0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 09:11 am
If you want to see a man who's really out of his depth....look here.

Stupidity...or just outright lying?

<Someone please tell him he lost!>
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:23 am
JustWonders wrote:
If you want to see a man who's really out of his depth....look here.

Stupidity...or just outright lying?

<Someone please tell him he lost!>


But remember,According to many on the left,Kerry is the closest thing to perfect and he should be President.
As such,anything he says is correct and not to be challenged or questioned.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:47 am
mysteryman wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
If you want to see a man who's really out of his depth....look here.

Stupidity...or just outright lying?

<Someone please tell him he lost!>


But remember,According to many on the left,Kerry is the closest thing to perfect and he should be President.
As such,anything he says is correct and not to be challenged or questioned.


Untrue ... He was just a better choice than the current Chickenshit In Charge!

Anon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 10:48 am
Tell us anon,
Do you agree with what Kerry said?
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:30 am
KERRY CLAIMS: 53% OF CHILDREN DO NOT GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL
Wed Feb 01 2006 10:43:40 ET

Sen. John Kerry claimed this morning on NBC TODAY that 53% of America's children do not graduate from high school -- a claim that raised eyebrows in the NBC control room, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

Dont believe that

Kerry made the comments after host Katie Couric asked the former presidential candidate about Bush's State of the Union call to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

COURIC: He wanted to train 70,000 additional teachers in math and science.

KERRY: That's terrific. But 53 percent of our children don't graduate from high school.

Dont believe that

Kids don't have after-school programs...

I believe that is becoming increasingly true!

He didn't ask America to sacrifice anything to achieve great goals and the biggest example is making the tax cut permanent for the wealthiest people in America.

I believe that is true! However, if the moronic rightwing wants to continue to increase my wealth, f*ck it, I'm through trying to fight you! I think you have already FUBARed this nation, so I will be happy to take your taxes and continue to divert the Family Trust to Asian investments! I have been setting up College Trusts and assets for all the family children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren.
Thanks ... SUCKER!!!!

The average American struggles to find time to take carry of families, working two or three jobs... It's a disgrace. He did not tell the real state of the union.

Absoltuely True!

Kerry's 53% claim conflicts with a recent press release from the U.S. Census Bureau: "High School Graduation Rates Reach All-Time High"

And the Census Bureau's own website states: 85.9 Percent Of Americans Aged 20-24 Are High School Graduates. (U.S. Census Bureau Website, www.census.gov , Accessed 2/1/06)

Probably True, I don't know, but I accept your source for lack of knowing otherwise!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:37 am
Quote:
Selective outrage on free speech

By Debra Saunders

Feb 2, 2006

I feel sorry for Cindy Sheehan. She lost her beloved son, Casey, in the Iraq war, and for that she has my sympathy.

But losing your son in a war doesn't give you license to violate House decorum, as she did by wearing a t-shirt (reading: "2,245 Dead. How many more?") before President Bush's State of the Union speech Tuesday night. It also doesn't grant you special wisdom on foreign relations in South America. If it did, Sheehan would not have let herself be embraced by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

While supporters say Sheehan's loss gives her credibility, I don't see antiwar types changing their tune after listening to parents of slain vets who support the war. So her words don't change my mind, not when she talks like a little girl.

Worse, Sheehan feeds the conceit of many Bay Area war protesters -- that they are brave warriors risking their safety and the wrath of the Bushies as they protest the war.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., obviously buys into that conceit. Woolsey, who invited Sheehan to the address, issued a statement Wednesday that asked, "Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the president?"

Ditto Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who told The San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm still trying to find out why the president's Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery."

I expect members of the House to show more political sophistication than a novice blogger. They must know that the Capitol Police report to Congress -- not the Bushies. But Stark, who introduced a resolution calling for a probe into the police action, is happy to mislead.

It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

(Sheehan asks why she was the only one arrested. Duh. She's not married to a congressman. And rightly, the charges against Sheehan were dropped on Wednesday. The Capitol Police have apologized.)

If Sheehan wants to fight for First Amendment rights, she might want to stand up for The Respect Life Ministry of the Oakland Diocese of the Roman Catholic Church. The group paid to put up billboards on BART that ask the question, "Abortion: Have we gone too far?" Abortion-rights activists defaced and tore down billboards -- squelching the message of a dissenting voice in the Bay Area. Suzanne ''Sam'' Joi, a member of Code Pink, which has hosted many Sheehan events, told The Chronicle: ''I couldn't believe BART would allow something like this. Why are they doing this?''

Free speech? Sheehan should take a look at how her buddy Chavez treats dissidents. As Jackson Diehl reported in The Washington Post last year, the Chavez-controlled legislature passed new media laws that included this choice provision: "Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the president of the republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of six to 30 months if the offense is serious, and half of that if it is light."

