0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:18 pm
If anything, both the Israeli's and Hamas doesn't think much about Bush's speech to the UN.
http://english.pravda.ru/diplomatic/2002/06/27/31239.html
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Sep, 2003 11:36 pm
That's Pravda's take, anyway. Ha'aretz wasn't thrilled, but wasn't all bad with it: they linked it to their own ongoing problems: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/343481.html

The Jerusalem Post carries pretty much the same line, but instead of below-the-fold, its their banner: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/343481.html

Albawaba leads with "Bush, Arafat exchange harsh words": http://www.albawaba.com/main/index.ie.php3?lang=e
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 01:22 am
It is obvious that P Diddie won't go near President Clinton's quotes with a ten foot pole.

Clinton's quotes presage almost all of George Bush's quotes but the party line of the left wing would rathe strangle than admit that.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 01:52 am
If Clinton got it right in the last hours of his presidency and was correctly justified in the last minute bombing strikes on Iraq, why were they halted when Bush became president?

Why did it take the World Trade Center incident to give Bush enough (albeit delayed) incentive to renew the bombing of Iraq to rid it of WMDs?
0 Replies
 
Italgato
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 02:00 am
Well, Btryfly: There could be several reasons:

l. Bush is not as smart as Clinton

2. Bush was thrown off by the Jeffords defection

3. Bush needed time to build up a case

or

4. Bush initially thought that Clinton was bombing Iraq to take the public's mind off of his impeachment.

Note:

Clinton's speech- December 16th 1998

House of Representatives approves two of the articles and Clinton is impeached- December 19th 1998.


Some say, however, Btryfly, that anyone who thought that Clinton would launch missles to kill people primarily to take the public's mind off of his impeachment hearings, is just a right wing conspirator.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 05:02 am
I can't believe you guys are still buying/repeating the '9-11 equals Iraq' equation. Bush and Rumsfeld now have shifted their story on you (and Cheney, though he did it with typical sleezey 'don't know for sure', which is true concerning the Borg as well) and say 'no connection'. And you guys just swallow the new spoon-size 'Iraq is the proper first step in combating terror' (connected, but not connected - and that's comprehensible?). It really doesn't matter how many soldiers there think they are doing the right thing, believing is a fundamental part of their job description - if they hadn't gone to war, that would be the 'right' thing.

As regards what the majority think, that's irrelevant regarding the truth of things, and relevant only regarding electoral issues. And clearly, there has been a sea change in both media coverage and polling results since the war was proclaimed tied up in a pretty bow on the aircraft carrier deck (I don't even understand how you guys can ABIDE the man and his team for being so transparently manipulative in that incident, a manipulation which rests on the assumption that you are not an intelligent citizen, but some sort of emotive teenager happy to see an exciting movie).
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 05:35 am
I expect to see many, many replays of "top gun" by the dems.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 06:23 am
Butrflynet--

Reading the debates between Gore and Bush very recently, I think Bush wanted to go back to square one with Iraq. At the point Bush inherited Iraq, Saddam had booted out the inspectors (or caused them to leave through non-compliance), and would not allow them back in. Bush, during the debates, said he would toughen the sanctions against Iraq, and maintain firm pressure on Saddam. He did this.

He obviously had a view differing from Clinton's on how the situation could best be handled. At the point Bush inherited the Iraq situation, Saddam was calling the shots. He is no longer.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 07:12 am
The following description doesn't accidentally refer to anyone posting on this board...noosirree...we've moved well on past all that; taken the encouragement of those who screamed "Get Over It!" when the Supreme Court selected the last President...yessir, we are all over those blowjobs...every last one of us...

Quote:
Among the more amusing cluckings from the right lately is their appalled discovery that quite a few Americans actually think George W. Bush is a terrible president.

Robert Novak is quoted as saying in all his 44 years of covering politics, he has never seen anything like the detestation of Bush. Charles Krauthammer managed to write an entire essay on the topic of "Bush haters" in Time magazine, as though he had never before come across such a phenomenon.

Oh, I stretch memory way back, so far back, all the way back to -- our last president. Almost lost in the mists of time though it is, I not only remember eight years of relentless attacks from Clinton-haters, I also notice they haven't let up yet. Clinton-haters accused the man of murder, rape, drug-running, sexual harassment, financial chicanery and official misconduct, and his wife of even worse.

For eight long years, this country was a zoo of Clinton-haters. Any idiot with a big mouth and a conspiracy theory could get a hearing on radio talk shows, "Christian" broadcasts and nutty Internet sites. People with transparent motives, people paid by tabloid magazines, people with known mental problems, ancient Clinton enemies with notoriously racist pasts -- all were given hearings, credence and air time. Sliming Clinton was a sure road to fame and fortune on the right, and many an ambitious young right-wing hitman -- like David Brock, who has since made full confession -- took that golden opportunity.

