging that Saudi Prince Bandar was told by Rumsfeld two months before the invasion of Iraq that it was "going to happen," and he could "take that to the bank". Now it all comes down to who you believe, both have reasons to lie but I feel that Bush wanted an Iraqi conflict to divert from the problems at home. He keeps spending and says it for the war but the problems at home keep adding up and this is an easy way to avoid them.[/quote]
My follow-up:
1) Many people believe that Clinton did nothing about terror warnings and by the time Bush got in he was way behind where we should have been. I would have blamed Gore moreso not because I'm a Republican, but because he A) Was in the middle of all that for 8 years and let it get that far and B) As President, with all that background, certainly should have been aware of the problem and been all over it. But no, I honestly don't think Republicans would be trying to use 9/11 against a Democrat in the fashion that the Dems are to the Republicans if Gore had responded the way Bush did. Nobody made a big fuss about many of Clinton's military shanannagins (Sp) and they were not all that great.
2) Why would it be wrong for Bush to have planned to go to Iraq since 2000? Clinton himself said that they posed a real threat to our National security. I don't see why what you wrote is negative about Bush. Clinton all but said "Clearly Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with" (right before bombing them) and then continued to say the same thing. Why would Bush not have a plan?[/quote]
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. Adultury is the only thing they could get Clinton on and they dug their claws in to it. Think what O'reilly and Rush would say about Gore if he "let" 9/11 happen like Bush, they would be unstoppable. They are vultures that try to pick apart. Listen to the interview between O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly falls apart when dealing with someone he just can't mute.
Having a strategy for an attack and saying that their is one is two different things. I have no prob with a pres having a plan in case of emergency. But when we have our troops on a wild goose chase for Osama its not necessary to start something else. Then we had rumsfeld talking of a possible war with North Korea too. Iraq was no immediate threat. We could have waited for a UN decision. We could have waited the 48 hours like we said we would before the attack, but Bush is the cowboy, but he doesnt put it on his backs, he puts in on the back of our troops. There is a misconception of the left that they dont like soliders. I love our troops as much as any righty but I dont want them to die for nothing. This is going to turn into another Vietnam. There are more troops getting killed everyday and we can't leave now until its completly democrasized, which just means more uneeded death.
I am going to try to answer your question as best as I can.
1. From what I believe and have read they did have an idea that there was some sort of terrorist threat. They never really saw it as a serious one though and that is troubling to me. The book that recently came out by Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" says how there was evidence of a possible attack in the future, but not enough was done. Plus if Gore was in office when that happened the repubs would want his head on a stick.
2. The newest book byBob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" that came out says how Bush had planned to go into Iraq no matter what. Woodward alleging that Saudi Prince Bandar was told by Rumsfeld two months before the invasion of Iraq that it was "going to happen," and he could "take that to the bank". Now it all comes down to who you believe, both have reasons to lie but I feel that Bush wanted an Iraqi conflict to divert from the problems at home. He keeps spending and says it for the war but the problems at home keep adding up and this is an easy way to avoid them.[/quote]
My follow-up:
1) Many people believe that Clinton did nothing about terror warnings and by the time Bush got in he was way behind where we should have been. I would have blamed Gore moreso not because I'm a Republican, but because he A) Was in the middle of all that for 8 years and let it get that far and B) As President, with all that background, certainly should have been aware of the problem and been all over it. But no, I honestly don't think Republicans would be trying to use 9/11 against a Democrat in the fashion that the Dems are to the Republicans if Gore had responded the way Bush did. Nobody made a big fuss about many of Clinton's military shanannagins (Sp) and they were not all that great.
2) Why would it be wrong for Bush to have planned to go to Iraq since 2000? Clinton himself said that they posed a real threat to our National security. I don't see why what you wrote is negative about Bush. Clinton all but said "Clearly Iraq is a threat that must be dealt with" (right before bombing them) and then continued to say the same thing. Why would Bush not have a plan?[/quote]
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. Adultury is the only thing they could get Clinton on and they dug their claws in to it. Think what O'reilly and Rush would say about Gore if he "let" 9/11 happen like Bush, they would be unstoppable. They are vultures that try to pick apart. Listen to the interview between O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly falls apart when dealing with someone he just can't mute.
Having a strategy for an attack and saying that their is one is two different things. I have no prob with a pres having a plan in case of emergency. But when we have our troops on a wild goose chase for Osama its not necessary to start something else. Then we had rumsfeld talking of a possible war with North Korea too. Iraq was no immediate threat. We could have waited for a UN decision. We could have waited the 48 hours like we said we would before the attack, but Bush is the cowboy, but he doesnt put it on his backs, he puts in on the back of our troops. There is a misconception of the left that they dont like soliders. I love our troops as much as any righty but I dont want them to die for nothing. This is going to turn into another Vietnam. There are more troops getting killed everyday and we can't leave now until its completly democrasized, which just means more uneeded death.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
why dont you tell me what is happening there now
> > Subject: George Bush Resume
> > Seeking Job:
> >
> > Past Work Experience
> >
> > GEORGE W. BUSH
> > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
> > Washington, DC 20520
> >
> > EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
> >
> > Law Enforcement:
> > I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
> > the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my
> > driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has
> > been "lost" and is not available.
> >
> >
> >
> > Military:
> > I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
> > I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my
> > drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to
> > avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
> >
> >
> > College:
> > I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
> > I was a cheerleader.
> >
> >
> > PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
> >
> > I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in
> > the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an Oil
> > company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went
> > bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas
> > Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using
> > taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the
> > oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor
> > of Texas.
> >
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
> >
> > I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
> > making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure,
> > Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in
> > America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune
> > of billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most
> > executions by any governor in American history. With the help of my
> > brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to
> > the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000
> > votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
> > I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a
> > criminal record.
> >
> > I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over
> > one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and
> > effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for
> > the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record
> > for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set
> > the all- time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I
> > set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
> > U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million
> > Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. I'm
> > proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
> > administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire,"
> > Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
> >
> > I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by
> > a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder
> > for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest
> > lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth
> > Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.
> > History, Enron.
> >
> > My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
> > to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election
> > decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton
> > against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
> > investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
> > investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I
> > presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused
> > to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was
> > revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
> > history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to
> > be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted
> > criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. I
> > created the Ministry of Homeland security, the largest bureaucracy
> > in the history of the United States government. I've broken more
> > international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the
> > first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove
> > the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S.
> > from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspector's
> > access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby
> > have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the
> > first President in history to refuse United Nations election
> > inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
> >
> > I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
> > President since the advent of television. I set the all-time record
> > for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off
> > the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security
> > failure in U.S. history. I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S.
> > after ! the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later
> > made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest
> > failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the all-time
> > record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in
> > public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
> > protests against any person in the history of mankind.
> >
> > I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
> > pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign
> > nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the
> > majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut
> > health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
> > benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime. In
> > my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
> > attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am
> > the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
> > (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
> > security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker
> > Buster," a WMD.
