Bad news for Democrats and liberals?

Joe Republican wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

How do you figure that by invading Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has played into the hands of the terrorists? Do you honestly believe that is what the terrorists wanted?

Evidently you know NOTHING about propaganda and its power and influence over people, because if you did, you would see how this IS what the terrorists wanted. But then again, you've been blinded by the Bush propaganda machine, so if you can't spot it, how in the world would you even be able to understand what it can do.

Quote:

To be hunted down like dogs?

Yep, Osama was shaking in his boots, right up until the time Bush decided to take a left into Iraq instead of a right into Pakistan. Remember his quote, if you harbor terrorists, we will consider you a terrorist nation. Well, what he really meant to say was: If you live in Iraq, look out because we're coming in.

Isn't it funny how he persuaded the American people to believe Saddam was planning an attack on us and was planning to give the terrorists nukes. you bought that one too, well let me enlighten you, it was PROPAGANDA!!! It duped you into believing there was a grave and immediate need to invade Iraq, and not only did you believe it, you continue to believe it, even when you are faced with mountainous data which says the exact opposite. Yes, propaganda is VERY powerful, you only need to look into the mirror for evidence.

Quote:

To be forced to kill their own country men and women? Please.

Ummm, who is "forcing" people to kill their own men and women? You see, now you are saying terrorists are "forcing" people to kill their own. Ummm, again a big swing and a miss. You now come to the rash illogical conclusion that terrorism and insurgence in Iraq is "forcing" people to kill women. Propaganda, powerful stuff.

Quote:

They wanted the US to leave and never come back.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. they didn't want us to leave, they wanted us a occupiers!!!! This legitimizes OBLs teachings and it rationalizes his preachings!!!! He has been a LONG proponent of American vs Muslim oppression, well it's a little bit hard to prove that when the other side doesn't help you out. Now, by invading Iraq and ignoring terrorism, Bush has legitimized each and everything OBL has preached the US was. He gave credence to his panderings, and you think this isn't what Al Qaeda wants? Propaganda, powerful stuff huh.

Quote:
Something I believe Kerry would have done had he been president. It's much easier to give an inch than to take a mile. Kerry seems to be a giver. Bush a taker.

No, you don't have an opinion on the topic, because if you actually had an opinion, you wouldn't sprout the party line, you'd have your own thoughts. You've been fooled by the propaganda spewed out by the right and you can't see through the BS. You're not alone, most of the Bible Belt thinks this way.

In fact, not to sound prejudiced, but do you just think it's a strange coincidence that every state with an educated population votes democrat and the opposite holds true for republicans? Do you even think it's an issue when people who can see through the BS continue to vote for the democrat, yet those who are under educated vote for Bush? No, it wouldn't have anything to do with propaganda would it? But then again, if you can't recognize it, how in the world can you see how to persuade a population by it.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity.

Such an effort to prove ones ignorance should always be remembered. I think I might print this one and hang it on my refrigerator to remind my children they should stay in school.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Actually...I think our country and the world would have been much better off if Bush had just stood there with his dick in his hand.

well if he didn't then, he sure looks to be doing it now...

and since gungasnake likes military expressions, here's another one that describes the current state of things;

"situation normal. all f*cked up". also known as snafu.

and there stands our fearless leader, dih.

0 Replies

Sozobe I did see that piece awhile back and have seen many others with similar sentiments. I just don't agree with them. I believe the situation was as expressed in the following:
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=23404&sid=a86e073ab74794c24d80cd90ba1b081a

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity.

Such an effort to prove ones ignorance should always be remembered. I think I might print this one and hang it on my refrigerator to remind my children they should stay in school.

Only you could completely ignore every point made and pose it off as humor. I DO hope your children stay in school, and I hope you will encourage them to do so, but then again, education is against your party's platform. . . or is it? Well, it used to be against the RNC, but now, expanding government for education is good in your eyes. Bush lost that one for the RNC too.

0 Replies

Thank you for your honesty, Frank. Like I've told you before, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you; I might not agree with your position, but I know that you are genuine in your responses.

