Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Where is a (not nutty) Ross Perot when we really need him?
Amen darlin. I backed a nutty one and would do so again over any other candidate I've seen since I was old enough to vote. 2 Bush's and a Clinton don't add up to one Ross. Now are we going to fix it, or are we just going to talk about it?

Well, are you working to get your name on the ballot in all 50 states, Bill? You have to call Larry King and get on his show I think. I can't run for president because when I was in college, I was a reporter trying to find news stories anywhere they could be found and joined just about everything to get on the inside track. This resulted at one time I was briefly a member of the Young Communists of American and the John Birch Society at the same time. Can you imagine how that would look on my resume? Smile

We do have two years left, however, and if no strong conservative is moved to the front soon, I would like to see a Ross Perot facsimile surface for another third party effort. We can always hope.

0 Replies

The Times:

Quote:

IYAD ALLAWI, Iraq's former Prime Minister, chose the third anniversary of the invasion yesterday to say that he believed that civil war had begun.

The Times:

Quote:

The Guardian:

Quote:

Three years after Iraq was invaded, statistics published yesterday show that the frequency of insurgent bombings and group killings is growing [..]. According to figures compiled by the Brookings Institution, in Washington, there were 75 attacks a day last month, compared with 54 on average a year earlier.

The Guardian:

Quote:

Paul Eaton, a former American army general in charge of training Iraqi forces until 2004, marked the anniversary with a furious attack on Mr Rumsfeld, saying he was "not competent to lead our armed forces". [..] Mr Eaton, a former major general, said the defence secretary had "shown himself incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically", and was "far more than anyone else, responsible for what has happened to our important mission in Iraq".

The Guardian:

Quote:

Dick Cheney [..] told the CBS programme Face the Nation that the surge in attacks aimed at fomenting sectarian conflict simply reflected the insurgents' "state of desperation". The remark echoed a similarly optimistic phrase used by Mr Cheney in March last year, when he claimed the insurgency was in its "last throes". Yesterday, he maintained that that description was still "basically accurate".

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Well, are you working to get your name on the ballot in all 50 states, Bill?

No can do, Foxy. My war chest is about 100 million dollars short, Craven changed the edit feature so I'd have to explain all my war-mongering, and I'm not even that likeable to my own family and friends let alone the general public. :wink: Keep looking and let me know if you find someone interesting! Meanwhile, Sozobe's thread on Obama (Illinois's young Democratic Senator) ( Shocked

) is becoming increasingly interesting to me.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Well, are you working to get your name on the ballot in all 50 states, Bill?
No can do, Foxy. My war chest is about 100 million dollars short, Craven changed the edit feature so I'd have to explain all my war-mongering, and I'm not even that likeable to my own family and friends let alone the general public. :wink: Keep looking and let me know if you find someone interesting! Meanwhile, Sozobe's thread on Obama (Illinois's young Democratic Senator) () is becoming increasingly interesting to me.

Aw, you're just in major like with Soz Smile

I like her too.

Seriously, unless some major scandal scuttles her, it is almost a given that Hllary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. According to Dick Morris who, despite his personal failings, has one of the best political instincts I have ever observed, the Republicans have one candidate who can beat her. And that one candidate is Condoleeza Rice. It is by no means not too late to draft Condi who so far says she's not inerested, and that would make for perhaps the most fascinating campaign this country has ever had.

If Condi is out of the picture, the two I am watching most closely are Mitt Romney and George Allen, and I am particularly intrigued by George Allen. I do not think McCain will get the nomination and, while I think he is heads and shoulders above most of the Dem front runners, I am not certain Senator McCain is presidential material.

Obama does seem to be a good guy but he cannot be nominated or elected without compromising too much to the wacko wings of the Democratic Party, and I don't want to see him do that. The Democrats already have plenty of candidates, including Hillary, who have already done that.

0 Replies

To Nimh, why did you decide to post those excerpts on this thread instead of the Democrat Gloat Thread or the big thread or someplace where they would have made more sense?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

[
Seriously, unless some major scandal scuttles her, it is almost a given that Hllary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. According to Dick Morris who, despite his personal failings, has one of the best political instincts I have ever observed, the Republicans have one candidate who can beat her. And that one candidate is Condoleeza Rice. It is by no means not too late to draft Condi who so far says she's not inerested, and that would make for perhaps the most fascinating campaign this country has ever had.

If Condi is out of the picture, the two I am watching most closely are Mitt Romney and George Allen, and I am particularly intrigued by George Allen. I do not think McCain will get the nomination and, while I think he is heads and shoulders above most of the Dem front runners, I am not certain Senator McCain is presidential material.

Obama does seem to be a good guy but he cannot be nominated or elected without compromising too much to the wacko wings of the Democratic Party, and I don't want to see him do that. The Democrats already have plenty of candidates, including Hillary, who have already done that.

I think you are overestimating Hillary, but of course with the media on her side, thats worth at least 15 percentage points. There are plenty of scandals, remember the $100,000 cattle future kickback or favor as just a starter. But leftists that believe the Clintons walk on water and will further their agenda, ethics don't matter. But I do think she is way overrated. And I don't think the Democratic power structure will turn it over to Obama. Not unless he toes the line and capitulates to the extremist groups that give the marching orders to the party. I know very little about him, but he very well may do that to further his own career. But it is important to realize who seems to control the party now, or at least dictates the policies, and they are the Moveon.orgs, ACLUs, etc.

