YoungNHung19: Don't worry Madame, I have already added you to that left wing nut job list, along with a few others!
Bush Should Approve This Message
- Thread starter D_Martin van Burden
- Start date
madame_zora
Sexy Member
Wow, what a relief, I was afraid someone might actually mistake me for a religious right-wing gun totin' moron. Guess I'm safe now.
Jonb, if we plonk all the idiots, who will we have to play with?
Jonb, if we plonk all the idiots, who will we have to play with?
Sorry to break the news to you but I plan to vote for Junior again.
Why? Because at least he has stayed on a steady course (albeit rather insane) whereas Kerry jumps around like a fish freshly out of the water up on Lake Conway. (do they still have fish there or did the dozens of bodies Bubba Clinton threw in there destroy it?) He jumps around more than a boxer in training skipping rope. More than... well you get the idea--he has no stability.
Anyway another thing that always irritates me is the fact that people act as if we should all hold Kerry up as some sort of a saint or over-the-top hero. Why? Look I have no problem with how he felt compelled to speak up against the VietNam situation when he returned from over there; but, what people keep neglecting to notice is how he tells of how all the other guys were killing and raping and setting fire to villages. Now if Kerry is such a big hero and so offended by what he saw, then WHY didn't he ever do anything to stop it WHILE he was there? And why come back and testify about what was happening but place the blame on everybody elses shoulders? Are we to believe he was just hanging out in downtown Saigon sipping tea and making friendly talk with some leftover Frenchmen from the earlier days while discussing Proust?
Next up: Kerry tells us that Saddam was a threat and at the same time tells us that going into Iraq was wrong. Hmmm... so what he is saying is that when we are threatened we should just sit back and wait for the attacks to begin and then continue on in as benign a manner as possible and never defend ourselves. Oh yeah that sounds good, I just hope the bombs hit me first so I won't have to watch the nervous nellies dashing about screaming that their favorite Starbucks has been destroyed and then crying about the way their freedom has been savaged because Kerry can't figure out whether he should send troops or not, and let's not forgetthat lovely coalition he will be forming with other nations while all the time proclaiming the war is wrong. As has been stated by many, how do you get other countries to join us when you keep saying it's all wrong?
There is only one way to vote for the safety of this nation and that is to cast your vote for George W.Bush---affectionately known by many as Junior.
Why? Because at least he has stayed on a steady course (albeit rather insane) whereas Kerry jumps around like a fish freshly out of the water up on Lake Conway. (do they still have fish there or did the dozens of bodies Bubba Clinton threw in there destroy it?) He jumps around more than a boxer in training skipping rope. More than... well you get the idea--he has no stability.
Anyway another thing that always irritates me is the fact that people act as if we should all hold Kerry up as some sort of a saint or over-the-top hero. Why? Look I have no problem with how he felt compelled to speak up against the VietNam situation when he returned from over there; but, what people keep neglecting to notice is how he tells of how all the other guys were killing and raping and setting fire to villages. Now if Kerry is such a big hero and so offended by what he saw, then WHY didn't he ever do anything to stop it WHILE he was there? And why come back and testify about what was happening but place the blame on everybody elses shoulders? Are we to believe he was just hanging out in downtown Saigon sipping tea and making friendly talk with some leftover Frenchmen from the earlier days while discussing Proust?
Next up: Kerry tells us that Saddam was a threat and at the same time tells us that going into Iraq was wrong. Hmmm... so what he is saying is that when we are threatened we should just sit back and wait for the attacks to begin and then continue on in as benign a manner as possible and never defend ourselves. Oh yeah that sounds good, I just hope the bombs hit me first so I won't have to watch the nervous nellies dashing about screaming that their favorite Starbucks has been destroyed and then crying about the way their freedom has been savaged because Kerry can't figure out whether he should send troops or not, and let's not forgetthat lovely coalition he will be forming with other nations while all the time proclaiming the war is wrong. As has been stated by many, how do you get other countries to join us when you keep saying it's all wrong?
There is only one way to vote for the safety of this nation and that is to cast your vote for George W.Bush---affectionately known by many as Junior.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
the fact that those issues are unclear to you is unfortunate- not worth the effort. The shrub might win if everyone is really that thick and ordinary, but I'm still praying for the voice of reason...