And one of your statements cuts right to the heart of this matter, so I'll repeat it here:

Quote:

In any case, in a very real sense...you are asking if we (those who think George Bush is a danger to the world) would be willing to wish for a relatively short term solution to the Iraqi problem...even if it means that George Bush would continue in office to endanger the world by his (and his administration's) incompetence.

My answer is going to be NO! I hope you finish reading what I have to say so that my response is understood in its entirety.

Bush is a plague. The plague has to be stomped out...and there's gonna be plenty of eggs broken...if you will excuse the fractured analogy.

As for your hypothetical....Anyone willing to countenance him continuing in office considering the danger he presents to the world just for the hypothetical's value of "peace in Iraq" has his/her priorities screwed up.

NO...is my answer. No I wouldn't!

I want this war to end...I want the Iraqis to have peace and relative freedom...I want the Middle East to calm down. But even in hypotheticals...there are prices too steep to pay for a temporary respite.

And more of George Bush is WAY TOO steep a price to pay.

0 Replies

Joe Republican wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity.

Such an effort to prove ones ignorance should always be remembered. I think I might print this one and hang it on my refrigerator to remind my children they should stay in school.

Only you could completely ignore every point made and pose it off as humor. I DO hope your children stay in school, and I hope you will encourage them to do so, but then again, education is against your party's platform. . . or is it? Well, it used to be against the RNC, but now, expanding government for education is good in your eyes. Bush lost that one for the RNC too.

Joe, your post was nothing more than a giant ad hominem. I know this because I do it too, you may have noticed by my subtle reply.

Your points...you had no points, I am sorry.

Quote:

Evidently you know NOTHING about propaganda and its power and influence over people, because if you did, you would see how this IS what the terrorists wanted. But then again, you've been blinded by the Bush propaganda machine, so if you can't spot it, how in the world would you even be able to understand what it can do.

I know lots about propaganda. You watch too many movies if you think the goal of the terroists is nothing more than to recruit more people to their cause through the destruction of the Middle East. This is the real world son, those people are fighting for what they believe is a path to heaven. They are in a religious war with the US as a prime target. They believe we are infidels treading in God's country. They want us out. They don't want us driving through Mecca in an Abrams tank.

Quote:

Yep, Osama was shaking in his boots, right up until the time Bush decided to take a left into Iraq instead of a right into Pakistan. Remember his quote, if you harbor terrorists, we will consider you a terrorist nation. Well, what he really meant to say was: If you live in Iraq, look out because we're coming in.

Isn't it funny how he persuaded the American people to believe Saddam was planning an attack on us and was planning to give the terrorists nukes. you bought that one too, well let me enlighten you, it was PROPAGANDA!!! It duped you into believing there was a grave and immediate need to invade Iraq, and not only did you believe it, you continue to believe it, even when you are faced with mountainous data which says the exact opposite. Yes, propaganda is VERY powerful, you only need to look into the mirror for evidence.

Isn't it funny that Frank, an intelligent fellow, believes Bush to be an utter moron, yet here you are attributing a world wide conspiracy to invade Iraq. You're claiming he was able to fool the CIA, FBI, NSA, Interpol, KGB and a whole slew of other letters into believing Saddam had WMD's.

The mountains of data... after we invaded and proved once and for all whether or not Saddam was really a threat or not.

Quote:

Ummm, who is "forcing" people to kill their own men and women? You see, now you are saying terrorists are "forcing" people to kill their own. Ummm, again a big swing and a miss. You now come to the rash illogical conclusion that terrorism and insurgence in Iraq is "forcing" people to kill women. Propaganda, powerful stuff.

The insurgents. The insurgents are working with and for the terrorists. They are blowing up cars and killing fellow Iraqi's. The logic really isn't that hard to follow.

Quote:

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. they didn't want us to leave, they wanted us a occupiers!!!! This legitimizes OBLs teachings and it rationalizes his preachings!!!! He has been a LONG proponent of American vs Muslim oppression, well it's a little bit hard to prove that when the other side doesn't help you out. Now, by invading Iraq and ignoring terrorism, Bush has legitimized each and everything OBL has preached the US was. He gave credence to his panderings, and you think this isn't what Al Qaeda wants? Propaganda, powerful stuff huh.

