Debates
15 May 07
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungUnbelieveably, there are several oafs here who I think still support him and would vote for him if it were possible for him to run again ...
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou got to be kidding. All you have to do to get the right wing religious nutter vote is to say 'I believe in the LORD almighty' Praise the LORD. Those nutters are already so besotted with religion they will elect anyone rightwing christian enough. I think Jim Jones would have made a big run for prez if he hadn't screwed up in Central America.
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
Or maybe even Koresh. Yeah, thats it, President David Koresh.
The country was already firmly split apart by this puke. So now when one in a hundred rightwing nutters actually started thinking for themselves, it tipped the balance and GW is out. Too bad it didn't happen 7 years ago. All that crap that happened with homeland security showed Bin Laden won and we didn't even know it.
15 May 07
It's easy to point the finger at the American people and say they made a mistake in re-electing George Bush. But look at it this way: In 2004, Bush was beatable. He was vulnerable on a number of issues. What did the Dems offer as an alternative? A sacrifical lamb in the form of an unelectable John Kerry. It was a lose-lose situation for the voting public.
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYounglol
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
Anything in particular that you can point out instead of generalities?
Considering the choices, Bush is/was by FAR the only choice.
He has screwed up the battle by not defining the enemy. He has failed to explain Regime Change as a continutation of Democratic policy enunciated by Clinton.
If he had removed Saddam under that policy and then REDECLARED war on terrorists inside Iraq as a separate policy, we would be where?
Right where we are. The whacked out left propaganda machine wins no matter what. Because? The current generations of "youth" have lost the ability to reason.
15 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyAnd at least Bush has decided to take the battle to them, rather than wait for them to strike us at home (be it the US, UK, Germany, France, Spain etc), and not just fire a few missiles into a deserted goatshed somewhere in the desert.
lol
Anything in particular that you can point out instead of generalities?
Considering the choices, Bush is/was by FAR the only choice.
He has screwed up the battle by not defining the enemy. He has failed to explain Regime Change as a continutation of Democratic policy enunciated by Clinton.
If he had removed Saddam under that policy and ...[text shortened]... s no matter what. Because? The current generations of "youth" have lost the ability to reason.
15 May 07
Originally posted by knightwestActually, it is the warriors of Allah on all three sides in the Islamic revolution who are killing americans and Iraqis at a faster and faster clip.
And at least Bush has decided to take the battle to them, rather than wait for them to strike us at home (be it the US, UK, Germany, France, Spain etc), and not just fire a few missiles into a deserted goatshed somewhere in the desert.
The "ISLAMIC REVOLUTION" that began in the 50's with the Brotherhood Of Islam and has bifurcated severally is the problem. Not the US at this point.
Have you noticed that we would have been out of Iraq a long time ago now if the ISLAMIC REVOLUTIONARIES were not still inciting chaos in the name of Allah?
Cause and effect is good. But only if one is capable of determining cause through reason and study.
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAs in most presidential elections of our time, it is the lesser of two evils. Americans did not have the choice of "Bush or Not Bush". The choice was "Bush or Kerry". Lots of conservatives I know are not very happy with Bush. But as of November of 2004, we'd have to put Kerry in to get Bush out.
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
The choice seems a bit more rational when seen in this light.
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere are very few people who have the guts to try out new things. Most would rather stay and dread there pathetic life until their grave sets them free. Their ashes if crinated might even better dicide in vital maters.
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
15 May 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf Bush was running again tomorrow and it was against the same people, he would win again. The democrats have always underestimated him and that has resulted in getting their asses kicked. Saddam made the same mistake and look where he is today.
Very few people nowadays like Bush. However, the majority voted for him last election, and the electoral majority the election before that.
For those of you who changed your mind, what was your mistake in electing him? What was your reasoning that you now realize was flawed?
15 May 07
It's not so much that the Dems underestamated Bush (that would be hard to do) .. they underestamate the American people IMO.
They think we want to go Euro (Kerry-Gore) when in fact that's the last thing we want.
The core of America is traditional values and the Democrats abandoned that concept back in the 60's
15 May 07
1 edit
Originally posted by jammerThe Democrats haven't had a majority vote since Jimmy Carter. Clinton only got elected because Ross Perot siphoned 19 percent off of Bush Senior, and then 8 percent off of Dole. (And No, he didn't take any of the liberal vote). Now they have the house back and who do they put in. Pelosi and Reed?????
It's not so much that the Dems underestamated Bush (that would be hard to do) .. they underestamate the American people IMO.
They think we want to go Euro (Kerry-Gore) when in fact that's the last thing we want.
The core of America is traditional values and the Democrats abandoned that concept back in the 60's
After all that lying and fighting they finally get in and that's what they show as their leadership. There are many democrats that could be holding those posts that would at least not look like sniveling fools. They look like poster children for Abortion. The poster would read. "Your unborn child could look and act like this someday, abort it before it's too late"
15 May 07
Originally posted by StarValleyWyEverything is Clinton's fault to you guys, isn't it?
lol
Anything in particular that you can point out instead of generalities?
Considering the choices, Bush is/was by FAR the only choice.
He has screwed up the battle by not defining the enemy. He has failed to explain Regime Change as a continutation of Democratic policy enunciated by Clinton.
If he had removed Saddam under that policy and ...[text shortened]... s no matter what. Because? The current generations of "youth" have lost the ability to reason.
Too cowardly to accept Bush has screwed up in ways beyond counting ... no, the only concession you make is that he's not doing enough of what he's screwing up admirably right now.
At what point does the evidence become too overwhelming for even blinker-eyed you? Does it ever?
Or do you just go around and around defending the indefensible and blaming everything on a guy who has been out of office for how many years?!