Do You Want To Re- Elect Bush For Presendent!

[sentrido]

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.

Whatever you say, FLIP.

 

[AgMedallion]

Who was REGAN?

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

Thank you for the enlightened Reagan-bashing. Couldn't you (or, more importantly, the reporter from that liberal rag known as the L.A. Times) at least wait until he was buried? I'm sure Scheer would have preferred a continuation of Carter's inept administration. More stratospheric interest rates and inflation, more hostage holding in Iran, more getting duped by Castro and taking in all the Cuban loonies, mentally retarded and criminals Castro could load on boats. IMHO, Carter, while supposedly intelligent, must rank as one of the most gullible, naive and incompetent individuals to ever occupy the Oval Office.

 

[AgMedallion]

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.

Sounds like you're admitting that you think Bush will win re-election. Or are you saying that Kerry will win and start a downhill slide for this country? Either way, thanks for your vote of confidence in America! People like you are the ones who voted for Jimmy Carter and his "national malaise" bullpoop. The optimists who had faith in our country voted for Reagan and were proven right.

 

[delldude]

Sounds like you're admitting that you think Bush will win re-election. Or are you saying that Kerry will win and start a downhill slide for this country? Either way, thanks for your vote of confidence in America! People like you are the ones who voted for Jimmy Carter and his "national malaise" bullpoop. The optimists who had faith in our country voted for Reagan and were proven right.

if kerry wins...i'd expect him to inherit a growing economy and take credit for it just like BJ billy did.....
but i don't think hes going to...
hells bells...kerry is a damned elitist ....he's miles above us poor working smacks.nice of him to come down to ur level from time to time.....too busy counting theresa's cash i guess........

 

[AgMedallion]

Whatever you say, FLIP.

Ouch, that hurts!!! 😀

In response to whatever you post in the future:

WHATEVER!

 

[sentrido]

You got it, FLIPY

 

[sentrido]

Boston Globe:
"After three days of suspended political activity, the Bush campaign began openly incorporating Ronald Reagan's death into its reelection message yesterday, revamping its website to give Reagan a dominant role and distributing official campaign letters that invoke the former president."

Man, politicians have no shame.

 

[KCFlyer]

Boston Globe:
"After three days of suspended political activity, the Bush campaign began openly incorporating Ronald Reagan's death into its reelection message yesterday, revamping its website to give Reagan a dominant role and distributing official campaign letters that invoke the former president."

Man, politicians have no shame.

Anyone with half a brain would scoff at comparing Bush to Reagan. I don't care if you are far left, far right, or right in the middle, Bush ain't no Reagan, other than the fact that he's a Republican. Maybe Bush can start a new mantra in the remainder of his term..."WWRD- What would Reagan do". Betcha attacking Iraq on the pretense that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America wouldn't be on of them.

 

[delldude]

you know today i had a revelation....suddenly it became quite clear to me...we can continue with this crap of 'my guys better than your guy ' until hell freezes over...
well actually...the only thing you and i really have any form of control over in this great debate is exercising our right to vote for the canidate of our choice.......
no more/no less....thats the bottom line...please be sure to vote. 😉

 

[AgMedallion]

Anyone with half a brain would scoff at comparing Bush to Reagan. I don't care if you are far left, far right, or right in the middle, Bush ain't no Reagan, other than the fact that he's a Republican. Maybe Bush can start a new mantra in the remainder of his term..."WWRD- What would Reagan do". Betcha attacking Iraq on the pretense that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America wouldn't be on of them.

Since most liberals loathed and detested Reagan, why should they mind if Bush were trying to compare himself to the Gipper? Those libs (some of whom are such bottom feeders, that they're even bashing Reagan before he's even in the ground) should welcome Bush's efforts. They should be shouting from the rooftops that Bush admits he's a braindead idiot like Reagan. That's what the elitist libs usually do re conservatives, i.e. always put them down as idiots (e.g. Clark Clifford called Reagan an affable dunce). I don't recall conservatives ever making these claims about liberals. They let the their record speak for itself. 😀

 

[Fly]

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) 😀

That's very rude! 😱

BTW, most Democrats have a higher educational background than Republicans. 😉

Also, IMHO, Reagan was a wonderful man and president, regardless of party affliation. Unfortunately, that was the last decent president this country has seen.

 

[AgMedallion]

That's very rude! 😱


Also, IMHO, Reagan was a wonderful man and president, regardless of party affliation. Unfortunately, that was the last decent president this country has seen.

I was just kidding!!! Btw, my wife is a Democrat. It's a mixed marriage. 😀

I'm very sorry if you took offense. In the future, I'll be more obvious that I'm kidding.

BTW, most Democrats have a higher educational background than Republicans. 😉

Are you serious about this? Please cite your reference. After all the difficulty Dems seem to have in the voting booth, I'd be shocked if this were true. That, plus the fact that the Dems seem to appeal most to the relatively uneducated and poor types who are most in need of government programs which supposedly help them. Some of those programs do, of course, help, but others just make those who design and vote for them feel good about themselves.

