What's new

Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

So can I. And since you seem to be unable to come up with an original thought, why should I. No shame in cut and pasting right? 😀

Why should I spend days/weeks coming up with the same stuff others have done already? If I had that much free time, I'd go to work for the RNC. 😀

So, on the day he cast his vote for the Patriot Act, he specifically called out his 'concern' about the powers of surveillance granted in the act, and said it would be 'appropriate' for Congress to 'come back and measure the record.

Funny how he's so concerned about granting the government many of the same powers they already had for going after drug dealers to use against suspected terrorists. Maybe he thinks drug dealers are a bigger threat than terrorists, unlike BJ Bill who pardoned a big cocaine king at the end of his reign. Oh well, at least BJ's brother made some $$$$ by referring the case directly to BJ.


Funny how you first claim that I have nothing to back up what I was claiming about Kerry flip-flopping, then when I do, you complain about my cutting and pasting. Clearly, you didn't give a damn about what the record showed about Kerry's flip-flops and just figured I'd never back up my claims. Typical Democrat. :down:
 
AgMedallion said:
Funny how you first claim that I have nothing to back up what I was claiming about Kerry flip-flopping, then when I do, you complain about my cutting and pasting. Clearly, you didn't give a damn about what the record showed about Kerry's flip-flops and just figured I'd never back up my claims. Typical Democrat. :down:
Word. Glad you called him on it.

More so than the actual discussion fodder, that bit of chutzpah hit me upside the head like a depleted uranium brick, it was that obvious.
 
Clearly I do give a damn about what the record shows.

For any body who cares, heres a link to to the truth.
http://bushcampaignlies.blogspot.com/2004/...flip-flops.html

I'm much to lazy to cut and past all of it.As for calling you out about backing your bull!@# up, Its about time you tried, to bad all you've come up with is a bunch of halfe quotes taken out of context. Why cant you prove your point by telling the whole story?

Like the story of how you flip flop:

QUOTE (AgMedallion @ May 25 2004, 03:10 PM)

I recall reading about 3,000 Americans who died in 2001 because BJ Bill treated all the terrorist acts ('93 WTC bombing, U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, etc) as criminal acts to be dealt with by Federal prosecutors, Grand Juries, etc (I'll bet Al Qaeda literally craps in their pants from fear at the thought of a grand jury indictment.... real scary stuff!!!). He even passed on getting UBL when Sudan offered him to us. So do us all a favor and cram your little bumper sticker where the sun don't shine! 

AgMedallion
Posted on: Apr 4 2004, 07:41 AM

QUOTE

...I don't think any President should be given credit for economic upswings or blame for economic downturns. Most of that activity is due to the normal business cycle and other events Presidents have little or no control over, i.e. 9/11, dot com bubbles, etc....


hmmm....
events Presidents have little or no control over, i.e. 9/11, dot com bubbles




And I'm still waiting for your response to this:

QUOTE

I don't support the statements he made after his service about his fellow veterans and what they did. Btw, I didn't even go to the references you cited because I heard and saw what he said during his testimony at Congressional hearings and prefer to believe my own eyes and ears rather than Democrat "spin". Oh yeah, before you try to blast me for it, I am  a veteran (Nam era active-duty non-reserve Army service, but didn't get sent to Nam, plus my son is in the military.)


Well I am going to blast you for it. The reference i sited was a TRANSCRIPT. THATS ALL. PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU SPIN A TRANSCRIPT. At least now we know what kind of an open mind you bring to the debate. Maybe i should have put Zell's name next to it. I also heard and saw his testimony with my own eyes. I also saw him debate Mr. O'Neill.

Please find it in you heart to go to the reference i sited and tell us here specifically what about it you disagree with.

To quote:"
We are here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We're here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatrick, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men they sent off to war, have returned? These are the commanders who have deserted their troops. And there is no more serious crime in the laws of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The marines say they never even leave their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They've left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun in this country...."

SEEMS TO ME HE IS BLAMING THE LEADERSHIP. NOT THE SOLDIERS.
Im very curious to hear your interpretation.