You say I have no idea what I am talking about and then you write this? Please.

Quote:

No, you don't have an opinion on the topic, because if you actually had an opinion, you wouldn't sprout the party line, you'd have your own thoughts. You've been fooled by the propaganda spewed out by the right and you can't see through the BS. You're not alone, most of the Bible Belt thinks this way.

In fact, not to sound prejudiced, but do you just think it's a strange coincidence that every state with an educated population votes democrat and the opposite holds true for republicans? Do you even think it's an issue when people who can see through the BS continue to vote for the democrat, yet those who are under educated vote for Bush? No, it wouldn't have anything to do with propaganda would it? But then again, if you can't recognize it, how in the world can you see how to persuade a population by it.

This was the best part of your reply. It made absolutely no sense. If I were a democrat, I would be embarrassed to have you as my spokesman.

0 Replies

Frank:

For this next Wednesday you pay for no drinks.

Quote:

Osama is patient...Bush is rash.

It is the koan of the present crisis.

Thank you.

Joe Nation

0 Replies

A Lone Voice wrote:

Thank you for your kind words, LV...and accept, if you will, similar sentiments in return from me to you.

I will, of course, let the "libs" answer for themselves...

...but I want to take this opportunity to offer a personal Independent perspective on the flavor of what you are suggesting in this observation.

I am, quite frankly, appalled by what the fringe elements of both sides of the political equation...the far left and the right...are willing to do in furtherance of their ideological sensibilities. At times, it amazes me...as I am sure it amazes many others.

That having been said...I must be very honest about the present situation.

I view the George Bush administration as such a calamity for the United States and the world...with severe damage done to our economy, to our civil liberties; to our international relations and to meaningful precedents established over the history of our country...

...to the point where I truly see support for him in the face of such obvious incompetence to be primarily ideological in nature. An outgrowth, if you will, of what prompted you to make the above statement.

I drives me nuts to even think about it. (I know...some might call it a chip rather than a drive!)

I cannot see how intelligent people like you and McG, to name the first two that came to mind, can get past that.

Whatever you are trying to say to the liberals in this forum with that statement up above...I am saying back to you in spades.

If you are outraged by what you see as their failings in this area...I would respectfully suggest that you would be doing the world a much greater favor if you gave up on calling these things to their attention...and spent some time before a mirror lecturing yourself on these very points.

Our world is in serious trouble right now, LV...it can be argued much more so than during the coldest parts of the cold war. I would have a very hard time thinking of a group of Americans less capable of dealing with that problem than George Bush and his administration.

If the conduct detailed in the comment I quoted from you up above truly bothers you...you really ought to reconsider your support for them.

0 Replies

I think the difference lies in where we place our blame. Frank, you Blame Bush and his administration for the past four years events.

I blame Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Ken Lay.

Osama for attacking the US and leading us into war.
Saddam for not obeying the numerous UN sanctions that led to war.
Ken Lay and his fellow greedy SOB's that caused the recession Bush inherited.

That's how we get past it. We lay the blame where it deserves to be, not on the person trying to fix those problems.

0 Replies

"Indeed, I believe there are many power-hungry liberals who are quite willing to ‘break a few eggs’ to further their political goals... "

Yes - like invade a country which was no threat to the US for "much darker reasons"?

0 Replies

"Al Qaeda has done more than just chatter about it, they have endorsed the Bush presidency publically, saying that it was not possible to find a leader 'more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you to be elected.' "

(full article)

Al-Qaida may 'reward' Bush with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington Saturday June 19, 2004, The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.

"Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror", due out next month (July), dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer. In an interview with the Guardian, the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

"Imperial Hubris" is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment. Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage. "Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice". Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is." The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them. The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be made by al-Qaida's own experts, trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said. "One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president." Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the alleged banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

Al Qaeda has done more than just chatter about it, they have endorsed the Bush presidency publically, saying that it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom. Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. Because of this we desire you to be elected."

0 Replies

Yes - I know there is much comment that they consider Bush policies a godsend.

Some wondered if the recent embassy bombing is Jakarta of the Oz embassy was similarly aimed at the Australian elections - though terror and Iraq were not major issues in our election.

