He Walks on Political Water

[Purple Haze]

Bush isn't teflon, he's crapping his pants and trying to come up with the next big lie, and how to stay out of the debates he can't possibly win. Are you kidding me? Bush's critics have only been sharpening their claws, he's going to be torn to shreds from now until November. He doesn't have an accomplishment to stand on...just thousands of dead people he was bound and determined to exterminate.

He's got some 'splainin' to do...

 

[SleepingWarrior]

A Bush torn to shreds is still better than anything the Dem's can field. I can't wait until November comes around so I can see all of the pissing and moaning that happens when Bush gets 4 more years. A filibuster proof Republican Congress will be icing on the cake, .

 

[Lasher]

A filibuster proof Republican Congress will be icing on the cake, .

Since the filibuster is a tool of the Senate, and cloture requires 60 votes, you'd need a net gain of 10 Republicans in the Senate for this to happen.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Since the filibuster is a tool of the Senate, and cloture requires 60 votes, you'd need a net gain of 10 Republicans in the Senate for this to happen.

Its all Congress anyway I thought, just 2 different entities, anyway I wouldn't discount it. Though it is a quite the longshot it can happen.

 

[Lasher]

Its all Congress anyway I thought, just 2 different entities, anyway I wouldn't discount it.

Each house of Congress establishes its own rules for debate.

You should discount it.

 

[SleepingWarrior]

Each house of Congress establishes its own rules for debate.

You should discount it.

Hey... can't I be entitled to my wishful thinking? lol

 

[smoke34]

Interesting things all those media quotes failed to mention

1: The economy...was already in a downward spiral when Bush took office...even before he was elected.

2: The economy: Now moving upward. third quarter of 2003, even with tax cuts and increased spending, government revenues were 81 billion dollars more than projected...thus the deficit was 81 billion less than projected

3: Terrorism: Since 9/11, with the increased security, there have been no further attacks on the US.

4: The economy again: Stocks are doing quite well. Unemployment is leveling out...and we are seeing some gains in employment.

5: Punishing the exec of Enron, etc...Seems to me there has been more effort to prosecute these people than ever seen under Clinton. Did I just see where one is going to prison...and his wife also?

6: Iraq : True, we have found no WMD's at this point. The total amount of chemicals and bioweapons Iraq is reported to have could be hidden in an area about the size of the average swimming pool...There are uncomfirmed reports these weapons my have been shipped to Syria before the invasion.. Saddam is history...many of his followers are gone..dead or being detained.

Just a few of the things that didn't get included in that little bush bashing

Let's see. If Al Gore had been elected:

Aside from Afghanistan there would have been no effort to eradicate the animals who are determined to kill Americans for no ther reason than to kill Americans. Gore would have done nothing. The torure chambers of Iraq would still be there. Children would still be mutilated. People would still be murdered.
Politcal correctness, not common sense, would be the order of the day.

The recession (which according to Clinton's own economic advisers actually started near the end of his administration) would have been fueled even more by liberal class envy, higher taxes, and Gore's milquetoast leadership skills.

I'm no fan of GWB. But one thing is for sure: Gore would have been an unmitigated disaster.

Your post is intellectually dishonest. Liberals hate the truth. If Bush is so stupid, why haven't there been more terrorist attacks on US soil and why is the economy recovering?

Your transparent hatred of Bush is almost laughable in its absurdity.

 

[Thumper]

Yeah. Funny, that.

Sandia = You still don't understand conservatives, to have said something like that.

ruminator - I don't even bother to listen to them. What they say is patently ridiculous to me. It's not even fun anymore to prove them wrong.

Now that's a true conservative for ya! If he doesn't like what he is hearing he puts his hands over his ears and yells la la la la! LOL Facts can really fuck up a dogmatic mindset.

Patently ridiculous? Like explaining Newtons Laws to a neandertal? Of course the caveman is going to think it's ridiculous. Just because you are unable to comprehend the idea doesn't make the idea ridiculous.

"...prove them wrong anymore" Let us know when you plan to do that again. It was so small we missed your first one.

What did we go to war for in Iraq?
To liberate them or to get rid of the threat of WsMD? The war was based on the WMD issue and that alone. The American public would never have committed itself to or supported a war just to liberate the Iraqi people.

Now that no weapons have been found, the hawks are changing the focus of the war to one of liberation. Classic. Bush would be up shit creek if most of his support base wasn't dumb enough to believe in the Hussein Al Quaeda connection. So...

Did Bush lie? Or was our intelligence data and systems so faulty they actually got it this wrong?


The ends do not justify the means.

18 months between attacks? On American soil?

Look up galvanized Injun Joe... . That is, if you can read a dictionary.

Keep on believing they're desperate...

 

[Ishmael]

I love it. Yet another thread where the liberals can all get together and whine and wring their hands. I expect to see several more like it leading into the cmpaigns and, of course, the big thread about how Bush "stole" the election about the 10th of Nov.

Rather than discuss issues of substance, they dwell in the past. You'd think they live in a movie starring Michael J. Fox. But that's the point here in all these threads. There is NO issue. They haven't any. The only thing that counts for them is that nothing changes. (Isn't that the definition of reactionary? Just checking.)