> >
> > I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden
> > [sic] to justice.
> >
> > RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
> > All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my
> > father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All
> > records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
> > bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
> > view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
> > Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed
> > in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
> > Seeking Job:
> >
> > Past Work Experience
> >
> > GEORGE W. BUSH
> > 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
> > Washington, DC 20520
> >
> > EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:
> >
> > Law Enforcement:
> > I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under
> > the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my
> > driver's license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has
> > been "lost" and is not available.
> >
> >
> >
> > Military:
> > I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL.
> > I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my
> > drug use. By joining the Texas Air National Guard, I was able to
> > avoid combat duty in Vietnam.
> >
> >
> > College:
> > I graduated from Yale University with a low C average.
> > I was a cheerleader.
> >
> >
> > PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:
> >
> > I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in
> > the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an Oil
> > company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went
> > bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas
> > Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using
> > taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the
> > oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor
> > of Texas.
> >
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS
> >
> > I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies,
> > making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure,
> > Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in
> > America. I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune
> > of billions in borrowed money. I set the record for the most
> > executions by any governor in American history. With the help of my
> > brother, the governor of Florida, and my father's appointments to
> > the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000
> > votes.
> >
> >
> >
> > ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:
> > I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a
> > criminal record.
> >
> > I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over
> > one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and
> > effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for
> > the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record
> > for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set
> > the all- time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I
> > set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the
> > U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million
> > Americans lost their jobs and that trend continues every month. I'm
> > proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any
> > administration in U.S. history. My "poorest millionaire,"
> > Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.
> >
> > I set the record for most campaign fundraising trips by
> > a U.S. President. I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder
> > for receiving the most corporate campaign donations. My largest
> > lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth
> > Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.
> > History, Enron.
> >
> > My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys
> > to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election
> > decision. I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton
> > against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent
> > investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent
> > investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I
> > presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused
> > to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was
> > revealed. I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S.
> > history. I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to
> > be awarded government contracts. I appointed more convicted
> > criminals to administration than any President in U.S. history. I
> > created the Ministry of Homeland security, the largest bureaucracy
> > in the history of the United States government. I've broken more
> > international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the
> > first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove
> > the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S.
> > from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspector's
> > access to U.S. "prisoners of war" detainees and thereby
> > have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the
> > first President in history to refuse United Nations election
> > inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).
> >
> > I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any
> > President since the advent of television. I set the all-time record
> > for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off
> > the entire month of August, I presided over the worst security
> > failure in U.S. history. I garnered the most sympathy for the U.S.
> > after ! the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later
> > made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest
> > failure of diplomacy in world history. I have set the all-time
> > record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in
> > public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for
> > protests against any person in the history of mankind.
> >
> > I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked,
> > pre-emptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign
> > nation. I did so against the will of the United Nations, the
> > majority of U.S. citizens, and the world community. I have cut
> > health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty
> > benefits for active duty troops and their families -- in wartime. In
> > my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for
> > attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends. I am
> > the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans
> > (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and
> > security. I am supporting development of a nuclear "Tactical Bunker
> > Buster," a WMD.
> >
> > I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden
> > [sic] to justice.
> >
> > RECORDS AND REFERENCES:
> > All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my
> > father's library, sealed and unavailable for public view. All
> > records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my
> > bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public
> > view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my
> > Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed
> > in secrecy and unavailable for public review.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Amen Valkryst, the truth needs to be told
Medium_Pimpin
CAGiversary!
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='RichD1'][quote name='FaintDeftone']I am voting for Kerry. I don't know much about him, but he's not Bush and that's all I care about. Bush can go to hell.[/quote]
Don't shaq-fuing vote if you don't know what you're voting for.
[/quote]
I agree voting half ass is stupid, and you may be called to jury duty if youre registered to vote.
Then again, Jury Duty>>>No money, no job, no rights.
Vote for kerry!
Don't shaq-fuing vote if you don't know what you're voting for.
[/quote]
I agree voting half ass is stupid, and you may be called to jury duty if youre registered to vote.
Then again, Jury Duty>>>No money, no job, no rights.
Vote for kerry!
[quote name='RichD1'][quote name='FaintDeftone']I am voting for Kerry. I don't know much about him, but he's not Bush and that's all I care about. Bush can go to hell.[/quote]
Don't shaq-fuing vote if you don't know what you're voting for.
http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/
[/quote]
Your damn right, Rich. Rich? You rock. Bring back Clinton!
Don't shaq-fuing vote if you don't know what you're voting for.
http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/
Your damn right, Rich. Rich? You rock. Bring back Clinton!
[quote name='Valkryst']> > Subject: George Bush Resume
> > Seeking Job:
> >
> > Past Work Experience
> >
> > PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.[/quote]
Nice job cutting and pasting from your lame email. You could have at least pulled out the little "forward arrows".
If a person's past failures determine their ability to succeed as President, I suggest you look at Abraham Lincoln's job credentials when he became President.
Get your own opinions, study the reality of cause and effect, and stop parroting what your friends and family tell you to think.
> > Seeking Job:
> >
> > Past Work Experience
> >
> > PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.[/quote]
Nice job cutting and pasting from your lame email. You could have at least pulled out the little "forward arrows".
If a person's past failures determine their ability to succeed as President, I suggest you look at Abraham Lincoln's job credentials when he became President.
Get your own opinions, study the reality of cause and effect, and stop parroting what your friends and family tell you to think.
[quote name='Valkryst']Oh yeah, and if you couldn't tell.
I'd vote for anyone but Bush.
Since Kerry is the man this year, he gets my vote.[/quote]
Really? How about Hitler? Stalin? Jeffrey Dahmer? Anybody but Bush? Because our lives are SO much worse now than they were 4 years ago. You know, after our country was attacked and the 2 pillars of our economy were reduced to rubble during an economic downturn (which began under the former President). Yeah, our President totally crumbled under the pressure.
Do you realize what that could have done to our economy? Do you realize what would have happened if some cowardly little people-pleaser had been in office and not taken a firm stand against terrorists? Please people, stop listening to the talking heads and put SOME effort into educating yourself before you vote for all of our President.
I'd vote for anyone but Bush.
Since Kerry is the man this year, he gets my vote.[/quote]
Really? How about Hitler? Stalin? Jeffrey Dahmer? Anybody but Bush? Because our lives are SO much worse now than they were 4 years ago. You know, after our country was attacked and the 2 pillars of our economy were reduced to rubble during an economic downturn (which began under the former President). Yeah, our President totally crumbled under the pressure.