Let's not forget that Ken Starr would not have been able to get started on his investigation if Bubba Clintoon had just fessed up at the start. No. I do not mean he had to tell each and every one of the people of the world that he had been frolicking with Lewinsky in the Oval Office, he could have told his wife and the persons directly connected to the matter. If he had done this and made the direct ammends to those directly affected by his actions Ken Starr never would have been given the ability to move forward in his investigation. The sad truth however is that Clinton instead chose to get on national television and deny PUBLICLY that he had ever done anything with Lewinsky and in essence called her a liar. So you see Ken Starr had the right to proceed all because the Clintons (yeah both of them) had deemed themselves above the law and beyond the rest of the world. Have you also forgotten Hillary and her "all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy" tirade? The American public as well as Lewinsky (well mostly Lewinsky) are still waiting for and deserve a retraction of that statement if not an outright apology. When given the chance to rectify her actions by Rick Lazio in the 2000 New York State Senatorial debate (and this was not incidentally her first opportunity to do so) she instead held it up as a personal attack against her.
Although Junior has made mistakes in the past, he has at least learned from them and is trying to move forward. Can the Clintons say the same? Can they even make a half-hearted attempt to do the same?
madame_zora
Sexy Member
This is getting progressively worse. Clinton lied about a blow job- get it?? He got his dick sucked- it was none of anyone's business in the first place!!! It didn't affect his judgement in office, and don't give me that moralistic shit about "character". Exactly how many evangelicals have been caught with thier pants down??
I'm overjoyed to hear that you think bush has learned anything from his mistakes- he hasn't corrected any of them, so I wonder how you arrived at this spectacular conclusion. His track record is one of the worst in history, how is it you have managed to miss that overtly obvious fact? If Clinton had done one tenth the things bush has done in office, what with the shredding of our worldwide reputation, committing troops to a war without the sanction or support of the UN, removing us from the world court, hell- stealing the election in the first place because of his brother's and father's positions...aww, dammit, refer to any of the lists pulbished here on this thread, he would have been crucified!! At least he had the intellectual capacity for independant thought. Just TRY to argue for bush on that front after his idiotic showings in the debates.
I'm overjoyed to hear that you think bush has learned anything from his mistakes- he hasn't corrected any of them, so I wonder how you arrived at this spectacular conclusion. His track record is one of the worst in history, how is it you have managed to miss that overtly obvious fact? If Clinton had done one tenth the things bush has done in office, what with the shredding of our worldwide reputation, committing troops to a war without the sanction or support of the UN, removing us from the world court, hell- stealing the election in the first place because of his brother's and father's positions...aww, dammit, refer to any of the lists pulbished here on this thread, he would have been crucified!! At least he had the intellectual capacity for independant thought. Just TRY to argue for bush on that front after his idiotic showings in the debates.
First off : YES, EXACTLY! Clinton LIED. That set into motion the entire Ken Starr investigation.
Next up: Clinton had several chances to take care of Bin Laden but never did (sorry to tell you this but one bombing of a factory doesn't quite do it for me).
My views about Clinton have nothing to do with evangelists and their tawdry behaviors.
Something which always amazes me and gives me a chuckle is the way the laid back liberals all point at Florida and say "we wuzz robbed" however when they wanted to do a re-count (and even suggested another 'special' election, it was only in certain counties. Why not ALL the counties of Florida? Why not each and every election district in The United States? What were the Dems afraid of? The fact is when it came to the dangling chads, no matter how many times they re-counted and looked at played their games the results were always the same, Junior won fair and square. Am I thrilled by him? No, but then again I don't like most politicians. The good thing about Junior is he is not so arrogant as to believe he can handle everything on his own and so he has advisors with whom he speaks and based on those discussions he makes informed decisions.
Face the fact that he went into Iraq based on the CIA assertion that there were WMDs over their. Who had placed the leader of CIA where he was? That's right: George Tenet was installed by Clinton. Once more the pointer returns to Clinton.
I think I will focus on your words "I'm overjoyed." Yes I know I am taking them out of context, but why not? Wouldn't Kerry do the same?
Did we watch the same debates? Well, I have to say I was saddened by Juniors performance in the first one however he was at the top in 2 and 3 and there is little denying to the fact that Cheney walloped Edwards in the VP debate.
I suppose the main thing and what is most important is that if nothing else we remember that is our right and RESPONSIBILITY to vote on November 2 and then SUPPORT the person who wins the most votes in the ELECTORAL COLLEGE.
question: You think that Clinton getting his rocks off in the Oval Office didn't have any effect on his judgement? Of course it did. When you are sexually stimulated you are NOT thinking clearly, the body goes through changes at that moment. Let me ask you this, if you are in the midst of fantastic sex are you really thinking about whether or not the lawn sprinkler is set for 6 a.m.? Do you rally wonder (or care) at that moment if The Tate or Prado Museum is being ransacked? Of course not. Sexual arrousal DOES effect our judgement even if only momentrily.
Again, let's just try to agree on one major item::It is important to get out there and vote. Vote according to your beliefs and your heart and I'll do the same as I hope all citizens will do.
