2
   

Why you should vote for our Elected President

 
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 09:10 pm
Clapton, Marley, or Delaney and Bonney?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 09:13 pm
Setanta wrote:
Impeach means to indict, so certainly Clinton was indicted. He was not, however, convicted. The Senate, with a Republican majority, did not convict him. The contention that anyone who has committed a criminal act can be identified because they will have been "brought up on charges" is such an illogical statement as to be laughably abusrd.


You are calling Bush a criminal. You must have evidence or proof to make such an accusation, don't you? Or are you in the habit of just making false accusations? If you have proof or evidence or anything else proving the criminality of George Bush, please send it to your representative and have them impeach the man! I certainly do not want a criminal holding the office of President of the USA!

Setanta wrote:
As for exaggerating the issues, Cheney received a report in mid-2002 to the effect that the "yellow cake" story about uranium from Africa was not reliable. If he did not subsequently intervene when the story was bandied about as plausible enough to justify the Shrub's 2003 state of the union address, than their criminality arises from incompetence. Having people that stupid running the country is a crime indeed.


He also had the British government telling him that the story WAS credible. A stance that they continue to hold to this very day. Is Bush such a suave diplomat that he was able to convince the entire British parliment to do as he bids?

Setanta wrote:
You've got a stinking pile right under your nose, and either can't or won't smell it.

We will indeed see in November whether or not the Shrub will feel obliged to steal yet another election.


Indeed we will.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 09:27 pm
In fact, your information about the causus belli as seen by Blair and company is entirely false. They were not relying on the yellow cake story, which in any case would have been no proof that Hussein had wmd's ready for launch within 45 mintues, the specific cause which Blair cited. Yes, i do consider that this is a criminal administration. However, my representative is Deborah Price, and a bigger Republican ass-licker of this crew would be hard to find in the House, so i'll not waste any effort on that. So tell me, McG, did you ferret out the sexual pecadillos of Clinton and send them off to your Representative with a demand for impeachment, or were you simply gleeful that it had happended? For the record, i will point out as i have so many times in these fora, that i have no brief to defend Clinton. Because i was not particularly impressed with him, and had rather than voted for the idiot Bush senior, or that poor confused man Dole, i wrote my own name in (and the election voluteers were not happy when i demanded a paper ballot), because i was not comfortable voting for Clinton. It is typical childish playground rhetoric to bring up Clinton's sexual clownishness when someone condemns the Shrub and his band of crooks, but it bears not relevance to a discussion of Bush's fitness for the office. As for criminality, consider the refusal of Cheney to release his papers from the first "energy task force," the unbid sweetheart contract awarded to Halliburton, which has now been accused by the Pentagon of gouging the Army in Iraq, and which has rushed to publicize the bribery of their own employees before it could be released in the United States. It had already been reported in the Gulf states news agencies. And finally, as this entire teapot tempest arose from the sickening appeal to Morals and Family Values, with the unnecessary capitalization, a good clue to the lockstep mentality of the author of this thread, i will point out that the fiscal robbery of coming generations with the Shub's tax giveaways to the rich, while the burden of funding his tax-and-spend conservative agenda falls more and more heavily on the middle class and hard-working Americans of less financial means is moral crime of the highest order.

Get off your high horse, McG, the man is a putz, he is surrounded by the dregs of Reagan's and his father's administrations, and they are robbing us all, you included, to fund their venal and selfish agenda. Your sanctimonious defense of Bush as moral is breathtaking in its simple-minded stupidity. I know you're not that dumb, so i can only conclude that you desparately want to believe what every new day proves not to be true.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 09:55 pm
Get off your high horse, Set, the man is a good president, he is surrounded by the best of Reagan's and his father's administrations, and they are saving us all. Your sanctimonious attacks on Bush as immoral is breathtaking in its simple-minded stupidity. I know you're not that dumb, so i can only conclude that you desparately want to believe what every new day proves not to be true.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 10:04 pm
You do you case no good with such rhetorical tactics, McG . . . in a middle school bull session after class, such a technique might pass for clever . . .

And, of course, you've never addressed the issue of the morality of the administration, which does not surprise me.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 10:07 pm
hobitbob wrote:
inmagine: the opposite of outmagine.
Arkansa: Arkansas after an earthquake.
Too you: you too?


Arkansa is a "Hooked on Phonics" thing. The Texas version is Arkansaw.

My favorite in that latest batch of malaprops was Judicidal:

A judge with a death wish -- his, yours, a convicted person's... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Montana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 11:35 pm
I agree with everyone except kjvtrue, McGentrix, and CJ.
0 Replies
 
Wy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 29 Jan, 2004 11:59 pm
Quote:
Setanta
Do you consider that sexual misconduct is morally equivalent to, or worse than, starting a war which kills thousands of innocent bystanders, on the basis of discredited information, and for reasons which have not held up to scrutiny?