Do you realize what that could have done to our economy? Do you realize what would have happened if some cowardly little people-pleaser had been in office and not taken a firm stand against terrorists? Please people, stop listening to the talking heads and put SOME effort into educating yourself before you vote for all of our President.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CaseyRyback']Lotteries are usually used for education. Using state funds from the lottery to pay for the education of citizens is something that should be done. It provides incentive for people who could not afford to go to school, and makes those in public education take things more seriously[/quote]
Let me clear this up right now...I work for a school district in South Carolina. SC has a state lottery. The money earned from the lottery is supposed to go to education. Does it? Actually, yes. Did it improve the schools? Not in the slightest. Why? Because once you sell the people on the 'lottery for education', EVERY CENT of money earmarked for education outside of lottery funds gets scrutinized. For every dollar the lottery brings in, educational programs can expect to lose that same dollar from general budget funding. Don't be duped. It might work for a year or two, but after that, fueding politicians will find a way to get their cut and bring home the pork.
Let me clear this up right now...I work for a school district in South Carolina. SC has a state lottery. The money earned from the lottery is supposed to go to education. Does it? Actually, yes. Did it improve the schools? Not in the slightest. Why? Because once you sell the people on the 'lottery for education', EVERY CENT of money earmarked for education outside of lottery funds gets scrutinized. For every dollar the lottery brings in, educational programs can expect to lose that same dollar from general budget funding. Don't be duped. It might work for a year or two, but after that, fueding politicians will find a way to get their cut and bring home the pork.
LeviathynX
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 2 (100%)
This topic is like asking why does anyone buy Madden 200X games?
Just let that one simmer for awhile!
Just let that one simmer for awhile!
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. Adultury is the only thing they could get Clinton on and they dug their claws in to it. Think what O'reilly and Rush would say about Gore if he "let" 9/11 happen like Bush, they would be unstoppable. They are vultures that try to pick apart. Listen to the interview between O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly falls apart when dealing with someone he just can't mute.[/quote]
This is one issue that really bugs me. This has been said a million times, but must be said again. The VAST MAJORITY of Republicans/Right Wing who wanted Clinton impeached were and still are concerned about his lying to the grand jury. Remember him saying "that depends on the definition of the word 'is'"? The courts more or less confirmed it when his Presidency was over and they penalized his legal license. Just look around at this site. Lots of good honest people looking for deals, but also lots of people who think if they can "manipulate the truth" to get what they want it's Ok. I certainly don't think Clinton is single-handedly responsible for people's honesty, but as the President he needs to be above that and whether or not he likes it he is up there on the stage setting the example. If President Clinton can get away with lying to a Grand Jury, why shouldn't I? THAT IS THE ISSUE.
It's amazing to me that people justify what he did by saying it was a witch-hunt. You guys all question Bush's actions and that one moron who cut and pasted from his email questions what Bush was doing while in office, but nobody thinks it's irresponsible that Clinton is getting a BJ while he's supposed to be paying attention to National Security? He shoots a couple of missiles at a camel in the Middle East when he had Osama offered to him on a silver platter and then you people blame Bush when 911 happens years later?
Finally, let's say the Repubs were ALL WRONG on that whole Clinton thing. Let me get your position straight - it was WRONG for them to over-dramatize situations and spread lies about President Clinton but now it's Ok for the Democrats to do the same and this is justified because the Republicans did it first? This is what really gets me. Lying today when National Security is at stake is Ok because we think you lied yesterday when Clinton's reputation was at stake.
You're right, though. If Gore was in office the talk shows would be screaming for his head. As I said, some of that would be a different situation because Gore was there for 8 years and that administration did almost nothing about terrorist attacks.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
Having a strategy for an attack and saying that their is one is two different things. I have no prob with a pres having a plan in case of emergency. But when we have our troops on a wild goose chase for Osama its not necessary to start something else. Then we had rumsfeld talking of a possible war with North Korea too. Iraq was no immediate threat. We could have waited for a UN decision. We could have waited the 48 hours like we said we would before the attack, but Bush is the cowboy, but he doesnt put it on his backs, he puts in on the back of our troops. There is a misconception of the left that they dont like soliders. I love our troops as much as any righty but I dont want them to die for nothing. This is going to turn into another Vietnam. There are more troops getting killed everyday and we can't leave now until its completly democrasized, which just means more uneeded death.[/quote]
If Bush is so irresponsible with our troops, why do they love him and show him so much respect? They didn't love Clinton, so it's not about the position of President.
The situation in Iraq is misconstrued in our media because it's not exciting to report progress. The real "stories" are the minor uprisings and terror attacks. Many politicians, left and right, have visited Iraq since we took over and ALL have said that the portrayal here in the states is badly mistaken.
Did Iraq present an immediate threat? No more than Bin Laden was an immediate threat to the US on 9/10. You can't have it both ways. Iraq had ignored the UN for over a decade, and we were the only country to stand up and give legitimacy to the governing body. The world is more stable because countries out there who want to act up realize that the US is not going to sit and beg for understanding if they do. You will notice that Iran offered up their nuclear program since we invaded Iraq. Those people over there now realize that we aren't joking around.
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. Adultury is the only thing they could get Clinton on and they dug their claws in to it. Think what O'reilly and Rush would say about Gore if he "let" 9/11 happen like Bush, they would be unstoppable. They are vultures that try to pick apart. Listen to the interview between O'Reilly and Franken. O'Reilly falls apart when dealing with someone he just can't mute.[/quote]
This is one issue that really bugs me. This has been said a million times, but must be said again. The VAST MAJORITY of Republicans/Right Wing who wanted Clinton impeached were and still are concerned about his lying to the grand jury. Remember him saying "that depends on the definition of the word 'is'"? The courts more or less confirmed it when his Presidency was over and they penalized his legal license. Just look around at this site. Lots of good honest people looking for deals, but also lots of people who think if they can "manipulate the truth" to get what they want it's Ok. I certainly don't think Clinton is single-handedly responsible for people's honesty, but as the President he needs to be above that and whether or not he likes it he is up there on the stage setting the example. If President Clinton can get away with lying to a Grand Jury, why shouldn't I? THAT IS THE ISSUE.
It's amazing to me that people justify what he did by saying it was a witch-hunt. You guys all question Bush's actions and that one moron who cut and pasted from his email questions what Bush was doing while in office, but nobody thinks it's irresponsible that Clinton is getting a BJ while he's supposed to be paying attention to National Security? He shoots a couple of missiles at a camel in the Middle East when he had Osama offered to him on a silver platter and then you people blame Bush when 911 happens years later?
Finally, let's say the Repubs were ALL WRONG on that whole Clinton thing. Let me get your position straight - it was WRONG for them to over-dramatize situations and spread lies about President Clinton but now it's Ok for the Democrats to do the same and this is justified because the Republicans did it first? This is what really gets me. Lying today when National Security is at stake is Ok because we think you lied yesterday when Clinton's reputation was at stake.
You're right, though. If Gore was in office the talk shows would be screaming for his head. As I said, some of that would be a different situation because Gore was there for 8 years and that administration did almost nothing about terrorist attacks.