Whats the matter? Cant handle it cause it requires a little reading? A little bit more than cutting and pasting to try to justify your opinion? Thats what I'm talking about.
 
Like the story of how you flip flop:

QUOTE (AgMedallion @ May 25 2004, 03:10 PM)

I recall reading about 3,000 Americans who died in 2001 because BJ Bill treated all the terrorist acts ('93 WTC bombing, U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, etc) as criminal acts to be dealt with by Federal prosecutors, Grand Juries, etc (I'll bet Al Qaeda literally craps in their pants from fear at the thought of a grand jury indictment.... real scary stuff!!!). He even passed on getting UBL when Sudan offered him to us. So do us all a favor and cram your little bumper sticker where the sun don't shine!
AgMedallion
Posted on: Apr 4 2004, 07:41 AM
QUOTE
...I don't think any President should be given credit for economic upswings or blame for economic downturns. Most of that activity is due to the normal business cycle and other events Presidents have little or no control over, i.e. 9/11, dot com bubbles, etc....
hmmm....
events Presidents have little or no control over, i.e. 9/11, dot com bubbles


Interesting how you didn't include my response to your BS. Here it is for those interested in BOTH sides of the story, i.e. like Foxnews, "fair and balanced". 😀
No Al Franken, Michael Moore half truths/lies!
By the time 9/11 rolled around, Bush in fact had virtually no control over it. BJ Bill had done virtually nothing (except you-know-what) for 8 years while Al Qaeda organized and built their strength, made their plans, etc with virtually no meaningful resistance from the U.S. The CIA was gutted and the military severely downsized. If Kerry gets elected, it will be party time for Al Qaeda. Just as they influenced the election in Spain, they'll probably try to influence our election and get Bush out of office. Kerry would be their logical preference since he wouldn't do anything without French/German/U.N. approval. At least that's the way he's leaning now. Who knows where his flip-flopping will take his future policies/views.
 
Your response doesnt mean squat. Who cares how you feel about it NOW. The point is you FLIP FLOPED!

FLIP.

FLOP.

AKA:

hypocrite


n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]
 
We aren't going to change anybody's opinion, no way. But the point to be made is this: ARE YOU BETTER OFF TODAY THEN YOU WERE 4 YEARS AGO? If you can answer YES, then vote for Bush...if you MUST answer NO, vote for Kerry. It's simple.

I am sad to say that I think this message board will look surprisingly different in 4 years. Remember the Russians used to be Super Powers too. I think the curtain is closing for the US.
 
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."


"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"

- Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States
 
Clearly I do give a damn about what the record shows.
as long as its some left wing sanctioned source.....
even though he listens to HANNITY in the car........see, the RIGHT side of his brain is showing some promise after all.....remember, REGAN was a liberal democrat before he came to his senses.....
heres one for you sentrido,old pol....... :up:
 
delldude said:
...remember, REGAN was a liberal democrat before he came to his senses...
Who was REGAN?

Or are you a proud conservative who cannot even properly spell the name of your hero, President Ronald Wilson Reagan?

A Nice Guy's Nasty Policies
Robert Scheer

June 8, 2004

I liked Ronald Reagan, despite the huge divide between us politically. Reagan was a charming old pro who gave me hours of his time in a series of interviews beginning in 1966 when he was running for governor, simply because he enjoyed the give and take. In fact, I often found myself defending the Gipper whenever I was confronted with an East Coast pundit determined to denigrate anyone, particularly actors, from my adopted state. Yet, looking back at his record, I am appalled that I warmed to the man as much as I did.

The fact is that Reagan abandoned the Roosevelt New Deal — which he admitted had saved his family during the Great Depression — in favor of a belief in the efficacy of massive corporate welfare inculcated in him by his paymasters at Warner Bros., General Electric and the conservative lecture circuit. Though Reagan the man was hardly mean-spirited, Reagan the politician betrayed the social programs and trade unionism he once believed in so fiercely.

Let's start with his leadership of California, where he launched attacks on the state's once- incomparable public universities and devastated its mental health system. Foreshadowing future trumped-up invasions of tiny Grenada and Nicaragua, he sent thousands of National Guardsmen to tear-gas Berkeley.

