0
   

Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

 
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 09:28 pm
http://img437.imageshack.us/img437/821/150pxdonotfeedtrollsvgpo4.png
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Jan, 2007 09:44 pm
Tico: Bear in mind that I can't help it if your narrow thought process renders you incapable of following along with the logical flow of the discussion.

A discussion is not something that should be abused by the misdirection, by the smoke and mirrors, by the dog and pony shows that are common to your manner.

Wipe that brown off your nose, take in some clean fresh air for a time, and face some awful truths, Tico. Only by allowing a modicum of honesty into your life will you be able to offer your country anything.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 12:36 am
Strong stuff from some folks here.

I liked the piece from the Huffington Post.

I agree with c.i., Hillary's vote for the Iraq war is the biggest mistake of her political life and one she will not be able to shake.
Worse, as she tries to fudge around it.
Bad Hillary.

Has anyone ever seen her legs?
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 12:53 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Certainly it is a Democrat problem. The Republicans, by a large majority, won't make statements that undercut the President and/or the troops in Iraq. The Democrats have been doing so regularly for political gain and now they are in a quandary. Do they put their votes where their mouths have been running? Or will all that rhetoric prove to be as empty of substance as so much of their other rhetoric has been?


From Mr Kaplan:

I wonder what we will say, looking back at 2000-2008. "The system worked"? No matter what this Democratic Congress does, how can we call the generations of broken crockery these ideologues have bequeathed us a sign of a healthy system? However this war ends, how can we call its existence anything but a megalomaniacal abuse of power?

Whatever vermin the oversight committees at long last uncover; whatever the prosecutions and trials of apparachiks may finally reveal and punish; however historians diagnose our good-German complicity with demagogues, our Stockholm-syndrome affection for the bullies, our frog-in-a-warming-cauldron capacity for denial -- no matter how we ultimately awaken from this madness, it will not be with the comfort that our Constitution alone was enough to prevent us from spending this long season in hell.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:29 am
Quote:
February 01, 2007
The Ugly American
By Victor Davis Hanson


Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic candidate for president, is at it again with another rude gaffe, this one providing an unintended glimpse of the way many contemporary cosmopolitan elites characterize their homeland when abroad.

In the past, Kerry has said that our soldiers were "terrorizing" Iraqi civilians in their homes. He has also warned that uneducated Americans "get stuck in Iraq" -- a supposedly botched joke. Now, he assures an audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the United States is a "sort of international pariah."

Kerry, who appeared on stage in Davos this past weekend with former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, also proclaimed, "When we walk away from global warming, Kyoto, when we are irresponsibly slow in moving toward AIDS in Africa, when we don't advance and live up to our own rhetoric and standards, we set a terrible message of duplicity and hypocrisy."

Kerry could learn a few simple rules of etiquette that should guide the "message" of all high American officials when abroad:

Tell the Whole Truth Without Posturing or Spinning


Kerry was clearly directing his criticism at the Bush administration, but the Kyoto Protocol, the international climate treaty, was first rejected by the U.S. in 1997. Ten years ago, President Clinton wisely chose not to refer the treaty to the Senate. Even that was not enough for outraged senators, who went ahead anyway to vote 95-0 to oppose any international agreement on climate control like Kyoto in which China, India and other developing countries would remain exempt. Kerry himself cast one of these votes -- an ironic example of what Kerry now calls "duplicity and hypocrisy."

Nor was the United States "irresponsibly slow" in regard to African AIDS relief. In fact, the Bush administration has devoted $4 billion annually to combat AIDS in Africa. That's triple what the Clinton administration budgeted. That generosity deserves praise, not scorn.

Remember we are war.

Kerry's criticisms are hauntingly similar to al-Qaida's own talking points. Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have preposterously claimed that America's past inaction on Kyoto was a good excuse for going to war. In various ways, they have long blamed America for the spread of AIDS, and insisted that the United States is an international outlaw. When Kerry makes similar charges, it only enhances the jihadist propaganda, and weakens the United States in a war that is largely to be decided by relative resolve.

Don't single out the United States.

Kerry said nothing publicly critical to former President Khatami about his own theocracy's violation of United Nations non-proliferation accords. He could have lamented Tehran's support for the terrorists of Hezbollah who are undermining democracy in Lebanon. And he might have deplored the infiltration of Iranian jihadists into Iraq.

"Pariah" status is instead given only to Kerry's own homeland. Yet, the United States is currently working with the European Union and the United Nations to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. With NATO, we fight to save Afghan democracy. And we spend blood and treasure alongside an international coalition to offer Iraqis something far better than either dictatorship or theocracy. Some pariah.

Avoid partisanship.


For all his anger at the current administration, Kerry conveniently doesn't tell his audience that the United States Congress voiced overwhelming bipartisan distrust of Kyoto. He forgets that he and other Democrats in the House and Senate, in traditional bipartisan fashion, authorized wars against Afghanistan and Iraq by large pluralities that are now so controversial.