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
Having a strategy for an attack and saying that their is one is two different things. I have no prob with a pres having a plan in case of emergency. But when we have our troops on a wild goose chase for Osama its not necessary to start something else. Then we had rumsfeld talking of a possible war with North Korea too. Iraq was no immediate threat. We could have waited for a UN decision. We could have waited the 48 hours like we said we would before the attack, but Bush is the cowboy, but he doesnt put it on his backs, he puts in on the back of our troops. There is a misconception of the left that they dont like soliders. I love our troops as much as any righty but I dont want them to die for nothing. This is going to turn into another Vietnam. There are more troops getting killed everyday and we can't leave now until its completly democrasized, which just means more uneeded death.[/quote]
If Bush is so irresponsible with our troops, why do they love him and show him so much respect? They didn't love Clinton, so it's not about the position of President.
The situation in Iraq is misconstrued in our media because it's not exciting to report progress. The real "stories" are the minor uprisings and terror attacks. Many politicians, left and right, have visited Iraq since we took over and ALL have said that the portrayal here in the states is badly mistaken.
Did Iraq present an immediate threat? No more than Bin Laden was an immediate threat to the US on 9/10. You can't have it both ways. Iraq had ignored the UN for over a decade, and we were the only country to stand up and give legitimacy to the governing body. The world is more stable because countries out there who want to act up realize that the US is not going to sit and beg for understanding if they do. You will notice that Iran offered up their nuclear program since we invaded Iraq. Those people over there now realize that we aren't joking around.
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='BlueStorm781']
1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
Ha! The "9/11" plot went all the way back to the Clinton admininstration. It's funny that the 9/11 comission hasn't questioned him (yet they did question Janet Reno).
[/quote]
You may not know this, but the 9-11 commission interviewed Clinton the same day that they interviewed Condoleezza Rice. They didn't demand that it was televised, and the fact of the matter is, that the conversation probably went something like this:
"Bill how your golf game this morning?"
"Great guys, thanks. Got a any coffee?"
The 9-11 "commission" is a joke. The fact that they would allow Jamie Gorelick, the woman who wrote the memorandum to re-build the wall between the CIA and FBI, to sit on the commission is inane.
1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
Ha! The "9/11" plot went all the way back to the Clinton admininstration. It's funny that the 9/11 comission hasn't questioned him (yet they did question Janet Reno).
[/quote]
You may not know this, but the 9-11 commission interviewed Clinton the same day that they interviewed Condoleezza Rice. They didn't demand that it was televised, and the fact of the matter is, that the conversation probably went something like this:
"Bill how your golf game this morning?"
"Great guys, thanks. Got a any coffee?"
The 9-11 "commission" is a joke. The fact that they would allow Jamie Gorelick, the woman who wrote the memorandum to re-build the wall between the CIA and FBI, to sit on the commission is inane.
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. [/quote]
Icon4ever,
You are the most misinformed person I have ever seen on these boards. Republicans tried to get Clinton out of office not because he cheated on his wife, but because he committed a FELONY. Perjury in front of the grand jury is a felony.
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. [/quote]
Icon4ever,
You are the most misinformed person I have ever seen on these boards. Republicans tried to get Clinton out of office not because he cheated on his wife, but because he committed a FELONY. Perjury in front of the grand jury is a felony.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='BlueStorm781']I'm not paticulary following the rules, but I wanted to respond to these.
1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
Ha! The "9/11" plot went all the way back to the Clinton admininstration. It's funny that the 9/11 comission hasn't questioned him (yet they did question Janet Reno).
2) Bush "Rushed to war against Iraq and had no business going in there when they did not attack us."
We didn't "rush" to war. We had to go back 10 years later to finish the job Bush Sr. was doing. If Clinton would have allowed the Gulf War to go on, we would have had Saddam then. And we do have business going in there. He's been hiding things from the U.N., and he's always had intent to harm the U.S. . Plus, he's a terrorist. Maybe not in the obvious sense, but look at what he's done to the people in his country. Why was it ok to get on China's case when they were harming their people, but we're supposed to ignore what's going on in Iraq. What is going on in that country not only affects our country, but the world. Saddam could have been the next Hitler, and we needed to get him out before he would go on a widespread rampage.[/quote]
Dude, Clinton already testified.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040408/pl_nm/security_clinton_dc_1&printer=1
And you seem to forget that the first Gulf war happened under Bush Sr, not Clinton
It's funny, Clinton can give all the time the commission needs, but Bush has to limit his time and be in there holding hands with Cheney. Bush didn't even want the commisson to happen, and has been delaying and withholding info from them.
1) Bush "Should have known 911 was coming and done something about it".
Ha! The "9/11" plot went all the way back to the Clinton admininstration. It's funny that the 9/11 comission hasn't questioned him (yet they did question Janet Reno).
2) Bush "Rushed to war against Iraq and had no business going in there when they did not attack us."
We didn't "rush" to war. We had to go back 10 years later to finish the job Bush Sr. was doing. If Clinton would have allowed the Gulf War to go on, we would have had Saddam then. And we do have business going in there. He's been hiding things from the U.N., and he's always had intent to harm the U.S. . Plus, he's a terrorist. Maybe not in the obvious sense, but look at what he's done to the people in his country. Why was it ok to get on China's case when they were harming their people, but we're supposed to ignore what's going on in Iraq. What is going on in that country not only affects our country, but the world. Saddam could have been the next Hitler, and we needed to get him out before he would go on a widespread rampage.[/quote]
Dude, Clinton already testified.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&u=/nm/20040408/pl_nm/security_clinton_dc_1&printer=1
And you seem to forget that the first Gulf war happened under Bush Sr, not Clinton
It's funny, Clinton can give all the time the commission needs, but Bush has to limit his time and be in there holding hands with Cheney. Bush didn't even want the commisson to happen, and has been delaying and withholding info from them.
Stryffe2004
CAGiversary!
What has BUsh really done on National Security? He talks a good game, but when you look at the facts, he has made things worse than before 9/11. Whether you say Iraq was a threat or not is really not important. Bush made up his mind to attack for whatever reason and then tried to conform the fits to give a excuse.
First it was Iraq was tied to Al-Queda and maybe 9/11. That was proven untrue. Then it was they were not cooperating with weapons inspectors. Then it was, well we have evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. What was the evidence, one of Saddam's top rivals said he did. There was no reason to rush into Iraq and spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives. This is painfully obvious now that no weaposn of mass destruction have been found and the administration is admitting their intelligence may have been flawed. The mobile labortory therory was easily debunked, as the chimical and biological agents have to be kept in very specific types of enviroments. It is not very liekly that you can put them on trucks and drive them around the desert. An invasion of a sovereign nation that is not being an aggressor is a violation of international law. That is why we had Desert Storm in 1992, because Saddam violated internationl law. The US has been able to hold the moral high ground for over 200 years because we "defended freedom and liberty." By becoming the aggressor on such shoddy evidence, we have lost that high ground.