(oh and as scary as it may seem considering my views stated here, I am a registered Democrat)
So you see Ken Starr had the right to proceed all because the Clintons (yeah both of them) had deemed themselves above the law and beyond the rest of the world. Have you also forgotten Hillary and her "all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy" tirade? The American public as well as Lewinsky (well mostly Lewinsky) are still waiting for and deserve a retraction of that statement if not an outright apology. When given the chance to rectify her actions by Rick Lazio in the 2000 New York State Senatorial debate (and this was not incidentally her first opportunity to do so) she instead held it up as a personal attack against her.
[post=259758]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]The right-wing conspiracy was the only reason that Starr was allowed to hunt for dirt at all. Republican partisans installed Starr as the independent counsel just as the previous prosecutor was about to exonerate Clinton. Does that mean Clinton is absolved of all blame? It's hard to imagine that a president could be so reckless or foolish to continue having extramarital sex when he knew that there were so many people that were out to get him.
The final outcome turned to be appropriate. The impeachment proved itself to be the final stage of a ridiculous witch hunt. Clinton was paralyzed by the distraction of constantly defending himself from attacks on his personal life. And the people concluded that Clinton had suffered enough and that lying about getting a blowjob was not a good enough reason to remove a president.
First off : YES, EXACTLY! Clinton LIED. That set into motion the entire Ken Starr investigation.
Something which always amazes me and gives me a chuckle is the way the laid back liberals all point at Florida and say "we wuzz robbed" however when they wanted to do a re-count (and even suggested another 'special' election, it was only in certain counties. Why not ALL the counties of Florida? Why not each and every election district in The United States? What were the Dems afraid of? The fact is when it came to the dangling chads, no matter how many times they re-counted and looked at played their games the results were always the same, Junior won fair and square.
Face the fact that he went into Iraq based on the CIA assertion that there were WMDs over their. Who had placed the leader of CIA where he was? That's right: George Tenet was installed by Clinton. Once more the pointer returns to Clinton.
Clinton's big lie was denying having sex with Lewinsky in the Paula Jones deposition, which happened long after Starr's investigation began. Starr was waiting for Clinton to lie about something. Remember Whitewater? That's what Starr was originally supposed to be investigating, but he couldn't find anything there.
Neither party has the high road in Florida. Both parties had armies of lawyers trying to get some ballots counted and some thrown out all over the state. The shameful fact is that neither party was interested in the honest count. They cared more about winning than about who got the most votes.
The real tragedy about the Florida mess, in my opinion, is that no counting method could have been determined to accurate. The margin of victory was so small -- officially, 537 -- that any statewide count would be within the counting method's margin of error. Since Florida, like 47 other states, awards its electoral vote in a winner-take-all fashion, there was no solution that could confidently declare a winner, either Bush or Gore. The system was designed to fail in the event of a very close statewide election, which was bound to happen eventually. And it hasn't been corrected since then.
The CIA was not sure at all of the status of Iraq's WMDs. After Saddam threw out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, we got less and less certain about what was going on there. The CIA as a group never settled the matter. The neocons in the adminstration got so frustrated with the CIA's uncertainty that they created their own intelligence analysis group to pick out the bits that supported their case for regime change. It's true that Tenet came down on Bush's side, but Tenet's stance was by no means a consensus in the intelligence community. The CIA does deserve plenty of blame for not having better sources in Iraq in the 1990s and for the many lapses that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, both during this administration and the previous one. But to claim that the CIA was behind Bush all the way and that this is Clinton's fault is not accurate.
Something which always amazes me and gives me a chuckle is the way the laid back liberals all point at Florida and say "we wuzz robbed" however when they wanted to do a re-count (and even suggested another 'special' election, it was only in certain counties. Why not ALL the counties of Florida? Why not each and every election district in The United States? What were the Dems afraid of? The fact is when it came to the dangling chads, no matter how many times they re-counted and looked at played their games the results were always the same, Junior won fair and square.
Face the fact that he went into Iraq based on the CIA assertion that there were WMDs over their. Who had placed the leader of CIA where he was? That's right: George Tenet was installed by Clinton. Once more the pointer returns to Clinton.
[post=259767]Quoted post[/post]
[/quote]Clinton's big lie was denying having sex with Lewinsky in the Paula Jones deposition, which happened long after Starr's investigation began. Starr was waiting for Clinton to lie about something. Remember Whitewater? That's what Starr was originally supposed to be investigating, but he couldn't find anything there.
Neither party has the high road in Florida. Both parties had armies of lawyers trying to get some ballots counted and some thrown out all over the state. The shameful fact is that neither party was interested in the honest count. They cared more about winning than about who got the most votes.