I very much hope no such event occurs - though who knows what terrorists will do?

0 Replies

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. That would be like Hitler wanting to keep Churchill and the american leaders in power in 1945. I can guarantee you he'd have rather had Chamberlain.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Joe Republican wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Quote:
Bush could not have played into the hands of the madmen who spawn terror and terrorist organizations any better if they had bribed him to do so.

I just wanted to quote this for posterity.

Such an effort to prove ones ignorance should always be remembered. I think I might print this one and hang it on my refrigerator to remind my children they should stay in school.

Only you could completely ignore every point made and pose it off as humor. I DO hope your children stay in school, and I hope you will encourage them to do so, but then again, education is against your party's platform. . . or is it? Well, it used to be against the RNC, but now, expanding government for education is good in your eyes. Bush lost that one for the RNC too.

Joe, your post was nothing more than a giant ad hominem. I know this because I do it too, you may have noticed by my subtle reply.

Your points...you had no points, I am sorry.

Gee, maybe I have to spell it out for you, seeing how you completely missed the ENTIRE point.

BUSH has done MORE to splinter the Republican party by allowing the democrats to take over the Republicans strongest talking point!!!!

Think of it this way Mr. wizard, during the Reagan Democrat era, what was his talking point? Smaller government, fiscal responsibility. Weather he accomplished these things is irrelevant, it's only the people's perception of reality that matters. If you say it enough, people will believe it, no matter what.

The perception of Reagan, in the PUBLIC'S EYES, was that he was for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. He wanted the state to have more power then the federal government. Remember, he never met a federal program that didn't need to be cut? It dosen't matter what happened, only the public's "perception" of reality.

What Bush has allowed to happen is the democrats stealing this talking point from the RNC. Kerry slid right into position while the RNC was talking about 70's gibberish. People like yourself were so busy trashing Kerry, he slid right into position right before your eyes.

The "perception" in America is that the president is responsible for the budget. The fact that it isn't true is besides the point, most Americans don't dig that deep. Under Clinton, the deficit shrank, people had jobs and the economy took off. Under Bush, the deficit rose and people were unemployed. Again, only perception matters.

Kerry has taken the fiscal responsibility task and will NOT allow the spending to continue, he will start to reduce the budget, not because it's the best thing for him, but the best for his party as a whole. The democrats have just gained the middle ground the Republicans had a stranglehold on for the past 20 years. They are the fiscally responsible party and they will be for the good of the party. Bush pushed the conservative points to the right, towards the spending side and he lost the talking point for the republicans.

This is what I am insinuating when I say

education is against your party's platform. . . or is it? Well, it used to be against the RNC, but now, expanding government for education is good in your eyes. Bush lost that one for the RNC too."

maybe next time you'll actually read the posts.

Quote:

Quote:
Yep, Osama was shaking in his boots, right up until the time Bush decided to take a left into Iraq instead of a right into Pakistan. Remember his quote, if you harbor terrorists, we will consider you a terrorist nation. Well, what he really meant to say was: If you live in Iraq, look out because we're coming in.

Isn't it funny how he persuaded the American people to believe Saddam was planning an attack on us and was planning to give the terrorists nukes. you bought that one too, well let me enlighten you, it was PROPAGANDA!!! It duped you into believing there was a grave and immediate need to invade Iraq, and not only did you believe it, you continue to believe it, even when you are faced with mountainous data which says the exact opposite. Yes, propaganda is VERY powerful, you only need to look into the mirror for evidence.

Isn't it funny that Frank, an intelligent fellow, believes Bush to be an utter moron, yet here you are attributing a world wide conspiracy to invade Iraq. You're claiming he was able to fool the CIA, FBI, NSA, Interpol, KGB and a whole slew of other letters into believing Saddam had WMD's.

The mountains of data... after we invaded and proved once and for all whether or not Saddam was really a threat or not.

Well sorry to inform you, but intel was NOT pointing towards Iraq, it just wasn't. Our administration put LOTS of pressure on the intelligence agency to come up with ANY and EVERY piece of information they could come up with. This was two months after 9-11. This is an intelligence organization which was despondent after 9-11 because of an intense feeling of not only remorse, but also the "what if question". Well, this intellegence agency, and yes it is the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD et all gave the administration what they wanted, small shreds of information pertaining to Iraq. Sketchy and generic intel at absolute BEST. This wasn't senior level stuff either, pretty sophomoric stuff.