Iraq posed no threat because they had no money. Their military was in shambles because they have not been able to import parts to fix their equipment. Why do you think the initial invasion was over so fast. The effect of the war has been to alienante long standing allies over a war that served no real purpose. Ironically, we are now asking those allies for help in sorting out the mess. The end result is that we have pissed off our allies and made new enemies by invading a sovreign country. Has the helped in the war on terrorism? Not in my mind. Do I feel safer now? Nope.
First it was Iraq was tied to Al-Queda and maybe 9/11. That was proven untrue. Then it was they were not cooperating with weapons inspectors. Then it was, well we have evidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. What was the evidence, one of Saddam's top rivals said he did. There was no reason to rush into Iraq and spent billions of dollars and thousands of lives. This is painfully obvious now that no weaposn of mass destruction have been found and the administration is admitting their intelligence may have been flawed. The mobile labortory therory was easily debunked, as the chimical and biological agents have to be kept in very specific types of enviroments. It is not very liekly that you can put them on trucks and drive them around the desert. An invasion of a sovereign nation that is not being an aggressor is a violation of international law. That is why we had Desert Storm in 1992, because Saddam violated internationl law. The US has been able to hold the moral high ground for over 200 years because we "defended freedom and liberty." By becoming the aggressor on such shoddy evidence, we have lost that high ground.
Iraq posed no threat because they had no money. Their military was in shambles because they have not been able to import parts to fix their equipment. Why do you think the initial invasion was over so fast. The effect of the war has been to alienante long standing allies over a war that served no real purpose. Ironically, we are now asking those allies for help in sorting out the mess. The end result is that we have pissed off our allies and made new enemies by invading a sovreign country. Has the helped in the war on terrorism? Not in my mind. Do I feel safer now? Nope.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='The_Continental'][quote name='Ikohn4ever']
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. [/quote]
Icon4ever,
You are the most misinformed person I have ever seen on these boards. Republicans tried to get Clinton out of office not because he cheated on his wife, but because he committed a FELONY. Perjury in front of the grand jury is a felony.[/quote]
Clinton did not commit perjury. For perjury to be commited, you have to lie about facts germaine to the case. Whether or not he had sex with Lewinsky was not germaine to Paula Jones' case, so it was not perjury.
Meanwhile, Bush diverted $700M in funds meant for Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war is an impeachable crime, but dont hold your breath on the "rule of law" republicans investigating it. I am still waiting for the White House to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press. Bush said that he would not tolerate even the image of impropriety, and yet he stalls on who leaked her name. Whoever did, commited treason, especially since
she was involved in looking for WMD's.
Well Chosen1 republicans tried to get Clinton out of office for messing around with an intern. When many of our greatest leaders had mistresses. [/quote]
Icon4ever,
You are the most misinformed person I have ever seen on these boards. Republicans tried to get Clinton out of office not because he cheated on his wife, but because he committed a FELONY. Perjury in front of the grand jury is a felony.[/quote]
Clinton did not commit perjury. For perjury to be commited, you have to lie about facts germaine to the case. Whether or not he had sex with Lewinsky was not germaine to Paula Jones' case, so it was not perjury.
Meanwhile, Bush diverted $700M in funds meant for Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq war is an impeachable crime, but dont hold your breath on the "rule of law" republicans investigating it. I am still waiting for the White House to find out who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press. Bush said that he would not tolerate even the image of impropriety, and yet he stalls on who leaked her name. Whoever did, commited treason, especially since
she was involved in looking for WMD's.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
The 9-11 commission is a huge waste of time and taxpayer money. Who was responsible? I'd say it's those guys that hijacked the planes then died in the crashes.
It sickens me that this country has become so concerned with finding a scapegoat. Who gives a shit who may or may not have been responsible, why don't we spend the time we've dedicated to the witch hunt on making sure it doens't happen again?
An attack like 9-11 had never happened before and it changed the country. Before 9-11, I blame no one because the very idea of something like this happening (on that scale) bordered on the absurd.
It sickens me that this country has become so concerned with finding a scapegoat. Who gives a shit who may or may not have been responsible, why don't we spend the time we've dedicated to the witch hunt on making sure it doens't happen again?
An attack like 9-11 had never happened before and it changed the country. Before 9-11, I blame no one because the very idea of something like this happening (on that scale) bordered on the absurd.
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PsyClerk']The 9-11 commission is a huge waste of time and taxpayer money. Who was responsible? I'd say it's those guys that hijacked the planes then died in the crashes.
It sickens me that this country has become so concerned with finding a scapegoat. Who gives a shit who may or may not have been responsible, why don't we spend the time we've dedicated to the witch hunt on making sure it doens't happen again?
An attack like 9-11 had never happened before and it changed the country. Before 9-11, I blame no one because the very idea of something like this happening (on that scale) bordered on the absurd.[/quote]
The whole point of the 9-11 commisson is to find out what went wrong and to prevent it from happening again. There was a lot of information in the pipeline that if had been gathered in one place, the possibilty existed that 9-11 could have been prevented. Richard Clarke testified to this. The idea that somelike like this would happen did occur to people. The Hart-Rudman report warned Bush in Jan 2001 that a terrorist attack on American soil as not a matter of if but when.
It sickens me that this country has become so concerned with finding a scapegoat. Who gives a shit who may or may not have been responsible, why don't we spend the time we've dedicated to the witch hunt on making sure it doens't happen again?
An attack like 9-11 had never happened before and it changed the country. Before 9-11, I blame no one because the very idea of something like this happening (on that scale) bordered on the absurd.[/quote]
The whole point of the 9-11 commisson is to find out what went wrong and to prevent it from happening again. There was a lot of information in the pipeline that if had been gathered in one place, the possibilty existed that 9-11 could have been prevented. Richard Clarke testified to this. The idea that somelike like this would happen did occur to people. The Hart-Rudman report warned Bush in Jan 2001 that a terrorist attack on American soil as not a matter of if but when.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
If that's their job, then the commission is failing. It looks to me as if they're only out to find someone to point the finger at other than Al Qaeda and the actual hijackers.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.
omflshark33
CAG Veteran
I would take Bush over Gore anyday. Bush has done a decent job. The last few years would have been difficult for any president to handle. Last time I checked our previous President (Clinto) lied his ass off as well. Like every election year, I will look at all the canidates carefully and make my choice, but Kerry is certainly not an attractive alternative to Bush from where I am standing.
Indiana
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CantB76']A vote for Gore was also a vote for Lieberman in the last election. I voted for Bush just to vote against Lieberman. He wants to take away all cheapass violent videogames.[/quote]
So instead you voted for a president who wants to take away all of your RIGHTS!
So instead you voted for a president who wants to take away all of your RIGHTS!
Indiana
CAGiversary!