The real tragedy about the Florida mess, in my opinion, is that no counting method could have been determined to accurate. The margin of victory was so small -- officially, 537 -- that any statewide count would be within the counting method's margin of error. Since Florida, like 47 other states, awards its electoral vote in a winner-take-all fashion, there was no solution that could confidently declare a winner, either Bush or Gore. The system was designed to fail in the event of a very close statewide election, which was bound to happen eventually. And it hasn't been corrected since then.
The CIA was not sure at all of the status of Iraq's WMDs. After Saddam threw out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998, we got less and less certain about what was going on there. The CIA as a group never settled the matter. The neocons in the adminstration got so frustrated with the CIA's uncertainty that they created their own intelligence analysis group to pick out the bits that supported their case for regime change. It's true that Tenet came down on Bush's side, but Tenet's stance was by no means a consensus in the intelligence community. The CIA does deserve plenty of blame for not having better sources in Iraq in the 1990s and for the many lapses that led to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, both during this administration and the previous one. But to claim that the CIA was behind Bush all the way and that this is Clinton's fault is not accurate.
- jonb,
And how could an investigation which began in 1994 be because of a lie Clinton told in 1998? (I know how, but the physics would require quite a bit of gravitational distortion, along with the ability to travel at speeds which current technology doesn't allow.)
Republicans claimed he was trying to distract from the impeachment, silly. Also, if we're time travelling, Reagan and Bush could've never funded Osama in the first place.
A re-count required by state election law.
Because the law didn't allow for a re-vote in all of Florida. The big problem was that blacks were denied the vote. And everyone knows two things:
1) A high voter turnout supports Democrats.
2) Black voters always support Democrats.
Except for the hundreds of thousands of felons who weren't really. Or the double-votes for Bush. I don't mean voting twice on the same ballot, either; I mean casting two different ballots, as many of the late absentee ballots in Florida were. Other absentee ballots were cast after Election Day, cast under fake names, etc. Discounting either of those would make Gore the winner. (On a side note, one reason for the high number of registered voters in Afghanistan Bush likes to mention is because of people registering twice.)
And then he fires those who don't support him
The reports were contradictory. Maybe he only read the ones saying there were WMDs. One CIA report said there were factories, but didn't know what the factories made. Back in 2001, just a few weeks after Bush was inaugurated, Rummy claimed those factories could be weapons. I seriously doubt the CIA would take a poorly-written Tom Clancy clone as fact, though.
In fact, the White House leaked the name of a CIA agent who didn't believe there were weapons to Novak.
And if Kerry said every American should do his or her duty, Bush would focus on Kerry saying doodie.
Did we watch the same debates? All Bush and Cheney kept doing was the same fear-mongering and ad hominems. They were caught in several lies, as usual.
I agree. A high voter turnout supports Democrats anyway.
Which is why the market went up with every orgasm.
Contrary to popular belief, there is no Big Red Button which launches nuclear warheads.
YoungNHung19: I promised myself I would stop posting and trying to get through to all the liberals here, eg; LuckLuke, JonB, the Madame..etc..But here I go again, I couldn't help after reading JonB's latest reply, which was full of half-truths/lies like usual.
First about the Clinton deal. You see, Clinton and his manly wife Hillary were making shady deals in Arkansas long before the Presidency, remember they were both investigated...his lying under oath, and lying to the American people ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") was only the tip of the iceberg. Nobody should be making congressional decision while having oral sex performed on him. Besides the economy recession started on Clinton's watch, so NO JonB the economy did not go up with every orgasm like you would like to believe.
Next, Clinton not taking care of Bin Laden. Hate to tell you, but it is the truth. Clinton was aware of Bin Laden already and afraid to take action. Clinton publicly apologized after his presidency was over, saying he was sorry he did not take care of Bin Laden, so there!
Next, Bush never funded Bin Laden. That is a half truth like usual. Yes, President Bush had financial ties to Bin Laden's family members, but they are family members who have disowned Bin Laden along time ago, and also are not closely related. Remember the Bin Laden's aren't subject to bigamy laws where they live, so they have one big gigantic family. Four wives apiece. When the founder of the clan died in 1988 he left 54 kids. Plus you have to add in grandkids, in-laws, uncles, aunts, and cousins...they also lean towards the West and the USA, with the exception of Bin Laden. Many of them go to colleges in America, so yeah a distant, non-relevant tie to Bin Laden...I am guessing you watched too much Faranheit 911, which has been proven to be a complete lie, and fabrication, like all of Michael Moore's pathetic so called "documentaries.
Next, the election mess from 2000. Talk all you want about how the recount was mandatory, ok, but the bottom line is Al "the bore" Gore is still talking about how he was robbed of the election in 2000...hey, get over it AL..it isn't a popular vote, it's an electoral college..you don't like it, get a personality and and win the election.