Re Reagan, he was a very good person who was, during his lifetime, attacked by liberals with all kinds of downright nasty, personally insulting remarks. Now those same folks are shedding crocodile tears, although some others, like Jesse Jackson, are at least more honest (though contemptible given that the man isn't even buried) and still hurl abusive remarks at his memory, e.g. that he killed thousands of gays by not funding/supporting AIDS research to the extent they wanted. Oh well, I guess it takes all types. 🙁

 

[sentrido]

Since most liberals loathed and detested Reagan, why should they mind if Bush were trying to compare himself to the Gipper? Those libs (some of whom are such bottom feeders, that they're even bashing Reagan before he's even in the ground) should welcome Bush's efforts. They should be shouting from the rooftops that Bush admits he's a braindead idiot like Reagan. That's what the elitist libs usually do re conservatives, i.e. always put them down as idiots (e.g. Clark Clifford called Reagan an affable dunce). I don't recall conservatives ever making these claims about liberals. They let the their record speak for itself. 😀

Ron jr.:
"My father had decades of experience in public life. He was president of his union, he campaigned for presidential candidates, he served two terms as governor of California -- and that was not a ceremonial office as it is in Texas. And he had already run for president, against Ford in '76, nearly unseating the sitting president in his own party. He knew where he was coming from, he had spent years thinking and speaking about his views. He didn't have to ask Dick Cheney what he thought.

"Sure, he wasn't a technocrat like Clinton. But my father was a man -- that's the difference between him and Bush. To paraphrase Jack Palance, my father crapped bigger ones than George Bush."

However most Liberals feel about Reagan and his policies, the man was a success. Most "liberals" I know can admit that. Some of them even voted for him. I personally feel that its an insult to Reagan to make a comparison between him and Bush, because he happend to pass in an election year.

Anyway, I'm sure the Dems are gonna use the situation to make jabs also.

 

[KCFlyer]

Since most liberals loathed and detested Reagan, why should they mind if Bush were trying to compare himself to the Gipper?

Perhaps because they recognize that Reagan, despite any faults the "liberals" may have had with him, was a FAR better leader than Bush.

Those libs (some of whom are such bottom feeders, that they're even bashing Reagan before he's even in the ground) should welcome Bush's efforts.

But your evil lib who is running against your beloved Bush announced (and so far, has not "flip-flopped" on this statement) that he is suspending his campaign for a week. His web site has a tribute to Reagan on it. Bush barely let the body get cold before he and his "team" decided to capitalize on the fact that Reagan was a Republican and a beloved president, and that they should milk this for all it's worth. Which action do you believe to be more respectful towards the deceased?

They should be shouting from the rooftops that Bush admits he's a braindead idiot like Reagan. That's what the elitist libs usually do re conservatives, i.e. always put them down as idiots (e.g. Clark Clifford called Reagan an affable dunce). I don't recall conservatives ever making these claims about liberals.

No...conservatives haven't called liberal Presidents "affable dunces". They HAVE however called a sitting president anything from an amoral sex fiend (indeed...you seem compelled to put "BJ Bill" in about 75% of your posts) to a murderer. "Affable dunce" seems like a term of endearment compared to what many conservatives called liberals.

They let the their record speak for itself

And what the record doesn't speak, unbiased "news" sources such as the American Spectator helps to fill in the blanks.

My sincerest hope is that the Bush team keeps on with this Reagan comparison - perhaps we can have a bit of Deja Vu in the upcoming debates, where Kerry can make a Bentsen-esque statemet of "Mr. President, I served with Ronald Reagan. I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Mr. President, you're no Ronald Reagan."

 

[AgMedallion]

No...conservatives haven't called liberal Presidents "affable dunces". They HAVE however called a sitting president anything from an amoral sex fiend (indeed...you seem compelled to put "BJ Bill" in about 75% of your posts) to a murderer.

I personally never called Clinton a "sex fiend", although I have heard it said from responsible psychologists (and I agree with this) that he's a sex addict. Look at the known record...Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Jennifer Flowers and Monica. I always thought the stuff about murdering Vince Foster was a pile of crap. I was very shocked when I found out about Clinton allegedly raping Juanita Broaddrick and, after I heard what she had to say, believe it 100%. She told people about it at the time, was a Democrat with nothing to gain (and everything to lose, i.e. her nursing home license) and would have failed to get justice against the sitting Attorney General of her state anyway. She didn't voluntarily publicize the charge and was more or less forced to because of the Starr inquiry. If you choose to disbelieve her because you either honestly think she's lying or because you hate to think that the President you supported would commit such an act, then that's your prerogative. But many feel he did it. Let's face it, Clinton treated women like trash. He would have used his "nuts and sluts" strategy to make Monica look like a stalker if it weren't for the blue dress. It's incredible that organizations like NOW didn't raise a stink and supported Clinton all the way even though their organization is supposed to stand up to guys like that and what they represent.

I don't think a comparison of Bush and Reagan holds up, though Bush is certainly a better comparison than if you were to try to compare Kerrey and Reagan. The terrorists Bush is fighting are just as "evil" as the "evil empire" Reagan talked about. They're just not as lethal a force....... yet .