Dissidents who stand up to Chavez are courageous. They risk time in a Venezuelan prison. Californians who bash Bush on the war risk being hailed as local heroes and appearing on cable news.

Personally, I wish the Capitol Police had allowed Sheehan to stay for the speech in her t-shirt. I think she would have chased a few moderate voters into the pro-Bush column. But that could happen anyway. Americans have to notice when a friend of Hugo Chavez bemoans that she was denied free speech -- when she never seems to stop talking.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:38 am
Quote:
State of the Democratic party

By Tony Blankley

Feb 2, 2006

During an election campaign, political operatives are fond of seeking to induce in their opponent a negative "defining moment." That is to say a highly publicized moment when their opponent portrays everything that is wrong with him. In 2004, John Kerry provided that moment when he said he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it.

Surely, at the State of the Union address the Democratic Party provided such a moment when, as has already been well commented on by others, they wildly applauded President Bush's statement that Congress failed to pass Social Security reform last year.

As the party of reactionary inertia -- as the party that not only doesn't have any solutions to today's dangers and problems but denies that such problems exist -- the Democrats on the floor of the House Tuesday night demonstrated a flawless, intuitive sense of its new, disfunctional self.

The Democrats' wild applause on behalf of doing nothing was more than a merely tactical political blunder. It displayed a deeper truth about them.

If one recalls, last year, the official position of the Democratic Party was not only that they opposed President Bush's Social Security reform, they argued there was no crisis -- no major problem that required rectification.

(In fact, Social Security has $4 trillion of unfunded liability, and if major changes are not made quickly, we will only be able to pay the retired baby boomers about 70 cents for each dollar of promised benefits.)

Social Security is the single most iconic Democratic Party issue of the past hundred years -- the Democrats created Social Security in 1935, and have won countless elections since then by beating up Republicans for allegedly not supporting it. It was the Democratic Party's sacred virgin. They would lie for it, die for it, steal for it, demagogue for it -- but never cheer its demise or harm, even sarcastically.

Their collective decision to cheer the failure of the body politic to provide for sufficient revenues to pay the benefits was an act of historic shame for the Democratic Party.

Worse than that for the Democrats, it shows how severely degraded their political instincts have become. Tip O'Neil's Democratic Party of 20 years ago would never have cheered the failure of Social Security -- even to try to make a small political point. To be sure, they would demagogue the issue ruthlessly, but never be seen to be walking away from the sacred program.

Until George Bush became president, the Democrats, for better and for worse, were a liberal party. Deformed by hatred of the current president, the Democrats have become a nihilist party.

It is one thing to oppose one's opponent's policies. After all, Benjamin Disraeli, the founder of the modern British Tory Party, once famously observed that the job of an opposition party is to oppose. But he also said they should oppose but not obstruct. And while in the minority he carefully proposed policies he would implement when his party came into power.

But today's Democrats largely refuse to even admit that the problems President Bush is trying to solve even exist. They offer nothing. And this mentality was also on display Tuesday night in Congress. On most of the president's major pronouncements regarding our war against radical Islam, the Democrats sat on their hands.

Or, in the case of Hillary Clinton when a non-response was politically impossible, she would, with an icy look that could freeze a furnace, applaud in a slow, robotic, menacing manner. Woe betide the object of that frigid esteem. On Iraq, on Iran, on intercepting terrorist communications, they have no positive proposals for success.

President Bush caught the essence of today's Democratic Party in a rather elegant double epigram: "Hindsight alone is not wisdom, And second-guessing is not a strategy."

I wouldn't be surprised to see that thought become the strategic negative communication theme for the Republican Party this campaign season. That is the trouble with being a rotten tomato-throwing member of the bleacher crowd. One may develop a small following amongst one's fellow complainers, but no large group of people are going to ask you to come out and lead the team.

But not satisfied to be a head in the sand, reflexively negative opposition party, an increasing number of Democrats and their supporters in the leftish fever swamps have started calling for President Bush's impeachment.

While I haven't seen any polls yet on the subject, I would guess that something less than 10 percent of the American voting public would look forward to seeing the last two years of the Bush presidency consumed with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress trying to impeach the president during a time of war.

Somehow the Democratic Party -- for 180 years the most electorally successful political party on the planet -- has now almost completely mutated into a party too loathsome to be seen in public, and too nihilistic to be trusted with control of even a single branch of government.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:42 am
It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

Amazing how little press this got!!!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:53 am
Anon-Voter wrote:
It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

Amazing how little press this got!!!!

Anon


Yet you show outrage over Cindy getting treated the same way...