0 Replies

Fox, this news is nothing to gloat about ... and I'm not involved in any of the Iraq threads, so I dont know what all's already been posted there or not. Anyway, the people in the Iraq threads dont need no reminding of this..

0 Replies

People who call supporters of Clinton "leftists" make themselves look like morons.

Like it or not, it is Hillary's nomination if she wants it. And just keep on underestimating her, you will be in for a big shock.

And only someone totally living in the past would bring up Hillary's optiion deal after all that has transpired with Frist, Abramoff et al.

Some of you really need to find a wormhole to escape that alternate sphere of reality that you inhabit.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Fox, this news is nothing to gloat about ... and I'm not involved in any of the Iraq threads, so I dont know what all's already been posted there or not. Anyway, the people in the Iraq threads dont need no reminding of this..

Then what was the purpose of posting it at all?

0 Replies

Because you people need reminding of reality far more than anyone else on the site, obviously.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"you people"?

It seems that the liberals and other assorted people inhabiting this forum have a mistaken notion notion of what reality is.

It seems to encompass whining about "could haves" and "should haves" (said in a high pitched whiny voice 'Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq - blah blah blah' 'Bush should have done this...') instead of dealing with the realities of what has happened and how do we go about finishing what has been started.

They ignore anything that is contrary to the bleak landscape the liberal media sources they frequent has painted for them. They have no foot in reality anymore and I find it best to simply pat them on the head now and send them on their way like I do a puppy.

They seem oblivious to anything that is said to them and have firmly decided that no good can possibly ever come from the current administration and I am no longer willing to try to convince them that it will. Instead, I will only make posts that entertain me as that is all A2K is anymore. A place to entertain myself.

0 Replies

Quote:

It seems that the liberals and other assorted people inhabiting this forum have a mistaken notion notion of what reality is.

I think I have a pretty good notion notion what reality is, thank you.

And it isn't the 'liberal media' that brings me to my notion notions. That phrase is a joke these days.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
It seems that the liberals and other assorted people inhabiting this forum have a mistaken notion notion of what reality is.

I think I have a pretty good notion notion what reality is, thank you.

And it isn't the 'liberal media' that brings me to my notion notions. That phrase is a joke these days.

Cycloptichorn

Perhaps you are too busy being smug to read. Read again and try not being such an ignorant ass.

0 Replies

Oh, please. Don't make me report you for violating the TOS - that seems the be the Threat Du Jour from you and Tico.

You accuse I and others of denying reality, but you will be the one who ends up blaming this failed war on the 'liberal media' and the Democrats, just as you blame many of today's problems on Democrats and the 'liberal media'; conveinently forgetting that your party is completely responsible for the failures our nation is facing at every level.

You should read again as well; Matthew 7:3 comes to mind.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I can't hold your hand and guide your reading habits. It is obvious that you rely on liberal media sources for much of your ill-informed opinions. How else can you explain it?

Perhaps if you, and others of your ilk, expanded your reading and information gathering beyond the sources you and others are currently suckling from.

0 Replies

A good start would be reading the title of this thread. Smile

(We could always re-spell it phonetically.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Oh, please. Don't make me report you for violating the TOS - that seems the be the Threat Du Jour from you and Tico.

I've made no such threat, Cyclops. I'm asking for members to be civil and post appropriately following the TOS. It's nothing more than common courtesy.

0 Replies

What exactly do you think I read that is the 'liberal media?' Which causes me to apparently believe in a fantasy world?

Web sites? They are no more 'liberal media' than the various conservative web sites that I read, with my favorite being Instapundit, Captains' Quarters, Powerline (for laughs) and RedState. I also like the Volokh Conspiracy and The Corner at NRO.

The Newspapers? You still insist that these corporate conglomerate newspapers, who are far more focused on profits than anything else, are liberal media? You forget that the NYT was one of the leading sources for people to read about Saddam's WMD. The WaPo annoys Liberals and Conservatives on a pretty much equal basis. What else should I read?

The Network news? Does anyone actually watch this anymore? They are more interested in ratings than truth, accuracy, or accountability.

So, which is it that is leading me into my 'ill-informed' opinions? And how do you come to that conclusion, anyways? Be specific, or admit that you have no actual logic or data to back up your assertion.

I would be happy to debate you on the political subject of your choosing, and I do not think you would find me ill-informed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

http://www.vsocial.com/video/?d=1876

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Well, are you working to get your name on the ballot in all 50 states, Bill?
No can do, Foxy. My war chest is about 100 million dollars short, Craven changed the edit feature so I'd have to explain all my war-mongering, and I'm not even that likeable to my own family and friends let alone the general public. :wink: Keep looking and let me know if you find someone interesting! Meanwhile, Sozobe's thread on Obama (Illinois's young Democratic Senator) () is becoming increasingly interesting to me.

Aw, you're just in major like with Soz

Absolutely correct about Sozobe Smile

... but there's more to it than that. This guy is really something.

Clinton can be the front runner right up until the mud machine kicks in. There are plenty of skeletons in that closet. Plus, the man Democrats really want to elect is going to outshine her so badly at the DNC, people will be wondering how they ever got excited about his half-wit-not-really-at-his-side-kick by comparison. His name is Bill Clinton. Since he can't run; they're going to have to find someone else. I really think Obama could be that man. Condi? Please. She is perhaps the best person the Republicans could field if they wanted to elect Hillary. Too much Bush, and too little charm.

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know