Molly Ivins
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 07:21 am
dyslexia wrote:
I expect to see many, many replays of "top gun" by the dems.


http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_lightyear.jpg
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:02 am
sofia said
Quote:
At the point Bush inherited the Iraq situation, Saddam was calling the shots. He is no longer.
You are even starting to talk like Bush - short sentences on the gunslinger motif - easy to remember and to get past the ivories without messing up, sneakily pointing blame elsewhere, and all chest-thumpy while pretending you aren't.

We now know that what he DID inherit with Iraq was a massively decreased military (which none of its neighbors feared) and a weapons program which had been eviscerated by UN inspections and with no connections to al Quaeda. And, of course, what is it? One quarter of the world's oil supply, but that is just a chance thing, not relevant.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:15 am
Hey, blatham.

I've been known to put together some compound sentences.
0 Replies
 
the prince
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:16 am
Hey guyz - can't you replace the joker like right now instead of 2004 ?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:22 am
Adn give up the chance to really screw things up?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 01:37 pm
Molly Ivins is so right. Would it be helpful, do you think, the 2004 election coming up and all, to add actual names and funding sources to the right wing rumor mongers in the Ivins quotation above?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 08:36 pm
Is this frightening?

http://www.4religious-right.info/religious_right_texas_gop2.html

Quote:
The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

State of Texas GOP Platform, 2002

"The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."

State of Texas GOP Platform, 2002

Introduction

When the Texas Republican Party Platform was released, an article in the Houston Chronicle characterized the document as something written by religious zealots who did not represent the true Texas Republican Party. The article pointed out how Republican candidates were distancing themselves from the Party Platform, especially its call to abolish bilingual education in a state with a large Hispanic population. It's a mistake to take the document lightly, or dismiss its authors as marginal. Other state GOP Platforms reflect the same values, and whether or not the writers of the document are marginal or a minority, the fact that they've moved into positions where they can actually write a party platform for the second most populous state in the country is very significant.

Pat Robertson pointed out in his book The Millennium, 1990, "With the apathy that exists today a well organized minority can influence the selection of candidates to an astonishing degree." Since George Bush has become President, the "well organized minority" is no longer merely selecting candidates. They are actually running the federal government. The Texas State GOP Platform gives us a glimpse into the values and ideals of the Religious Right and the kind of government they want.



Quote:
Highlights of the Texas GOP Platform, 2002

"The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian Nation ..."

1. GOVERNMENT

"We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from government interference."

Support government display of Ten Commandments.

Dispel the "myth" of the separation of church and state.

"A strong and vibrant private sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation"

Oppose Campaign Finance Reform

Oppose any form of gun control

Abolish:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms;
position of Surgeon General;
EPA;
Department of Energy;
Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Department of Education;
Department of Commerce and Labor;
National Endowment for the Arts

2. ECONOMY

Abolish the dollar in favor of the gold standard.

Abolish the IRS

Eliminate income tax, inheritance tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, payroll tax and property tax.

Repeal minimum wage law.

" ... gradually phase out Social Security tax" for a system of "private pensions"

3. UNITED NATIONS

" ... we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to the United Nations."

We should " ... evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation."


4. FAMILY

"We believe that traditional marriage is a legal and moral commitment between a man and a woman. We recognize that the family is the foundational unit of a healthy society and consists of those related by blood, marriage, or adoption. The family is responsible for its own welfare, education, moral training, conduct, and property."

"The practice of sodomy tears at the heart of our society..." "The party oppose[s] decriminalization of sodomy."

Oppose all forms of abortion - even in cases of rape or incest.

"We unequivocally oppose United States Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child."

5. EDUCATION

Support official prayer in public schools

Oppose Early Childhood Development Programs

"We support ... a program based upon biblical principles..."

Terminate bilingual education

"Since Secular Humanism is recognized by the United States Supreme Court as a religion ... Secular Humanism should be subjected to the same state and federal laws as any other recognized religions."

6. THE ENVIRONMENT

Oppose the "myth" of global warming

Reaffirm "the belief in the fundamental right of an individual to use property without governmental interference"

Oppose EPA management of Texas air quality

7. THE MIDDLE EAST

" ... Jerusalem is the capital of Israel ... " therefore, the United States should move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:04 pm
Lola, that almost sounds like a joke!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:10 pm
Yeah, Send Rummy to Jerusalem. Wink
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:18 pm
It does sound like a Monty Python skit, but unfortunately, it's all too true. How can Republicans ignore this reality? I don't get it.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Sep, 2003 09:19 pm
get this one:

"Oppose Early Childhood Development programs........my god.....unbelievable that we're talking about people in this century.
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/08/2024 at 08:37:29