What then drives John Kerry to say such ugly things?

Kerry must still hurt over his recent loss to the supposedly less sophisticated George Bush. And he and other leftist elites apparently must remind their kindred European counterparts that there are still refined Americans like themselves who are not flag-waving Christians from Texas.

But, mostly, it is intellectual laziness. It is always easier to cite America's flaws to applause than to take the time to explain the nature of its rare morality to catcalls. In truth, the United States has never been richer or more generous. Its military is preeminent, protects vulnerable allies and fights extremism worldwide. Immigrants risk their lives to reach our shores.

But we are in a deep spiritual crisis when a recent candidate for our presidency either cannot, or will not, patiently explain that to the world. Instead, Sen. Kerry, the new ugly American abroad, glibly misleads a global audience that his own America is a "pariah" -- a verdict that is as embarrassing to us as it is stupid for him.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Feb, 2007 10:33 am
Quote:
Free the Fitzgerald One!
By Ann Coulter
Wednesday, January 31, 2007


Conservatives often ask why so many Republicans go native when they get to Washington, D.C. The answer is: Because you don't defend them when they come under relentless attacks from liberal hatchet men.

Lewis Libby did what you wanted. He didn't place secret phone calls to reporters revealing classified intelligence programs. He supported the war on Islamic fascists. He didn't try to raise your taxes like James Baker III. And he has loyally served Dick Cheney, the man conservatives secretly wish were president.

And now he's on trial for -- at worst -- misremembering who first told him that future reality show contestant Joseph Wilson was sent on a boondoggle to Niger by his wife, Valerie Plame.

The way Libby remembered it, NBC's Tim Russert was the first one to tell him. But the way Russert remembers it, he didn't tell Libby about Wilson's wife. (And the way Wilson remembers it, he was sent to Niger by Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise.)

Try this: Who told you Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife? Who told you a bipartisan Senate panel concluded that Joe Wilson was lying when he denied that his wife had sent him to Niger? While we're at it, who was the first person to correct you on your pronunciation of "Niger"?

I don't remember, either -- and I'm not running a war.

The exact same people who are now demanding prison for Libby for not remembering who told him about Plame are the ones who told us it was perfectly plausible for Bill Clinton to forget that Monica Lewinsky repeatedly performed oral sex on him in the Oval Office. Even if chubby Jewish brunettes aren't your type, be honest: Which of the two events would stand out more in your memory?

Perjury is intentionally swearing to something you know to be untrue -- not misremembering what later appears, on balance, not to be the truth.

Here are some simple illustrations. If Clinton had been asked how many sexual encounters it took for him to remember Monica's name (six) and he got the answer wrong, it would not be perjury since, like Monica's name, it's an easy thing to forget.

If Clinton had been asked whether he talked to Rep. Jim Chapman and then to Rep. John Tanner, or to Rep. Tanner and then to Rep. Chapman while Monica was performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office and he got the answer wrong, that would not be perjury because it's not relevant to the investigation. (Correct answer: Chapman, then Tanner.)

But when Clinton was asked under oath -- in a case brought by Paula Jones under the law liberals consider more sacrosanct than any passed in the 20th century, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act: "Mr. President ... at any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?" and he answered, "I don't recall," that was perjury.

Now take the question: "Who first told you fantasist Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife?" Unless it actually was Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise -- the answer to that question is not going to be perjurious. No matter how many witnesses swear they told Libby first, if Libby honestly believed it was Russert, he didn't commit perjury.

So why is there a trial? Because there is no penalty for using the threat of imprisonment as a political weapon against conservatives. Ask Tom DeLay or Rush Limbaugh.

If Libby were a Democrat, we would know the sexual proclivities of everyone in Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's office, Judith Miller would be portrayed as a "stalker," Tim Russert's cat would be dead, and the public would know about every toupee at MSNBC.

Republicans don't have to kill cats to bestir themselves to defend their own from rank partisan persecution. But it never happens.

People who attack conservatives never have to worry about their own dirty laundry coming out. All they have to worry about is whether People magazine will use a good picture of them in its "Sexiest Man Alive" issue.

When Secret Service officers innocently told Monica she couldn't see Clinton because Eleanor Mondale was "visiting" the president, Bill Clinton immediately threatened to fire the officers responsible. (They say Clinton was so mad it took him an extra couple of minutes to "finish off" in the sink.)

Compare that to how the Bush administration treats an employee caught actually violating a citizen's rights. An officer with Bush's own customs office held Rush Limbaugh for three hours at a private airport, mauling his belongings and calling in his Viagra prescription to the media before he had left the airport. We don't even know her name.

No one has bothered to investigate what prescriptions she takes or whether she has any angry relatives willing to badmouth her. She certainly has not been fired for this egregious violation of an American citizen's rights. No worries -- it was just a conservative.