Now, Bush uses the intel he pressured intel to give him. Instead of using the intel for what it was, Bush used PROPAGANDA to dupe the American public into believing Iraq was "Grave and immediate threat" to American safety. THey used fear as a justification for invading a country. The intel DID NOT point to Iraq, Bush used the intel to persuade the American public to think Saddam was a "Grave and immediate threat"!!!

Remember the polls at the time that 70% of Americans believed Hussen was responsible for 9-11 and directly connected to Al Qaeda. Where do they get such ideas? Oh, I don't know, maybe from our LEADER!!! The one who used PROPAGANDA to persuade a nation under FALSE pretense and without justification!!!!

So don't sit here and try to chastise me by saying I'm creating some "conspiracy" theory, I don't need to, the information is out there for me to make my own decision. If you want conspiracy theories, why don't you look into the RNC and Clinton. They spent millions to try to remove him from power it was absolutely ludicrous, yet you buy into every theory on Drudge to justify it.

Quote:

Quote:
Ummm, who is "forcing" people to kill their own men and women? You see, now you are saying terrorists are "forcing" people to kill their own. Ummm, again a big swing and a miss. You now come to the rash illogical conclusion that terrorism and insurgence in Iraq is "forcing" people to kill women. Propaganda, powerful stuff.

The insurgents. The insurgents are working with and for the terrorists. They are blowing up cars and killing fellow Iraqi's. The logic really isn't that hard to follow.

Again, where are terrorists "FORCING" people to commit themselves as suicide bombers? I think they have a vast number who are willing to die to fight us. But then again, that goes against your theory that we "aren't" making more terrorists, so you won't buy it. This is because the Bush campaign add tells you this, so it has to be so!!!

FACT: Terrorism is increasing in Iraq

Conclusion. . . Iraq is creating terrorists. Iraq is recruitment for terrorists.

It is not hard to see between point A and point B.

So now, tell me How terrorists are "FORCING" people to kill women. You see the quotation marks right? They are promoting a sarcastic or fallacious tone.

Do you also see where I tied it into propaganda, try to understand exactly what that means. . . oh who am I kidding, propaganda blinds you again.

Quote:

Quote:
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. they didn't want us to leave, they wanted us a occupiers!!!! This legitimizes OBLs teachings and it rationalizes his preachings!!!! He has been a LONG proponent of American vs Muslim oppression, well it's a little bit hard to prove that when the other side doesn't help you out. Now, by invading Iraq and ignoring terrorism, Bush has legitimized each and everything OBL has preached the US was. He gave credence to his panderings, and you think this isn't what Al Qaeda wants? Propaganda, powerful stuff huh.

You say I have no idea what I am talking about and then you write this? Please.

FACT: OBL has taught Americans oppress Muslims and want to occupy Muslim land.

FACT: America is currently occupying Iraq on Muslim land.

Conclusion. . . America is legitimizing OBLs teachings by invading Muslim land.

It isn't that hard to follow!!! 2 + 2 = 4, not 2 + 2 = 1283.

I shouldn't have to spell this out for you, you should be able to figure it out on your own. Maybe then you will start reading posts, instead of refusing to reply to acusations.

You have no defense, I am saying what you told me.
I am drawing a logical conclusion from your rant, you said:

Quote:

They believe we are infidels treading in God's country. They want us out.

I spell it out for you, now what's the spin? Osama doesn't teach about American oppression? This isn't part of his teachings?

I think you just found yourself on the wrong side of a logic discussion. Nothing wrong with that, but to go on and ignore what I'm saying IS ad-homonym

Quote:

Quote:
No, you don't have an opinion on the topic, because if you actually had an opinion, you wouldn't sprout the party line, you'd have your own thoughts. You've been fooled by the propaganda spewed out by the right and you can't see through the BS. You're not alone, most of the Bible Belt thinks this way.

