The Republican Party

[Raider179]

Originally posted by lazs2
 

That and the whole "you can't have a gun and by the way... buckle up and wear your life jacket when you swim".... that whole thing is what makes a republican voter...  not a republican... a republican voter... the fear that a liberal will have control over your life makes you vote republican..

nash and raider don't get this... they lash out at the republican voters as if they were republicans.   Most of us are libertarians or anarchists like me...

nash and raider... we are republican voters because of you.   We have no choice..   We don't want you or your ilk having any say in our lives.

lazs

Lazs you are the most close minded person I have ever "talked" to. I have never said you cant have a gun. That is just what you want to label me because it makes you feel your right. Have a gun, have 20 I don't care.

Your an anarchist? Christ, lazs you can not be serious...Now I do have insight into why your views are so extreme though. Do you really know what that means or are you just using the label to define yourself as anti-government to us? Also if your an anarchist, WTF are you doing voting? Anarchy does not believe in any government, Republican or Democrat so either your joking or you have no idea what anarchy is.

I voted for Kerry because of Iraq. You voted for bush because of me and Nash?

Why does every issue come down to guns with you?

[Mighty1]

Originally posted by Raider179
In case you didnt notice I live in GA. Hardly anyone I know voted for kerry. Bush won because fools like you listen to what he says instead of what his actions are.

I think you have that backwards. He won because of his actions and Kerry lost because no one believed his BS.

As far as being a fool....well that may be true but I would rather be a fool and vote for Bush hoping he would actually pull off what he started than be an idiot and go with Kerry who had no plan other than being president.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sakai
More than Bush did, that's why it's everyone's fault but Bush's.

Sakai

Wrong.

Bush's accomplishments:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm
Now compare that first 4 years with Clinton's 8 years. Then tell your college professor who's brainwashing you to bug off.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Mighty1
I think you have that backwards. He won because of his actions and Kerry lost because no one believed his BS.

As far as being a fool....well that may be true but I would rather be a fool and vote for Bush hoping he would actually pull off what he started than be an idiot and go with Kerry who had no plan other than being president.

No I dont have it backwards. Dems might have beat themselves by not offering a viable candidate. Bush is not pulling off 1 thing in Iraq, except getting Saddam. Everything else has gone to #%). Terrorists/Insurgent attacks in Iraq have only gone up since the elections, Gas is higher than any other time except the embargo, Iraq will not be a democracy, it will be a theocracy, They are not getting freedom. The fact that we haven't won Iraq decisively will hurt us a lot more than leaving Saddam in power would have. (speculation)

I still don't see how Kerry withdrawing all the troops would have been any different than Bush doing it in Iraq next year. Iraq will be a Civil War either way so why waste more american lives??? We should have got saddam, left, let them fight it out, and then went in and told the new "leadership" how it was gonna be or we would put them in a cell next to Saddam.

[DrDea]

Both parties suck and anyone who doesnt realise that has serious comprehention skills.Bush just looked better because this time around,and last,the Democratic party couldnt put anyone up that didnt make him look like a genius.

[DrDea]

Actually, figguring in inflation Oil will have to hit 90$ a barrel to match the last time it went sky high.Hmmmm......who was the president then again?

[Charon]

Both parties suck and anyone who doesnt realise that has serious comprehention skills.Bush just looked better because this time around,and last,the Democratic party couldnt put anyone up that didnt make him look like a genius.

Which was a pretty extraordinary failure for the Democrats.

Charon

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wrong.

Bush's accomplishments:
http://www.calpoly.edu/~doleary/bushaccomplishments.htm
Now compare that first 4 years with Clinton's 8 years. Then tell your college professor who's brainwashing you to bug off.

Hmmmm . . .

I see, so partisan hack agendas equate to actual accomplishments that benefit the nation?  Oh my, if only we'd all received our talking points and little flags to wave!

Three years of economic failures equate to the greatest economic expansion in our history?  Uhhhmmm . . . yeah.  

Might also check what the topic was, Bin Laden:

Bush ignored Bin Laden when he came into office, period.  Clinton was very high on Bin Laden as a problem.  There is no explanation for Bush's failure to respond to the PDB except one:

arrogant incompetence.

No excuse for the outing of Valerie Plame except one:

Treason.  For the sake of making yourself look good rather than be accountable.  How proud we all should be.  Wave your little flag.  

He's the worst president the nation has ever had, that would be ever, and after his comment that ID should be taught on equal footing with biology, clearly the stupidest presdent we've ever had.  Period.  If you'd ever seen him dodge a question in public you'd know:  he's an incompetenmt bumbler being led by the nose by his sycophantic cronies in the admin.  