And no, it is not EVEN close to true that hundreds of thousand of people that were mistaken as felons were not allowed to vote, not even close..that is straight up democratic propaganda,..re-check your facts, the number was few and far between, and also remember convicted felons, who were probably black, were allowed to vote also. Gore was not the winner. An idependent source checked and counted, and re-counted the votes and determined Bush was the winner anyway, even after the courst decision.
Again, back to the WMD's arguement, which you liberals can't let go of. John Kerry himself said he had no question Saddam had WMD's, and authorized the use of force, AKA: war. Not just the CIA was telling Bush Saddam had WMD's, but several intelligence agencies have told him from several different countries, including Vladmir Putin's people, and Tony Blair's poeple., and other reliable sources. And of course we would not know anyway, because thanks to Saddam paying off France and North Korea to fix weapons inspections, duh, weapons inspections would not work, neither would the 16 or so sanctions placed against him, in which Saddam violated all of them. You still remember when your liberal hero Michael Moore said there is no terrorist threat..he said that, I heard myself. He said it was a couple of isolated incidents..haha!!! What a fat, rich peice of shit he is. So, your cherrypicking of intelligence reports saying one alleged CIA report said there were no WMD's, or saying anyone made a decision based on a Tom Clancy novel is ridiculous. So don't assume and say MAYBE the President only read the reports that said they had WMD's..please.
Try and divert the attention away from your candidate if you would like but he is weak on defense, and the most liberal Senator in the US. In 20 years in the Senate he was a part of 5 bills being pased through... not 56 like he lied to the American people about in the 3rd debate. And he also missed almost of all his Senate votes on National Security after we were attacked...he works hard for his money, huh? He's your candidate, so of course he is going to be scrutinized, just like you unfairly scrutinize Bush. Sorry, but Kerry's plan of speeding up troop training in Iraq is not possible. Bush will have had 125,000 Iraqi troops trained by the end of the year, simply amazing. Even the military personnel in charge stated publicly that John Kerry's plan to speed up troop training is not possible..and Kerry knows that too. Kerry's plan to get help from France and North Korea, or..haha, other coalition forces is not possible. We have had trouble with France for a long time. The oil for food scandal was the reason they would not get involved in the war...read the Dolfer report. They have publicly said if John Kerry is elected they would not help him either.
A far as the debates, it is clear of one thing. Kerry was exposed for who he was based on his 20 year career in the Senate. Yes, Kerry won the first debate. Bush was obviously irked at Kerry and his lies. Kerry is a smooth talker, and has been known to be a good debater..even though he is full of it. He is very good at the art of deflection and going around questions...ask William Weld. The second and third debate were very good. Bush finished strong. Many professionals called the 2nd debate a draw, and the third debate a win for Bush. Yes, Cheney beat Edwards in the V.P. debate, even though Edwards is a get rich quick trial lawyer. No Bush and Cheney are not instilling fear into everyone, they are simply telling the facts and if you can't handle it, get a prescription for prozac immediately. And no, a higher voter turn out, does not necessarily support democrats. A higher minority turn out, mainly blacks, usually will help democrats.
Anyway, sorry to spoil your silly, liberal arguement again, JonnyB
First about the Clinton deal. You see, Clinton and his manly wife Hillary were making shady deals in Arkansas long before the Presidency, remember they were both investigated...his lying under oath, and lying to the American people ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") was only the tip of the iceberg. Nobody should be making congressional decision while having oral sex performed on him. Besides the economy recession started on Clinton's watch, so NO JonB the economy did not go up with every orgasm like you would like to believe.
Next, Clinton not taking care of Bin Laden. Hate to tell you, but it is the truth. Clinton was aware of Bin Laden already and afraid to take action. Clinton publicly apologized after his presidency was over, saying he was sorry he did not take care of Bin Laden, so there!
Next, Bush never funded Bin Laden. That is a half truth like usual. Yes, President Bush had financial ties to Bin Laden's family members, but they are family members who have disowned Bin Laden along time ago, and also are not closely related. Remember the Bin Laden's aren't subject to bigamy laws where they live, so they have one big gigantic family. Four wives apiece. When the founder of the clan died in 1988 he left 54 kids. Plus you have to add in grandkids, in-laws, uncles, aunts, and cousins...they also lean towards the West and the USA, with the exception of Bin Laden. Many of them go to colleges in America, so yeah a distant, non-relevant tie to Bin Laden...I am guessing you watched too much Faranheit 911, which has been proven to be a complete lie, and fabrication, like all of Michael Moore's pathetic so called "documentaries.