Amazing!!!
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 11:58 am
Some comments from Democratic (yes, these are Democrats, folks) supporters:

Quote:
But the so-called "Democratic Response" Tuesday night to George Bush's parade of lies before the nation is indicative of just how totally incompetent and braindead the Democratic Party leadership still is.

[...]

Harry Reid is clearly too stupid to lead this Party.

[...]

Harry Reid failed the Party.

Harry Reid & Tim Kaine need to step aside and let those with something to say lead this Party!


Shocked

Amazing. Just amazing.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:11 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Anon-Voter wrote:
It is clear that the Capitol Police were not acting as pro-war censors, as they also invited Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Fla., to leave because she was wearing a t-shirt that read, ''Support the Troops -- Defending Our Freedom.''

Amazing how little press this got!!!!

Anon


Yet you show outrage over Cindy getting treated the same way...

Amazing!!!



YOU TRULY ARE IGNORANT!

Here is what I posted yesterday!! You really should know what you're talking about before you shoot your mouth off and make a fool out of yourself!


http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1831737#1831737

Anon-Voter wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Shw was welcome to wear`that t-shirt outside. Nothing has happened to free speech. Not only should she have been arrested, but the fashion police should have slapped her around as well.

It's the state of the union address, not a street performance. Decorum please.


There is no law against wearing T-shirts inside. The Bushies would have been better served to let her stay while wearing it; she would have looked silly.

Is there a law prohibiting what she did? Or have we decided that the 1st amendment is outdated as well?

Cycloptichorn


Cy,

I hate to tell you this, but they also threw out the wife of a Republican Congressman that had a pro-Bush T-Shirt on as well. There are rules of decorum, and they enforced them equally. This is a non-issue.


Anon
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:17 pm
Anon: I'm not sure what level of discourse you are used to, but calling someone "ignorant" strikes me as a violation of the TOS, and an effort on your part to get this thread locked. I ask you to cease and desist.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:19 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Anon: I'm not sure what level of discourse you are used to, but calling someone "ignorant" strikes me as a violation of the TOS, and an effort on your part to get this thread locked. I ask you to cease and desist.


Read my post and tell me he isn't ignorant! Go ahead Braniac, tell me what a bloody genius he is!! One thing I've found is they don't lock a thread when you stick to the truth!!

Anon
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:22 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Anon: I'm not sure what level of discourse you are used to, but calling someone "ignorant" strikes me as a violation of the TOS, and an effort on your part to get this thread locked. I ask you to cease and desist.


Read my post and tell me he isn't ignorant! Go ahead Braniac, tell me what a bloody genius he is!! One thing I've found is they don't lock a thread when you stick to the truth!!

Anon


Well, I have a laundry list of names I could use to describe you, each one true, and each one likely to cause this thread to get locked.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:22 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
...- calling someone "ignorant" strikes me as a violation of the TOS,...


Now, that would be really interesting if it really is so. Shocked
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:28 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
...- calling someone "ignorant" strikes me as a violation of the TOS,...


Now, that would be really interesting if it really is so. Shocked


You don't consider his telling MM, "YOU TRULY ARE IGNORANT!", to be defamatory, or a personal attack? Please explain your thought process.

In case you've forgotten, Walter:

Quote:
1) Be courteous. You agree that you will not threaten or verbally abuse other members, use defamatory language, or deliberately disrupt topics with repetitive messages, meaningless messages or "spam." Spammers will be removed from the service, and their accounts terminated.
...
5) Lively debate is accepted, and even encouraged, but personal attacks are not. Active topics and heated debate are welcome in the Able2Know service. However, personal attacks are a direct violation of this Agreement and are grounds for immediate and permanent removal from the service.
6) While occasional breaches of decorum in the heat of debate will be tolerated, members whose interactions are marked by a consistent pattern of demeaning and abusive interactions will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including permanent removal from the service.


LINK
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:34 pm
Sorry Tico,

I'm not letting anyone misrepresent my positions because he's too ignorant to know what they are. Contrary to your premise that I am attempting to lock this thread, I not only would not do so. I love this thread! It's the only place I know of that the entire rightwing on Able2Know can be had at one time!!

I LOVE THIS THREAD ...

Anon
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:34 pm
Might be, tico, as a non-native English speaker I have another understanding of that.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:39 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Sorry Tico,

I'm not letting anyone misrepresent my positions because he's too ignorant to know what they are. ....


Try to do it without violating the TOS ... that's all I asked.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Feb, 2006 12:40 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Might be, tico, as a non-native English speaker I have another understanding of that.


Might be, which is why I asked for your thought process.
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 0.05 seconds on 09/28/2021 at 01:01:34