In fact, not to sound prejudiced, but do you just think it's a strange coincidence that every state with an educated population votes democrat and the opposite holds true for republicans? Do you even think it's an issue when people who can see through the BS continue to vote for the democrat, yet those who are under educated vote for Bush? No, it wouldn't have anything to do with propaganda would it? But then again, if you can't recognize it, how in the world can you see how to persuade a population by it.

This was the best part of your reply. It made absolutely no sense. If I were a democrat, I would be embarrassed to have you as my spokesman.

FACT: The top 5 states in terms of education all voted for Gore.
FACT: The bottom 5 states in terms of education all voted for Bush.

conclusion? Bush has a solid grasp on uneducated people, when comparing the US as a whole. Not that hard to grasp.

If I'm being too vague, maybe you should have looked at this administration and their policies with the same skepticism you approach my posts with. Would you be afraid of what you might find?

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Sorry, but that's ridiculous. That would be like Hitler wanting to keep Churchill and the american leaders in power in 1945. I can guarantee you he'd have rather had Chamberlain.

Yeah...sure you can!

George Bush has done more to HELP Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general...than to fight it.

Bush shoots from the hip...and has managed to get us into a situation that even his father, no great genius, realized would be a catasrophe.

George the elder was right.

George the younger is a moron...and the best friend the terrorists could have.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. That would be like Hitler wanting to keep Churchill and the american leaders in power in 1945. I can guarantee you he'd have rather had Chamberlain.

Yeah...sure you can!

George Bush has done more to HELP Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general...than to fight it.

The overwhelming likelihood in the case of binLaden is that he got vaporized at Torabora. What are the chances we'd go three years without hearing from an egomaniac like that if he were still alive? Better yet, how does getting vaporized "help" the guy? Are you claiming he has an easier time organizing terrorism from the next world??

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. That would be like Hitler wanting to keep Churchill and the american leaders in power in 1945. I can guarantee you he'd have rather had Chamberlain.

Yeah...sure you can!

George Bush has done more to HELP Osama Bin Laden and terrorism in general...than to fight it.

The overwhelming likelihood in the case of binLaden is that he got vaporized at Torabora. What are the chances we'd go three years without hearing from an egomaniac like that if he were still alive? Better yet, how does getting vaporized "help" the guy? Are you claiming he has an easier time organizing terrorism from the next world??

One...you are supposing Bin Laden is dead. He may not be.

Two...even if he is dead...my comment was "...help Osama and terrorism.."...so your protestations, built on sandy ground like they are, amount to nada.

Bush has made the world less safe by his rashness...and he has made it less safe by his bullheadedness.

I do understand, however, why you cannot "get" that.

You are a conservative...and conservatives of today are like the conservatives of yesteryear...wrong on every great issue this country has ever faced.

But I am always happy to hear what you have to say, Gunga. Especially since it is so easy to refute.

0 Replies

0 Replies

By this statement "One...you are supposing Bin Laden is dead. He may not be." you agree that there may be WMD's in Iraq, correct? After all many are supposing WMD's are not there, but they may be.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

By this statement "One...you are supposing Bin Laden is dead. He may not be." you agree that there may be WMD's in Iraq, correct? After all many are supposing WMD's are not there, but they may be.

Here's the question I'd ask anybody on this one:

Given that the sum total of anthrax powder used in the attacks which followed 9-11 probably amounted to 2 - 5 teaspoons full, that it does not take hundreds of tons of such stuff to create havoc, and that a good lifetime supply of such stuff for a guy like Saddam Hussein might easily amount to 100 - 500 lbs of it, do you not agree that I could easily hide 500 lbs of such stuff in a country the size of Iraq so that it would never be found again other than by me or one of my associates and, if this is a reasonable assumption, than why is anybody still going around claiming there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Why do we always assume an American military model in which for something to exist there must be warehouses stacked with millions of tons of the something?

In the case of Saddam Hussein, the question of whether or not he had hundreds of tons (findable quantities) of such stuff is not a meaningful question. The meaningful questions are whether or not he had the motive, the financial wherewithal, the technical capacity, and the base of operations from which to try to create havoc in our country and the answers to those questions are all resounding YESs.

0 Replies

Bad news for Democrats and liberals?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know