Next, the election mess from 2000. Talk all you want about how the recount was mandatory, ok, but the bottom line is Al "the bore" Gore is still talking about how he was robbed of the election in 2000...hey, get over it AL..it isn't a popular vote, it's an electoral college..you don't like it, get a personality and and win the election.
And no, it is not EVEN close to true that hundreds of thousand of people that were mistaken as felons were not allowed to vote, not even close..that is straight up democratic propaganda,..re-check your facts, the number was few and far between, and also remember convicted felons, who were probably black, were allowed to vote also. Gore was not the winner. An idependent source checked and counted, and re-counted the votes and determined Bush was the winner anyway, even after the courst decision.
Again, back to the WMD's arguement, which you liberals can't let go of. John Kerry himself said he had no question Saddam had WMD's, and authorized the use of force, AKA: war. Not just the CIA was telling Bush Saddam had WMD's, but several intelligence agencies have told him from several different countries, including Vladmir Putin's people, and Tony Blair's poeple., and other reliable sources. And of course we would not know anyway, because thanks to Saddam paying off France and North Korea to fix weapons inspections, duh, weapons inspections would not work, neither would the 16 or so sanctions placed against him, in which Saddam violated all of them. You still remember when your liberal hero Michael Moore said there is no terrorist threat..he said that, I heard myself. He said it was a couple of isolated incidents..haha!!! What a fat, rich peice of shit he is. So, your cherrypicking of intelligence reports saying one alleged CIA report said there were no WMD's, or saying anyone made a decision based on a Tom Clancy novel is ridiculous. So don't assume and say MAYBE the President only read the reports that said they had WMD's..please.
Try and divert the attention away from your candidate if you would like but he is weak on defense, and the most liberal Senator in the US. In 20 years in the Senate he was a part of 5 bills being pased through... not 56 like he lied to the American people about in the 3rd debate. And he also missed almost of all his Senate votes on National Security after we were attacked...he works hard for his money, huh? He's your candidate, so of course he is going to be scrutinized, just like you unfairly scrutinize Bush. Sorry, but Kerry's plan of speeding up troop training in Iraq is not possible. Bush will have had 125,000 Iraqi troops trained by the end of the year, simply amazing. Even the military personnel in charge stated publicly that John Kerry's plan to speed up troop training is not possible..and Kerry knows that too. Kerry's plan to get help from France and North Korea, or..haha, other coalition forces is not possible. We have had trouble with France for a long time. The oil for food scandal was the reason they would not get involved in the war...read the Dolfer report. They have publicly said if John Kerry is elected they would not help him either.
A far as the debates, it is clear of one thing. Kerry was exposed for who he was based on his 20 year career in the Senate. Yes, Kerry won the first debate. Bush was obviously irked at Kerry and his lies. Kerry is a smooth talker, and has been known to be a good debater..even though he is full of it. He is very good at the art of deflection and going around questions...ask William Weld. The second and third debate were very good. Bush finished strong. Many professionals called the 2nd debate a draw, and the third debate a win for Bush. Yes, Cheney beat Edwards in the V.P. debate, even though Edwards is a get rich quick trial lawyer. No Bush and Cheney are not instilling fear into everyone, they are simply telling the facts and if you can't handle it, get a prescription for prozac immediately. And no, a higher voter turn out, does not necessarily support democrats. A higher minority turn out, mainly blacks, usually will help democrats.
Anyway, sorry to spoil your silly, liberal arguement again, JonnyB
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Aside from all of the rantings here, let's just vote on some basic principals. I'll help you out:
If you think the war in Iraq has been a brilliant success, vote for Bush.
If you don't care about the image of the United States, vote for Bush.
If you believe that prayer can solve all of our problems, vote for Bush.
If you think the minimum wage is high enough (or should be eliminated altogether), vote for Bush.
If you believe that Corporate America needs more tax cuts, vote for Bush.
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG should be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
h34r:
If you think the war in Iraq has been a brilliant success, vote for Bush.
If you don't care about the image of the United States, vote for Bush.
If you believe that prayer can solve all of our problems, vote for Bush.
If you think the minimum wage is high enough (or should be eliminated altogether), vote for Bush.
If you believe that Corporate America needs more tax cuts, vote for Bush.
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG should be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
h34r:YoungNHung19: With all due respect Mark, love your website, but your reasons for voting for Bush are ridiculous..give me 5 reasons to vote for John Kerry...?
1) The Iraq war doesn't have to be a brilliant success to vote for Bush, what would Kerry have done different? Iraq has been overall successful and is a work in progress, and yes more Americans have lost there lives in 9/11 than American lives lost in the war in Iraq by far.
2) Bush cares about the image of the US, that is crap. The oil for food scandal is the main reason why North Korea and France won't help...read the Dolfer report.