Your talking points and ability to google notwithstanding, you might address the actual issues the nation faces, not the RNC press releases.  

Oh hey, and Tom Delay isn't a crook!  Just like Nixon wasn't.

Sakai

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Charon
Which was a pretty extraordinary failure for the Democrats.

Charon

Agreed.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Sakai
 If you'd ever seen him dodge a question in public you'd know:  he's an incompetenmt bumbler being led by the nose by his sycophantic cronies in the admin.  

Sakai

Hehe, I take it you are referring to his answer about "soveriegn nations" lol Pretty remarkable we elect a president who doesnt know what Soveriegn means.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined. I  know of at least one incident where covert ops forces could have taken out Bin Laden but Clinton declined. Bin Laden should have been dead before Bush ran for President, nevermind was elected.

Valerie Plame was outed during the Clinton administration by a spy, and was returned to the States for her own safety. At the time she was mentioned in the press, she drove to the CIA HQ every day in a Jag convertible (that's some deep cover for a CIA covert operative). The KGB knew who Plame was and what she did, as did most of the rest of the intelligence community, as far back as 1995. Plame was outed before Bush ran for President. I don't remember the name of the spy, but he's doing multiple life sentences, and Plame was on his list BY NAME as an active operative he outed to the Russians.


edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.

[Sakai]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined.

edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.

That's a convenient argument form today's perspective, but wholly unrealistic.  At that time no one in intelligence perceived Bin Laden as the threat he is today, yet while Bin Laden was not perceived of as great a threat then as he is now, Clinton paid more attention to him than Bush did (well then Bush does since he refuses to discuss Bin Laden, you know we let Bin Laden escape in Tora Bora so where's your indignation there bubba?); Bush even ignoring arrogantly briefings on the subject.

I know it's a nice doidge ot say "it's all Clinton's fault" but tis argument leaves out too many fact about the why and where and when.

With Bush, he was given a briefing plainloy stating what they believed and he shelved it.

Clinton gave the go ahead to end Bin Laden and the admin and intelligence agencies bobbled the ball.   But Clinton was trying when Bush was arrogantly ignoring, those are two vastly different takes on the same issue.

Bush is still ignoring Bin Laden, and still whistling past the graveyard.  Oh, I forgot:  Bin Laden is Iraq, right?  Right!  

Sakai

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Clinton was so concerned with Bin Laden that when he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter, he declined. I  know of at least one incident where covert ops forces could have taken out Bin Laden but Clinton declined. Bin Laden should have been dead before Bush ran for President, nevermind was elected.

Valerie Plame was outed during the Clinton administration by a spy, and was returned to the States for her own safety. At the time she was mentioned in the press, she drove to the CIA HQ every day in a Jag convertible (that's some deep cover for a CIA covert operative). The KGB knew who Plame was and what she did, as did most of the rest of the intelligence community, as far back as 1995. Plame was outed before Bush ran for President. I don't remember the name of the spy, but he's doing multiple life sentences, and Plame was on his list BY NAME as an active operative he outed to the Russians.


edit: I've read that both Ames and Hanssen outed Plame, it took a few minutes for me to remember.

Obviously we should have killed OBL.

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorintelligence/threatsand.html

Here is a link on everything Clinton/Bush did to try to get him. It paints neither in a good light. But Clinton tried everything from Kidnapping OBL,Saudi secretly getting Taliban to boot him out, Talking to Pakistan to get the Taliban to get him, Shooting cruise missiles at his camps, Using Predator drones to find OBL are just some of them.

"Although the Bush team took office only three months after the terrorist attack on the Cole, Mr. Bush's aides showed no more interest than their predecessors in the Clinton administration in launching a reprisal strike against Al Qaeda. Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, said that by the time the Bush administration was in place, the Cole attack had grown "stale," according to the commission."

lol So you have seen this "list of outed spies"?
Link it please....

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Sakai
 Clinton was very high on Bin Laden as a problem.  

Sakai

Don't let the facts get in your wayBTW...When do you graduate?

[lazs2]

raider... how do you figure that an anarchist wouldn't vote?  I would rather there was nothing to vote for but I live in a world of reality... I vote to stem the tide of big government socialism..Why is everything so black and white and one sided with you (to use your phrases)   You seem to feel that if you are an anarchist that you have to be a total anarchist... if you vote republican then you have to be a republican but....

If you vote for tha loser, gun controling anti voucher womanly socialist big government psuedo science environmentalist tree hugger kerrie.... You are doing it because of the war in Iraq?

why can't we say that if you vote democrat that you believe in socialist government and are for massive gun control and bans?

No person in their right mind agrees with everything any political party bespouses but.... there are absolutely no ideals of the democratic party worth all the socialist control they dish out.

lazs