[quote name='omflshark33']I would take Bush over Gore anyday. Bush has done a decent job. The last few years would have been difficult for any president to handle. Last time I checked our previous President (Clinto) lied his ass off as well. Like every election year, I will look at all the canidates carefully and make my choice, but Kerry is certainly not an attractive alternative to Bush from where I am standing.[/quote]
Bush has not done a decent job. He has not vetoed one bill while it office! It is the president's job to veto bad bills but yet he doesn't understand that he must use this power! :shock:
Bush has not done a decent job. He has not vetoed one bill while it office! It is the president's job to veto bad bills but yet he doesn't understand that he must use this power! :shock:
Indiana
CAGiversary!
[quote name='famousmort']
Does anyone else realize if we had a President Gore right now that not only would 9-11 have happened, but we'd still be at the United Nations arguing over what kind of sanctions to put on Afghanistan???
Speaking of Afghanistan, where's that pipeline the war protesters told us would be coming if we invaded?[/quote]
You stated that Kerry has the right opinions and then you somehow tried to force Gore into the conversation! I do believe that Gore would have went after Bin Laden in Afganstan. Remember Clinton already went after Bin Laden. I do also believe that if Gore were in office we would not be in Iraq. Sure, Suddam did many many horrible things. But remember we killed 1,000s of innocent civilians in order to arrest him.
Does anyone else realize if we had a President Gore right now that not only would 9-11 have happened, but we'd still be at the United Nations arguing over what kind of sanctions to put on Afghanistan???
Speaking of Afghanistan, where's that pipeline the war protesters told us would be coming if we invaded?[/quote]
You stated that Kerry has the right opinions and then you somehow tried to force Gore into the conversation! I do believe that Gore would have went after Bin Laden in Afganstan. Remember Clinton already went after Bin Laden. I do also believe that if Gore were in office we would not be in Iraq. Sure, Suddam did many many horrible things. But remember we killed 1,000s of innocent civilians in order to arrest him.
PsyClerk
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Indiana']Bush has not done a decent job. He has not vetoed one bill while it office! It is the president's job to veto bad bills but yet he doesn't understand that he must use this power! :shock:[/quote]
Wow, now THAT'S a new one. Everyone should pay attention to your post. When grasping for straws, it's a good idea to grasp for new ones every so often, instead of the same old ones over and over. Very good, sir.
Wow, now THAT'S a new one. Everyone should pay attention to your post. When grasping for straws, it's a good idea to grasp for new ones every so often, instead of the same old ones over and over. Very good, sir.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
I'm voting for Kerry because I don't want to have to shoot myself in the foot in 2005. =]
And also I think his environmental policy "rape the earth" is worse than the draft.
And also I think his environmental policy "rape the earth" is worse than the draft.
[quote name='Scrubking']In case anyone missed it. There is a current investigation into the oil for food program and there is evidence that Saddam was bribing the leaders of France, Germany, Russia and the UN to protect Iraq.
In case you didn't know.[/quote]
This is all that need to be said. I read this story yesterday and thought to myself, "it all makes sense now".
The reasons to vote for Bush:
I like the tax cuts. If you want to pay more taxes and loose all of our tax cuts vote for Kerry.
Bush and my rights to own the guns I own and the ones I plan on buying.
Violence in Video games. I don't want a Democrat to tell me that I can't play a game with violence.
Kerry has very sketchy voting habit. Who knows what kind of President he will be.
In case you didn't know.[/quote]
This is all that need to be said. I read this story yesterday and thought to myself, "it all makes sense now".
The reasons to vote for Bush:
I like the tax cuts. If you want to pay more taxes and loose all of our tax cuts vote for Kerry.
Bush and my rights to own the guns I own and the ones I plan on buying.
Violence in Video games. I don't want a Democrat to tell me that I can't play a game with violence.
Kerry has very sketchy voting habit. Who knows what kind of President he will be.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
No, the commercials tell you he has a sketchy voting habit.
Thanks, I never thought I'd meet a moron who fell for that shit. You have just made my day.
Thanks, I never thought I'd meet a moron who fell for that shit. You have just made my day.
Mr Unoriginal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 111 (100%)
[quote name='Poodleman']Bush 2004.... unless you want to wear a turban for the rest of your life![/quote]
How can anyone wonder how Bush gets elected when there are idiots like this out there.
How can anyone wonder how Bush gets elected when there are idiots like this out there.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='Poodleman']Bush 2004.... unless you want to wear a turban for the rest of your life![/quote]
WHAT THE
!?!?!?!
YOU ARE THE DUMBESTTARD ON THIS BOARD!!!
GET THE AWAY FROM HERE NOW!
WHAT THE
!?!?!?!YOU ARE THE DUMBEST
TARD ON THIS BOARD!!!GET THE
AWAY FROM HERE NOW!
Mr Unoriginal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 111 (100%)
[quote name='Poodleman']Most Americans are uneducated and hate to think for themselves. They like to be spoon fed the "crap" the media feeds them. It upsets me to no end how people do not investigate and read both sides of the issues before making a decision (intellegent).[/quote]
You're kidding right? Are you implying you are an educated American and then say that if we don't vote for Bush we will be wearing Turbans? That would not even be an ACCURATE exaggeration. If anything they will bomb us and kill us all, not take us over and force us to wear headgear. Get it right.
You're kidding right? Are you implying you are an educated American and then say that if we don't vote for Bush we will be wearing Turbans? That would not even be an ACCURATE exaggeration. If anything they will bomb us and kill us all, not take us over and force us to wear headgear. Get it right.
snotknocker
CAGiversary!
This thread is just wrong. I think politic threads should be banned on CAG. It just promotes a lot of hostility and takes away from the fun of this great site.
This kind of subject just promotes anomosities amongst us and seperates us into categories based on our political beliefs. From there the stereotyping begins
For Bush = Asswipe
against Bush = Asswipe
Really I think your political opinions have no bearing on if your an asswipe or not.
We should post about things a little less controversial. Say........ like........ Video games
Oh my God what a concept
This kind of subject just promotes anomosities amongst us and seperates us into categories based on our political beliefs. From there the stereotyping begins
For Bush = Asswipe
against Bush = Asswipe
Really I think your political opinions have no bearing on if your an asswipe or not.
We should post about things a little less controversial. Say........ like........ Video games
Oh my God what a concept
ZarathosNY
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PsyClerk']If that's their job, then the commission is failing. It looks to me as if they're only out to find someone to point the finger at other than Al Qaeda and the actual hijackers.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.[/quote]
Richard Clarke TRIED to get people to listen to him, but the Bush administration wouldn't give him the time of day. Bush layed down on the the job. If you got a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the US", I don't think that signals you to take a month long vacation.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.[/quote]
Richard Clarke TRIED to get people to listen to him, but the Bush administration wouldn't give him the time of day. Bush layed down on the the job. If you got a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the US", I don't think that signals you to take a month long vacation.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='spoo']Newsflash: If you are a Bush supporter "YOU ARE THE DUMBEST shaq-fu ON THIS BOARD!!!" or "a moron". Source Quackzilla
*Sigh*[/quote]
No, I was referring tto that slightly racist asshole who made the bullshit statement.