It also became increasingly clear that although the man wasn't unintelligent, his ability to mingle truth with fantasy was frightening. At different times, Reagan — who infamously said that "facts are stupid things" — falsely claimed to have ended poverty in Los Angeles; implied he was personally involved in the liberation of Europe's concentration camps; argued that trees cause most pollution; said that the Hollywood blacklist, to which he contributed names, never existed; described as "freedom fighters" the Contra thugs and the religious fundamentalists in Afghanistan who would later become Al Qaeda; and claimed that fighting a "limited" nuclear war was not an insane idea.

But to see him as only a bumpkin — as some did — was to very much underestimate him. Like Nixon, the Teflon president was a survivor who'd come up the hard way, and many journalists and politicians who didn't understand that invariably were surprised by his resiliency and savvy. Although he generally was compliant with his handlers, whenever the campaign pros or rigid ideologues got in the way of his or Nancy's instincts, they were summarily discarded.

Even when his ideas were silly, his intentions often seemed good. For example, one of his dumbest and costliest pet projects, the "Star Wars" missile defense program, which he first announced when I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1980, was touted by Reagan as a peace offering to the Soviets.

And his legendary ability to effectively project an upbeat, confident worldview managed to obscure many of the negative consequences of his policies. For example, he made the terrible mistake of willfully ignoring the burgeoning AIDS epidemic at a time when action could have saved millions. Unlike many conservatives, however, he was not driven by homophobia. Instead, Reagan allowed AIDS to spread for the same reason he pointedly savaged programs to help the poor: He was genuinely convinced that government programs exacerbated problems — unless they catered to the needs of the businessmen he had come to revere.

In the White House, he ran up more debt than any earlier president — primarily to serve the requests of what Republican President Eisenhower had, with alarm, termed the "military- industrial complex." (George W. Bush has broken that record.)

Apologists for this waste argue that throwing money at the defense industry broke the back of the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War. But the Soviet Union was already broken, as Mikhail S. Gorbachev acknowledged quite freely when he came to power in the 1980s. Rather, what Reagan does deserve considerable credit for is ignoring the dire warnings of the hawks and responding enthusiastically to Gorbachev in their historic Reykjavík summit, where the two leaders called for a nuclear-free world.

Let it be remembered, then, that in the closing scene of his presidency Reagan embraced the peacemakers, rejecting the cheerleaders of Armageddon and was then loudly castigated by the very neoconservatives — most vociferously Richard Perle — who have claimed the Reagan mantle for the post-Cold War militarism of the current administration.

Los Angeles Times
 
delldude said:
as long as its some left wing sanctioned source.....
even though he listens to HANNITY in the car........see, the RIGHT side of his brain is showing some promise after all.....remember, REGAN was a liberal democrat before he came to his senses.....
heres one for you sentrido,old pol....... :up:
Thats righ dell! And as soon as I hit the 200K mark, I'm all Republican! 😉
 
Try this.....I'm married to a Republican 😛h34r:
 
Fly said:
Try this.....I'm married to a Republican 😛h34r:
could provide for some interesting dialoge?
do like carville and his wife..they don't discuss politics or she slaps the **** outa jim.... :lol:
 
sentrido said:
Your response doesnt mean squat. Who cares how you feel about it NOW. The point is you FLIP FLOPED!

FLIP.

FLOP.

AKA:

hypocrite


n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]
BS. As I wrote, and you apparently can't comprehend (which isn't surprising since Dems have trouble with understanding the meaning of simple words like "is" or "alone"), Bush couldn't have stopped 9/11. The terrorists were all in place, plans were made, etc. BJ Bill didn't do diddly-squat about terrorism during 8 years of bombings, except attack an aspirin factory and some empty tents, and refused to take UBL when he was offered to us by Sudan. BFD.
 
Fly said:
Try this.....I'm married to a Republican 😛h34r:
Well, at least now we know who has the brains in your family! (and it isn't you in case my meaning isn't clear) 😀
 
Back
Top