3) Bush never said prayer can solve all problems, if you have a problem with religion, Kerry is a catholic, ducked the gay marriage question in the debate, and but of course is for abortion/partial birth abortion..etc.. There is nothing wrong with being a man of faith.
4) The minimum wage being raised to at least $7.00 an hour is absurd, and will only hurt our economy, and taxpayers, the numbers prove it. The jobs that are paying that low usually employ kids, seniors, and adults with no education.
5) Corporate America is not going to get more tax cuts with Bush, in fact with Kerry's plan, small business' will have there taxes raised. You must also remember that because a millionaire gets more money back, that is ok, because he pays out a hell of a lot more than you. A very small percentage of people pay over 80% of the taxes in the US...do we want to withhold money from them...that's kinda like punishing people for being successful and achieving the American dream and working hard,...or in Kerry's case, "marrying up"
Don't know what makes you think that Ashcroft wants you in jail..seems a little paranoid on your part.
1) The Iraq war doesn't have to be a brilliant success to vote for Bush, what would Kerry have done different? Iraq has been overall successful and is a work in progress, and yes more Americans have lost there lives in 9/11 than American lives lost in the war in Iraq by far.
2) Bush cares about the image of the US, that is crap. The oil for food scandal is the main reason why North Korea and France won't help...read the Dolfer report.
3) Bush never said prayer can solve all problems, if you have a problem with religion, Kerry is a catholic, ducked the gay marriage question in the debate, and but of course is for abortion/partial birth abortion..etc.. There is nothing wrong with being a man of faith.
4) The minimum wage being raised to at least $7.00 an hour is absurd, and will only hurt our economy, and taxpayers, the numbers prove it. The jobs that are paying that low usually employ kids, seniors, and adults with no education.
5) Corporate America is not going to get more tax cuts with Bush, in fact with Kerry's plan, small business' will have there taxes raised. You must also remember that because a millionaire gets more money back, that is ok, because he pays out a hell of a lot more than you. A very small percentage of people pay over 80% of the taxes in the US...do we want to withhold money from them...that's kinda like punishing people for being successful and achieving the American dream and working hard,...or in Kerry's case, "marrying up"
Don't know what makes you think that Ashcroft wants you in jail..seems a little paranoid on your part.
Originally posted by MarkSavage@Oct 16 2004, 08:23 PM
Aside from all of the rantings here, let's just vote on some basic principals. I'll help you out:
If you think the war in Iraq has been a brilliant success, vote for Bush.
If you don't care about the image of the United States, vote for Bush.
If you believe that prayer can solve all of our problems, vote for Bush.
If you think the minimum wage is high enough (or should be eliminated altogether), vote for Bush.
If you believe that Corporate America needs more tax cuts, vote for Bush.
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
[post=259834]Quoted post[/post]
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Originally posted by YoungNHung19+Oct 16 2004, 10:32 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(YoungNHung19 @ Oct 16 2004, 10:32 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>With all due respect Mark, love your website, but your reasons for voting for Bush are ridiculous..give me 5 reasons to vote for John Kerry...?
1) The Iraq war doesn't have to be a brilliant success to vote for Bush, what would Kerry have done different? Iraq has been overall successful and is a work in progress, and yes more Americans have lost there lives in 9/11 than American lives lost in the war in Iraq by far.
2) Bush cares about the image of the US, that is crap. The oil for food scandal is the main reason why North Korea and France won't help...read the Dolfer report.
3) Bush never said prayer can solve all problems, if you have a problem with religion, Kerry is a catholic, ducked the gay marriage question in the debate, and but of course is for abortion/partial birth abortion..etc.. There is nothing wrong with being a man of faith.
4) The minimum wage being raised to at least $7.00 an hour is absurd, and will only hurt our economy, and taxpayers, the numbers prove it. The jobs that are paying that low usually employ kids, seniors, and adults with no education.
5) Corporate America is not going to get more tax cuts with Bush, in fact with Kerry's plan, small business' will have there taxes raised. You must also remember that because a millionaire gets more money back, that is ok, because he pays out a hell of a lot more than you. A very small percentage of people pay over 80% of the taxes in the US...do we want to withhold money from them...that's kinda like punishing people for being successful and achieving the American dream and working hard,...or in Kerry's case, "marrying up"
Don't know what makes you think that Ashcroft wants you in jail..seems a little paranoid on your part.
<!--QuoteBegin-MarkSavage@Oct 16 2004, 08:23 PM
Aside from all of the rantings here, let's just vote on some basic principals. I'll help you out:
If you think the war in Iraq has been a brilliant success, vote for Bush.
If you don't care about the image of the United States, vote for Bush.
If you believe that prayer can solve all of our problems, vote for Bush.
If you think the minimum wage is high enough (or should be eliminated altogether), vote for Bush.