Btw, to all of you who have lied maliciously for attempted political gain, you are trying to hinder democracy. In effect, whether you like it or not, you are communists.
Yes, Kerry DID voted for a gas tax.
Yes, Bush DID gut clean air standards and reject the Kyoto treaty.
Lesser of two evils, people! Choose one!
*Sigh*[/quote]
No, I was referring tto that slightly racist asshole who made the bullshit statement.
Btw, to all of you who have lied maliciously for attempted political gain, you are trying to hinder democracy. In effect, whether you like it or not, you are communists.
Yes, Kerry DID voted for a gas tax.
Yes, Bush DID gut clean air standards and reject the Kyoto treaty.
Lesser of two evils, people! Choose one!
"Because rich people get the benefits, thus rich people vote for him. Anyone else is just an idiot. "
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the income taxes. This means that 50% of the population is only pulling 3.97% of the tax burden. How does this benefit the rich?
If the government takes more money away from companys that you are interested in working for, how does that benefit you in getting a job with that company. When the government takes more money away from companys, it only serves to give more power to the government. It takes power away from you and from the company that wants to hire you.
In a socialistic society (high taxes, high regulation), the government gets the benefits, the people are not rewarded for there hard work.
It is up to you to make a difference in your life, not the government.
Life Liberty and the PURSUIT (not gaurantee) of Happiness.
Never in the history of the world has there been more opportunity for the average citizen to better themselves and become "rich" (however you define rich) than the present United States. It takes hard work, dedication and the mindset that says "I can do it!"
In the United States, Your success in life is not dictated by who wins elections. You have the freedom to better your life. Be thankful that people died to give you that freedom. Don't take it for granted. Dictators around the world (The majority of nations in the United Nations) are afraid of democracy being spread because it is a threat to there power.
The top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of the income taxes. This means that 50% of the population is only pulling 3.97% of the tax burden. How does this benefit the rich?
If the government takes more money away from companys that you are interested in working for, how does that benefit you in getting a job with that company. When the government takes more money away from companys, it only serves to give more power to the government. It takes power away from you and from the company that wants to hire you.
In a socialistic society (high taxes, high regulation), the government gets the benefits, the people are not rewarded for there hard work.
It is up to you to make a difference in your life, not the government.
Life Liberty and the PURSUIT (not gaurantee) of Happiness.
Never in the history of the world has there been more opportunity for the average citizen to better themselves and become "rich" (however you define rich) than the present United States. It takes hard work, dedication and the mindset that says "I can do it!"
In the United States, Your success in life is not dictated by who wins elections. You have the freedom to better your life. Be thankful that people died to give you that freedom. Don't take it for granted. Dictators around the world (The majority of nations in the United Nations) are afraid of democracy being spread because it is a threat to there power.
The_Continental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='ZarathosNY'] If you got a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the US", I don't think that signals you to take a month long vacation.[/quote]
Dude,
We knew that "Bin laden was determined to strike in the US" since the early nineties. Consider this, If Bush bombed the shit out of Afghanistan to root out al-qaeda before 9-11, and 9-11 still happened, all you lefties would say that President Bush CAUSED 9-11.
So which is it? Did he not do enough, did he do too much? You lefties can't seem to decide.
Dude,
We knew that "Bin laden was determined to strike in the US" since the early nineties. Consider this, If Bush bombed the shit out of Afghanistan to root out al-qaeda before 9-11, and 9-11 still happened, all you lefties would say that President Bush CAUSED 9-11.
So which is it? Did he not do enough, did he do too much? You lefties can't seem to decide.
[quote name='ZarathosNY'][quote name='PsyClerk']If that's their job, then the commission is failing. It looks to me as if they're only out to find someone to point the finger at other than Al Qaeda and the actual hijackers.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.[/quote]
Richard Clarke TRIED to get people to listen to him, but the Bush administration wouldn't give him the time of day. Bush layed down on the the job. If you got a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the US", I don't think that signals you to take a month long vacation.[/quote]
Richard Clarke is a whiney bitch that is trying to shift the blame from himself to Bush. Clarke did not do his job and when the heat was on him he blamed everyone but himself.
Look at his BBC profile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm
Clinton and Bush both shaq-fued up by not taking Bin Laden serious. Clinton’s administration had intelligence reports and knew where to find Bin Laden on a few occasions. And Bush was busy acting like it was 1993 instead of 2001.
BTW, don't mention Richard Clarke. I immediately discredit ANYONE who claims to have had 'important information' or otherwise 'fought against the system' to avert disaster, yet waits until much later to let everyone else know. And this conveniently happens when their book detailing all of this hits store shelves.[/quote]
Richard Clarke TRIED to get people to listen to him, but the Bush administration wouldn't give him the time of day. Bush layed down on the the job. If you got a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack the US", I don't think that signals you to take a month long vacation.[/quote]
Richard Clarke is a whiney bitch that is trying to shift the blame from himself to Bush. Clarke did not do his job and when the heat was on him he blamed everyone but himself.
Look at his BBC profile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3559087.stm
Clinton and Bush both shaq-fued up by not taking Bin Laden serious. Clinton’s administration had intelligence reports and knew where to find Bin Laden on a few occasions. And Bush was busy acting like it was 1993 instead of 2001.
[quote name='Quackzilla'][quote name='spoo']Newsflash: If you are a Bush supporter "YOU ARE THE DUMBEST shaq-fu ON THIS BOARD!!!" or "a moron". Source Quackzilla
*Sigh*[/quote]
No, I was referring tto that slightly racist asshole who made the bullshit statement.
Btw, to all of you who have lied maliciously for attempted political gain, you are trying to hinder democracy. In effect, whether you like it or not, you are communists.
Yes, Kerry DID voted for a gas tax.
Yes, Bush DID gut clean air standards and reject the Kyoto treaty.
Lesser of two evils, people! Choose one![/quote]
The Kyoto treaty was a farce that would have put the US at the rest of the world's mercy. Us signing the Kyoto treaty would be like Bill gates signing an agreement with 10 people off the street to each throw 25% of their salary into a pot and divide it up "fairly". They'd all be snickering because the moron actually fell for it. The Kyoto treaty was designed so the US would bear the majority of the weight of its provisions. Bush voted against the Kyoto treaty, not clean air. Please people, educate yourselves.
If I came up with a "plan" to end hunger by feeding human remains to the poor, and you voted against it, it wouldn't be right to accuse you of failing to support an end to hunger. You have to look at the WHOLE picture before you pass judgment on why a politician makes the decisions they do. If you are uninformed, educate yourselves. If you hate Bush, get some legitimate FACTS and support them LOGICALLY. If you have no facts, then continue to spread your lies and half-truths, because that's all you have. But be aware that it's pretty sad for someone to commit their lives to creating a fantasy world in other people's minds so that their own political ideals can be achieved.
*Sigh*[/quote]
No, I was referring tto that slightly racist asshole who made the bullshit statement.
