0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 12:22 pm
At this point I don't see anyone replacing Dubya in 2004. I propose we let Al Gore run Iraq. How's that for fair and balanced?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 12:25 pm
You're absolutely right, Lola. As long as you're on my side. Otherwise you are a disgrace, possibly a traitor to my country, and I say love me or leave me.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 12:27 pm
I think you're right Cjhsa. But I believe Bush will not be elected in 2004 but that the Republican Guard will make sure he .... continues.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 01:36 pm
Now love me or leave me......that's not the same. If I think someone's opinion is wrong, that doesn't say that they don't love me or me them. It doesn't address the question of love or loyalty. A person has to be mean to me repeatedly or very mean once for me to leave them. GW's, "you're with us or against us" goes a step further than believing I'm wrong in my opposing opinion of his policies. It implies malice on my part. And in his case, I must say, he's right. Self-fullfilling prophesy, I'd say.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 01:54 pm
Allow me to present (i.e., steal) a posting by MadMathew over on Table Talk.

Quote:
Here's my reply to a coworker's observation that "Boy, you really seem to have problems with Bush."

Aside from the fact that he's a drunken, coke-snorting frat boy who partied his way through life, never doing a damned thing except trading on his family's name…

And he deserted (stopped showing up, that is) from his cushy National Guard post during Viet Nam after the flight physicals started including drug tests…

And every business he ever owned cratered right into the ground…ditto the Texas state budget…

And a group of truly evil polluters from the petrochemical industry recruited him to run and financed the effort…

And that he was selected into office by clear vote shenanigans in Florida, on a 5-4 vote of a partisan Republican majority on the Supreme Court, in a decision that will go down with Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson as among the court's worst ever…

And that despite having no mandate, he persists in ramming through a hyperpartisan extreme right-wing agenda, weakening pollution laws, financing tax giveaways to the rich, cutting veterans' benefits and education assistance, walking away from already agreed upon treaties and appointing judges who will force desperate women back to the back alley butchers…

And that his attorney general says those who dare question the Bush Junta are traitors (well, he said "give aid and comfort to terrorists," but close enough)…

And that if you are deemed an "enemy combatant," with that decision left solely up to the authorities, you can be arrested without warrant, detained without lawyer or trial, held incommunicado indefinitely, and executed on the sole order of the president…

And that we've gone from having a president who was lionized overseas, got standing ovations in foreign parliaments, who brought peace to Northern Ireland and was "this" close to achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians, to having a president whose arrogant, bellicose speeches have him almost universally despised, to the point where he dares not travel outside the U.S. for fear of historic, massive protests, except for quick photo-op trips to U.S. military bases…

And that the economy is completely in the dumpster…

And that he's so inept he lost a PR battle with Saddam Insane…

And that despite claims of being "born again," and that the Iraq war was a last resort, Time magazine reported that he stuck his head into a meeting not long after Sept. 11 and shouted, "F*ck Saddam, we're taking him out," which doesn't sound like someone born again OR considering war only as a last resort…

And that a wave of ignorant nativism topping the Alien and Sedition Acts of the early 1800s, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthyism of the 1950s is now sweeping the country, with people being beaten and having their homes vandalized and losing jobs and being arrested simply for asking questions about invading another country that has not attacked us, with all this applauded by the crowd in Washington…

Well, no, other than that, I have no problem with Little George at all.


Nope. I guess I don't have any problem with him either, once you leave all that aside.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 02:03 pm
Supreme Court Decision Analysis
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 02:15 pm
Quote:
The Supreme Court is not just another political branch, but nor is it as ideologically, morally, culturally, socially and politically removed from the substance of the issues as the traditional reputation assumes. The Supreme Court is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes with no concern about larger social consequences -- including the position of the Court itself -- and it may be a good thing for a bit of the myth to be punctured.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 03:27 pm
Quote:
George W. Bush is at the epicenter of the moral, ethical, and criminal corruption of this administration. If Clinton was hounded into impeachment over oral sex, how can Bush escape unscathed for betraying a nation and the world?