If you believe that Corporate America needs more tax cuts, vote for Bush.
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
[post=259834]Quoted post[/post]
[post=259840]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I really don't want to debate you. I feel very strongly about my opinions, and you obviously feel strongly about yours. I find some of your statements to be not only inaccurate, but offensive. I'm just going to leave it at that.
Originally posted by MarkSavage+Oct 17 2004, 06:49 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MarkSavage @ Oct 17 2004, 06:49 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>@Oct 16 2004, 08:23 PM
Aside from all of the rantings here, let's just vote on some basic principals. I'll help you out:
If you think...vote for Bush.
If you believe... vote for Bush.....
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
[post=259834]Quoted post[/post]
[post=259840]Quoted post[/post]
I really don't want to debate you. I feel very strongly about my opinions, and you obviously feel strongly about yours. I find some of your statements to be not only inaccurate, but offensive. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[post=259848]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]Yes, however the one thing still missing is WHY you feel we should vote for Kerry.
Speaking of inaccurate statements and misrepresentation of facts, have you done any in depth research into the things which Kerry has said he has done as opposed to what he actually has done? I hear Doublespeak.
That part said, I do agree on one major point of yours: You feel strongly about your opinions, as do I.
One other thing I need to ask you Mark::Why is it that the only time the Democrats push their "get out the vote" campaign is when they are in danger of losing an election? Do you remember the year 1996 when Clinton ran for a second term and there was little chance of him being defeated by Dole? Where were Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and all their wide and varied entourages that year? Suddenly the youth vote and the black vote and the poor and down trodden persons vote was not of importance to them. Say what you wish to about the Republicans at least they don't dance around and do the wishy-washy flip-flop dance according to what the polls show.
Lastly (suddenly everyone breathed a sigh of relief): Just get your rear-end out there next month and VOTE.
SpeedoGuy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2004
- Posts
- 4,166
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 41
- Points
- 258
- Age
- 60
- Location
- Pacific Northwest, USA
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
My feelngs exactly.
Of course Bill and Hillary Clinton were being attacked by a "...vast right wing consipracy." Its called the GOP.
<!--QuoteBegin-Onslow@Oct 16 2004, 11:50 PM
Why is it that the only time the Democrats push their "get out the vote" campaign is when they are in danger of losing an election?
[/quote]
An equally valid question might be:
Why is it when they are in danger of losing an election and desperate to deflect attention from the failings of their current leader can Republican apologists think of no better response than to continue to attack Bill Clinton?
SG
MisterMark
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2002
- Posts
- 2,021
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 126
- Points
- 383
- Location
- Palm Springs, CA
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Yes, however the one thing still missing is WHY you feel we should vote for Kerry.Originally posted by Onslow+Oct 17 2004, 04:50 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Onslow @ Oct 17 2004, 04:50 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'>@Oct 16 2004, 08:23 PM
Aside from all of the rantings here, let's just vote on some basic principals. I'll help you out:
If you think...vote for Bush.
If you believe... vote for Bush.....
And finally, if you think that adult entertainment and/or websites like the LPSG be illegal, vote for Bush. I'm sure that his buddy John Ashcroft would love to see me in jail.
[post=259834]Quoted post[/post]
[post=259840]Quoted post[/post]
I really don't want to debate you. I feel very strongly about my opinions, and you obviously feel strongly about yours. I find some of your statements to be not only inaccurate, but offensive. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[post=259848]Quoted post[/post]
Speaking of inaccurate statements and misrepresentation of facts, have you done any in depth research into the things which Kerry has said he has done as opposed to what he actually has done? I hear Doublespeak.
That part said, I do agree on one major point of yours: You feel strongly about your opinions, as do I.
One other thing I need to ask you Mark::Why is it that the only time the Democrats push their "get out the vote" campaign is when they are in danger of losing an election? Do you remember the year 1996 when Clinton ran for a second term and there was little chance of him being defeated by Dole? Where were Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand and all their wide and varied entourages that year? Suddenly the youth vote and the black vote and the poor and down trodden persons vote was not of importance to them. Say what you wish to about the Republicans at least they don't dance around and do the wishy-washy flip-flop dance according to what the polls show.
Lastly (suddenly everyone breathed a sigh of relief): Just get your rear-end out there next month and VOTE.
[post=259861]Quoted post[/post]
[/b][/quote]I honestly don't have the time (or interest) in trying to convert people. You asked for some reasons to vote for Kerry. Here are a couple of editorials that explain it beautifully - one in great detail, the other in very simple language:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/...html?oref=login
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/...y1017WKERRY.htm
Kerry received endorsements today from 27 newspapers around the country, including a few that endorsed Bush in 2000.