McGentrix
You can continue asking and I will continue evading it as it's not a valid question.


If I may ask, why isn't it a valid question?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:31 am
Wy wrote:
Quote:
Setanta
Do you consider that sexual misconduct is morally equivalent to, or worse than, starting a war which kills thousands of innocent bystanders, on the basis of discredited information, and for reasons which have not held up to scrutiny?

McGentrix
You can continue asking and I will continue evading it as it's not a valid question.


If I may ask, why isn't it a valid question?


Because the question can be turned around.

Which do you find morally reprehensible: Usurping an evil dictator to save millions of innocent Iraqi's, or having the president stick his dick in an interns mouth and lying about it? Do you find these morally equivalent?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:36 am
How many people died in the oval office when Slick Willy was shtuppin' Lewinski?

How many people have died in Iraq, and how many more will die?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:41 am
Is starting a war on false pretenses (i.e. sending soldiers off to die for a lie) worse than getting a blowjob from an intern?

We report, but McG has already decided...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:44 am
McG is gonna cling to the "evil dictator" excuse like a drowning man grabbing a life bouy. No questions, please, about why Hussein was arbitrarily chose out of the host of murderous evil dictators available in the world. It wasn't about daddy's revenge, it wasn't about Cheney's sweetheart deals to his former company, it wasn't about the oil . . . it was all pure nobility, the Shrub's strong suit!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:52 am
How many cruise missiles did Clinton launch during his trial? How many people were killed as a mere distraction?

Please. I don't think any president we have had in the past 50 years has been over flowing with great morals. I don't expect them too, as they have a tough job that demands tough decisions that can't be held up by their personal morals.

You don't like Bush. You haven't been overly secretive in your displeasure of Bush's actions. But, ifyou can't see the difference between what Clinton did in disgracing himself, his office, and his country with what Bush has done in overthrowing Saddam's regime, then there is nothing I can say that will make any difference to you.

Well, so be it.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:53 am
Setanta wrote:
McG is gonna cling to the "evil dictator" excuse like a drowning man grabbing a life bouy. No questions, please, about why Hussein was arbitrarily chose out of the host of murderous evil dictators available in the world. It wasn't about daddy's revenge, it wasn't about Cheney's sweetheart deals to his former company, it wasn't about the oil . . . it was all pure nobility, the Shrub's strong suit!



Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 07:54 am
Hey PD, have you noticed how the alleged Prez is out justifying the war these days? He was quoted as saying in South Carolina that he looks forward to debating the issue. Apparently, no one has informed him that a debate does not involve reading a prepared statement . . .
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 08:03 am
kjvtrue wrote:
PDiddie, Bill Clinton is the worst President our nation has ever been forced to endure. because he can't keep his pants on, him and his wife are raciest, he helped made it possible to slauter unborn babies, for Homosexual's to rape Hederalsexual US solders, sells illegal drugs, murdered two men and a teenage boy. You may not agree with those statements our Elected President made, but I sure do.


I wonder do you also agree with this statement your allegedly elected president made?

Quote:
"God told me to strike at Al Qa'ida and I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. With the might of God on our side we will triumph," said George Bush.


Do you like your president also have a direct line to God?
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 08:20 am
McGentrix wrote:
Get off your high horse, Set, the man is a good president, he is surrounded by the best of Reagan's and his father's administrations, and they are saving us all. Your sanctimonious attacks on Bush as immoral is breathtaking in its simple-minded stupidity. I know you're not that dumb, so i can only conclude that you desparately want to believe what every new day proves not to be true.


Complete proof that the evil roots of bush inc. go well past and below 1600 pennsylvania avenue and that the conversion of an entire nation to a closely held corporation is well thought out and planned and has been in a constant state of implementation for 50 years at least. idiot boy is the face of bush inc but by no means it's brains or it's leader. gwb is a patsy for the organization, betrayed by his own father, who allows him to be used in such a manner, and worse than that, groomed him for it since birth along with his morally bankrupt siblings. They weren't born as they are, they were raised that way as was ghwb before him.

What we are experiencing and seeing today is merely another step in a careful ongoing strategy. these things take time.

As always, IMHO.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 08:24 am
Set, kjvtrue, McGentrix and his like DO believe that a blow job is worse than a carpet bombing, so what are you going to do?

There's no foundation for debate with these types.

I'm sure they are also afraid for a president who's had a botox injection to have access to the football as well. Body modifications have no place in a Godly society. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 08:26 am
God may be on their side, but the Devil is in the details . . . the religious are sickening enough when they're out thumping bibles to drum up more clueless recruits--when they have access to the armed forces, however, we are all in trouble . . .
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Jan, 2004 08:28 am
Careful, Bear. Ashcroft is watching.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/17/2021 at 12:42:51