How did we ever come to enter this parallel universe where no one is willing to say that we have Fredo Corleone running our government and that crimes have been committed against this nation, including the ongoing use of strategically activated terrorist alerts and duct-tape farces to cow Americans into submission? Isn't it a crime to scare a nation half-to-death to achieve political goals and launch a politically motivated war?

How did we get to the point that we have a media that daily bombards us with Orwellian dispatches and images that are crafted in the Pentagon and White House offices of disinformation?

How can the daily outpouring of lies from this administration, even when they are unmasked, make no dent on the image of Bush's "infallibility" nurtured by the White House and disseminated by the corporate press?

If Bush were a Democrat, he would have been impeached a year ago and then indicted, prosecuted and sent to jail.

So why are we at a point where a disastrous war sold, packaged and launched on the basis of lies, disinformation, propaganda, greed, bullying, bribes and madness should be continuing with the press and the Democrats not blaming the CEO of the criminal enterprise who has caused the deaths of our soldiers by putting them unnecessarily at risk?

The answer lies in a six-fold strategy championed by those individuals who have propped up the reign of the Madness of King George:

1) Disciplined control over the image of the Dim Son.

2) Control over television news through the status quo interests of the corporately owned media.

3) Unrelenting bullying, threats, smearing and intimidation of anyone who gets in their way.

4) Use of lies and truth as equally valid propaganda currencies.

5) Selling Bush and the war as "branded" products.

6) Understanding that the Democrats won't aggressively challenge their assault on democracy in America; in fact, they will generally support it because they are too cowed to speak out.

How has Karl Rove, the real most powerful man in America, accomplished this? How does Bush escape any blame for the daily lies, ongoing betrayal and being the front man for the most radical, extremist agenda this nation has ever seen? How does Bush get away with saying things that you would think were nutty if a drunk said them to you in a bar?


http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/31.html
0 Replies
 
trespassers will
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 03:30 pm
BillW wrote:
Quote:
The Supreme Court is not just another political branch, but nor is it as ideologically, morally, culturally, socially and politically removed from the substance of the issues as the traditional reputation assumes. The Supreme Court is not just an umpire calling balls and strikes with no concern about larger social consequences -- including the position of the Court itself -- and it may be a good thing for a bit of the myth to be punctured.

If the goal of puncturing that myth is an effort to move the court back in the direction from which your quote argues it has moved, then I am all for it.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Apr, 2003 05:29 pm
If this Iraq isn't enough reason to replace Bush:

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm
0 Replies
 
frolic
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:30 am
The world is begging you to get this moron out of office.

Opinion poll in Argentina shows more people have a positive image of Saddam Hussain than of George W Bush. Almost 25% had a good opinion of the Iraqi leader, against less than 16% for the American president.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 08:19 am
That's a nice one, BillW.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 09:09 am
frolic
Argentina is a poor example. For years they had a fascist government that committed all sorts of atrocities. In addition it was flooded with and gladly accepted Nazi war criminals and their wealth after WW2. Let's go to France where they desecrate cemeteries of foreign soldiers who fought for their freedom.
Whether G. Bush gets elected for another term or not is up to the American public.
Why isn't the "world" concerned with the many despotic rulers around the globe?
The reasons Bush used for the invasion of Iraq to say the least were indeed tainted. However, the "world" would find it hard to find fault with the results, elimination of the Saddam regime.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 10:50 am
au, Nobody argues the point that Saddam is a tyrant to his people. There are many in this world today. The problem lies in the fact that how many Iraqis and coalition military must sacrifice their lives to make this come about? c.i.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 11:57 am
c.i.
The question is: are the results worth the investment.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 12:02 pm
Do the ends justify the means?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 12:07 pm
Absolutely not! c.ii.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:07 pm
.c.i.
That really remains to be seen.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 01:43 pm
Tartarin, sums it all up in one good looking article. It is to the point, showing a lot of his deceptions. I wouldn't trust this man with anything, he is a crook!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Apr, 2003 04:47 pm
I've seen almost 2,000 lives lost during this war. How many more will it be worth their peace? That means families and friends have lost a loved one. c.i.
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/10/2025 at 12:16:39