You want to protect the borders, cut taxes, fight Islamic fascists and put up Ten Commandments monuments? Get her name. Find out about Patrick Fitzgerald what we'd know if he were Ken Starr. If you won't defend your own champions, conservatives, then don't sit back and wonder why so few people want to be your champions.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Feb, 2007 03:11 pm
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 03:27 am
Fewer Bush supporters around these days.

So it's not all bad.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:43 am
Bush supporters are around quite a bit. And posting appropriate information to this thread.

I think most, however, are taking my advice (that I took from others) to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. Certainly there is no need to respond to those who engage in rude and boorish behavior on a thread and/or those who have expressed complete and utter contempt for those who participate appropriately on the thread.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 11:54 am
And all of us know that all righties are the epitome of good ethics and behavior. Sometimes, they get caught and serve prison time.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:25 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Bush supporters are around quite a bit. And posting appropriate information to this thread.

I think most, however, are taking my advice (that I took from others) to not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. Certainly there is no need to respond to those who engage in rude and boorish behavior on a thread and/or those who have expressed complete and utter contempt for those who participate appropriately on the thread.


Ah, blaming the messenger for the message again.

A reminder of the message: George Bush is a disgrace to his office, and an international pariah.

Supplementary message: those who laud a contemptible man bring only contempt upon themselves.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Feb, 2007 02:26 pm
It's certainly no more than they deserve.

They justify it by saying that it was the 'best of two bad options.' But that's BS.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 05:34 am
Seems a majority of Americans now realise GWB has deceived them and misled them.

And he needs another $100 bn for Iraq.

Hope that's not too rude for the delicate sensibilities displayed here.

Quote:
President George Bush is proposing to slash medical care for the poor and elderly to meet the soaring cost of the Iraq war.
Mr Bush's $2.9 trillion (£1.5 trillion) budget, sent to Congress yesterday, includes $100bn extra for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for this year, on top of $70bn already allocated by Congress and $141.7bn next year. He is planning an 11.3% increase for the Pentagon. Spending on the Iraq war is destined to top the total cost of the 13-year war in Vietnam.

The huge rise in military spending is paid for by a squeeze on domestic programmes, including $66bn in cuts over five years to Medicare, the healthcare scheme for the elderly, and $12bn from the Medicaid healthcare scheme for the poor.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 07:08 am
Any attempt to inquire into exactly what bad thing it is that GWB has done, and to argue whether it is both true and actually a bad thing, almost immediately deteriorates, on the part of the liberal poster, into personal comments about the Bush supporter, sarcastic jibes, etc., no matter how proper and dignified the Bush supporter's posts. What you don't get is an actual series of dignified posts with each participant merely trying to support his position.

The statement that GWB is bad, disgraceful, etc., is simply presented as a tautology, rarely with examples or evidence. Any attempt to challenge it, however seriously, is almost invariably met with attempts to change the argument into a personal confrontation. This makes pretty clear the feebleness of the Bush haters' position.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 07:35 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
Any attempt to inquire into exactly what bad thing it is that GWB has done, and to argue whether it is both true and actually a bad thing, almost immediately deteriorates, on the part of the liberal poster, into personal comments about the Bush supporter, sarcastic jibes, etc., no matter how proper and dignified the Bush supporter's posts. What you don't get is an actual series of dignified posts with each participant merely trying to support his position.

The statement that GWB is bad, disgraceful, etc., is simply presented as a tautology, rarely with examples or evidence. Any attempt to challenge it, however seriously, is almost invariably met with attempts to change the argument into a personal confrontation. This makes pretty clear the feebleness of the Bush haters' position.


But they don't have anything else, Brandon. They can't defend much of their liberal ideology or the liberal leaders spouting it, and I think many don't have real jobs or they wouldn't have so much time to post inane and stupid things about our President or other conservatives. So they do the only thing they know--they post hate posts and pretend they're intelligent. Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 07:42 am
Reading through the headlines early this morning, I noted one stating that "Edwards jumps to the left." My goodness, how do you "jump left" when you're already about as left as you can go?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 09:05 am
http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/070205/arial.gif
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 09:44 am
Quote:
This makes pretty clear the feebleness of the Bush haters' position.


Strong words from someone too afraid to be judged on his position.

I would be more than happy to demolish your position at any time you like.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:01 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
This makes pretty clear the feebleness of the Bush haters' position.


Strong words from someone too afraid to be judged on his position.

I would be more than happy to demolish your position at any time you like.

Cycloptichorn


This crap again? Isn't there a global warming thread you can haunt?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Feb, 2007 10:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
This makes pretty clear the feebleness of the Bush haters' position.


Strong words from someone too afraid to be judged on his position.

I would be more than happy to demolish your position at any time you like.

Cycloptichorn


This crap again? Isn't there a global warming thread you can haunt?


I can haunt multiple threads simultaneously, much like yourself, McG.

You can go ahead and drop the holier-than-thou attitude anytime you like, btw; you're as much of an a$$ as anyone on here.

Cycloptichorn
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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 02:40:49