Btw, to all of you who have lied maliciously for attempted political gain, you are trying to hinder democracy. In effect, whether you like it or not, you are communists.
Yes, Kerry DID voted for a gas tax.
Yes, Bush DID gut clean air standards and reject the Kyoto treaty.
Lesser of two evils, people! Choose one![/quote]
The Kyoto treaty was a farce that would have put the US at the rest of the world's mercy. Us signing the Kyoto treaty would be like Bill gates signing an agreement with 10 people off the street to each throw 25% of their salary into a pot and divide it up "fairly". They'd all be snickering because the moron actually fell for it. The Kyoto treaty was designed so the US would bear the majority of the weight of its provisions. Bush voted against the Kyoto treaty, not clean air. Please people, educate yourselves.
If I came up with a "plan" to end hunger by feeding human remains to the poor, and you voted against it, it wouldn't be right to accuse you of failing to support an end to hunger. You have to look at the WHOLE picture before you pass judgment on why a politician makes the decisions they do. If you are uninformed, educate yourselves. If you hate Bush, get some legitimate FACTS and support them LOGICALLY. If you have no facts, then continue to spread your lies and half-truths, because that's all you have. But be aware that it's pretty sad for someone to commit their lives to creating a fantasy world in other people's minds so that their own political ideals can be achieved.
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
And this, children, is an example of a paranoid schitzophenic. Here, take a look at his X-File...
We can talk about Democrats track record for bashing video games, but is anyone a little concerned that the government has been obsessed with controlling almost everything we see and hear? Is one breast going to bring society down? Aren't there more important things to focus energy on?
I don't know about you guys, but I LIKE the first amendment. It has given us the chance to make all of these ill informed and half-assed poltical statements.
I don't know about you guys, but I LIKE the first amendment. It has given us the chance to make all of these ill informed and half-assed poltical statements.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
It really surprises me that everyone thinks the president is the be-all and end-all of government. I don't care if anyone votes for Kerry or Bush but the President is not the sole issue. If you really want change, regardless of your party affiliation, you need to vote like minded Senators and Representatives in as well. At any rate......
The fact of the matter is this. If we didn't go and remove Saddam who would have? It certainly would not have come from the Iraqis themselves. He reportedly got 100% of the vote in his governments last election. That is not a free society. That means Saddam would have ruled until he died. Then guess who would have taken over? His sons. Then there would be at least another 50 years of Hussein rule. Then guess who would lead. Their sons. See the pattern? Saddam has been a threat and should have been removed a long time ago. The US backed Saddam against Iran (hindsight is always 20/20). That's the same so called "lesser of two evils" logic that some of you are going to employ at the voting both. Personally, I think that it doesn't matter which party has control of the White House in regards to domestic situations because someone is ALWAYS going to be unsatisfied. But in regards to terrorism I would trust Bush. He took action when previous adminstrations (including Republican ones) would have done nothing. The Democrats are saying that Bush should have prevented the 9/11 attacks pre-emptively. After 9/11 Bush saw the need to pre-emptively go into Iraq. Now the Democrats are mad at that despite the fact the wanted 9/11 to be pre-empted. There is no logic in that whatsoever (once again, hindsight is 20/20). A plane hijacking like that will never happen again. Remember, before 9/11 people knew that if you get hijacked you do what the hijackers say. I guarantee that now everyone on the plane will get up and start kicking asses.
I think the only Democrat candidate that would have had any courage to him to tackle terrorism is Sen. Lieberman. He seemed to understand the threat (and yes his Jewish background probably has something to do with it).
Part of why we had to go into Iraq is because there was really no nearby country that could keep them in check (remember Saddam praised the Al-Qaeda attck on New York and Washington). The situation is not the same in N. Korea where China, South Korea, and Japan can keep Pyongyang in line. Thats why we don't have to go into N. Korea like we did Iraq. Plus, remember how everyone chastised Bush for putting N. Korea and Iraq in the "axis of evil". Well look at who the two biggest threats are. N. Korea and Iraq.
Personally, I don't want to see another skyscraper come down, a truck bomb, or mass poisoning before we can take action. Either way, vote for who you want but don't get mad at each other,
The fact of the matter is this. If we didn't go and remove Saddam who would have? It certainly would not have come from the Iraqis themselves. He reportedly got 100% of the vote in his governments last election. That is not a free society. That means Saddam would have ruled until he died. Then guess who would have taken over? His sons. Then there would be at least another 50 years of Hussein rule. Then guess who would lead. Their sons. See the pattern? Saddam has been a threat and should have been removed a long time ago. The US backed Saddam against Iran (hindsight is always 20/20). That's the same so called "lesser of two evils" logic that some of you are going to employ at the voting both. Personally, I think that it doesn't matter which party has control of the White House in regards to domestic situations because someone is ALWAYS going to be unsatisfied. But in regards to terrorism I would trust Bush. He took action when previous adminstrations (including Republican ones) would have done nothing. The Democrats are saying that Bush should have prevented the 9/11 attacks pre-emptively. After 9/11 Bush saw the need to pre-emptively go into Iraq. Now the Democrats are mad at that despite the fact the wanted 9/11 to be pre-empted. There is no logic in that whatsoever (once again, hindsight is 20/20). A plane hijacking like that will never happen again. Remember, before 9/11 people knew that if you get hijacked you do what the hijackers say. I guarantee that now everyone on the plane will get up and start kicking asses.
I think the only Democrat candidate that would have had any courage to him to tackle terrorism is Sen. Lieberman. He seemed to understand the threat (and yes his Jewish background probably has something to do with it).
Part of why we had to go into Iraq is because there was really no nearby country that could keep them in check (remember Saddam praised the Al-Qaeda attck on New York and Washington). The situation is not the same in N. Korea where China, South Korea, and Japan can keep Pyongyang in line. Thats why we don't have to go into N. Korea like we did Iraq. Plus, remember how everyone chastised Bush for putting N. Korea and Iraq in the "axis of evil". Well look at who the two biggest threats are. N. Korea and Iraq.
Personally, I don't want to see another skyscraper come down, a truck bomb, or mass poisoning before we can take action. Either way, vote for who you want but don't get mad at each other,
[quote name='fxblack']We can talk about Democrats track record for bashing video games, but is anyone a little concerned that the government has been obsessed with controlling almost everything we see and hear? Is one breast going to bring society down? Aren't there more important things to focus energy on?
I don't know about you guys, but I LIKE the first amendment. It has given us the chance to make all of these ill informed and half-assed poltical statements.[/quote]
Amen!
I don't know about you guys, but I LIKE the first amendment. It has given us the chance to make all of these ill informed and half-assed poltical statements.[/quote]
Amen!
x0thedeadzone0x
CAGiversary!
I second that Amen.
and to think, a 40-year old breast with her nipple pierced could bring us down.
and to think, a 40-year old breast with her nipple pierced could bring us down.
bread's done