There are only a few things that really get them "wet". Free anything. Free abortions, free medicine, free concerts next? (Never having learned the concept that nothing is ever free.) And then we have Gay marriages. That's real important. The future of the free world revolves around that issue. *Yawn*

They're generally "one trick ponies" concerned with "preserving" something. Why don't we just take all of America, freeze dry it and hermetically seal it up. That would make them all oh so very happy. (Unfortunately that conflicts with their "let anyone and everyone in and give them free ice cream, medical, education, etc. philosophy on immigration. Illegal immigration in particular.)

Most of the liberals I know fall into one of two categories. The terminally immature and those that manipulate them.

Ishmael

 

[lavender]

Rather than discuss issues of substance, they dwell in the past. You'd think they live in a movie starring Michael J. Fox. But that's the point here in all these threads. There is NO issue. They haven't any. The only thing that counts for them is that nothing changes. (Isn't that the definition of reactionary? Just checking.

Oh yeah, we liberals have never discussed substantial issues such as the proliferation of weapons, the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan. Nope, we've never addressed those. Additionally, we've never addressed fiscal policy, like the imprudence of tax cuts. We're all about fluff, we never discuss environmental issues, budget issues, media issues, nothing. We're just like you said, Ishmael. In fact your post is completely refuted by my first post in this thread that discussed many issues that deal with both fiscal policy substance and foreign policy substance.

There are only a few things that really get them "wet". Free anything. Free abortions, free medicine, free concerts next? (Never having learned the concept that nothing is ever free.) And then we have Gay marriages. That's real important. The future of the free world revolves around that issue. *Yawn*

What's sad is that you actually believe your bogus rhetoric about liberals. My post never mentioned free medicine or free abortions - in fact I never even discussed women's rights or gay rights in my post. I actually towed a rather substantive line.

But, for me, issues of "rights" are substantive matters. I suppose the Bill of Rights is just a feel good document for us one trick pony liberals that has no real bearing on society as a whole.

Of course the Bill of Rights means nothing when up against that bastion of freedom, democracy and capitalism - the transnational corporation.

They're generally "one trick ponies" concerned with "preserving" something. Why don't we just take all of America, freeze dry it and hermetically seal it up. That would make them all oh so very happy. (Unfortunately that conflicts with their "let anyone and everyone in and give them free ice cream, medical, education, etc. philosophy on immigration. Illegal immigration in particular.)

You show your complete ignorance of political theory here. It's conservatives/Republicans who are all about "preserving" things. Republicans and conservatives want things to be the way they have been in the past - in many cases. Conservatives are definitely not progressive, they want to "preserve" family values, they want to "preserve" the status quo that involves a static economic hierarchy in our nation, conservatives want to "preserve" the role of everything in our society. If you look at political theory there are grave differences between conservative and political things. Preservation and progression in terms of politics are almost contradictory terms in many cases. It is liberals who want to "progress" society while conservatives want to "preserve." So stick your idiocy up your conservative white bunghole.

It's also very interesting that you mention immigration, because it's your man Bush who is promoting an immigration policy that you say liberals love. Well this liberal thinks it's bullshit. This liberal doesn't want to see illegal immigration changed to ruin the economic situation of lower and lower middle class laborers in our society.

And as for your characterization of liberals as wanting to give everything out for free - that's about as much of a charicature of liberals as it would be for me to say "conservatives just want to enslave blacks, fuck women who've cooked for them all day, and pray on Sunday while screwing the world on Monday."

 

[lavender]

And just to let you know - I didn't stir shit and run. I'm not on the computer much these days.

 

[ruminator]

I love it. Yet another thread where the liberals can all get together and whine and wring their hands. I expect to see several more like it leading into the cmpaigns and, of course, the big thread about how Bush "stole" the election about the 10th of Nov.

Rather than discuss issues of substance, they dwell in the past. You'd think they live in a movie starring Michael J. Fox. But that's the point here in all these threads. There is NO issue. They haven't any. The only thing that counts for them is that nothing changes. (Isn't that the definition of reactionary? Just checking.)

There are only a few things that really get them "wet". Free anything. Free abortions, free medicine, free concerts next? (Never having learned the concept that nothing is ever free.) And then we have Gay marriages. That's real important. The future of the free world revolves around that issue. *Yawn*

They're generally "one trick ponies" concerned with "preserving" something. Why don't we just take all of America, freeze dry it and hermetically seal it up. That would make them all oh so very happy. (Unfortunately that conflicts with their "let anyone and everyone in and give them free ice cream, medical, education, etc. philosophy on immigration. Illegal immigration in particular.)

Most of the liberals I know fall into one of two categories. The terminally immature and those that manipulate them.

Ishmael

I think you might have that one backwards. The conservative is resistant to change.

\Con*serv"a*tive\, a. [Cf. F. conservatif.]
1. Having power to preserve in a safe of entire state, or
from loss, waste, or injury; preservative.



2. Tending or disposed to maintain existing institutions;
opposed to change or innovation.

3. Of or pertaining to a political party which favors the
conservation of existing institutions and forms of
government, as the Conservative party in England; --
contradistinguished from {Liberal} and {Radical}.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/conservative

 

[ruminator]

And just to let you know - I didn't stir shit and run. I'm not on the computer much these days.

Welcome back,.....been kind of quiet here.

Didn't miss a whole lot,.....same 'ol same 'ol

 

[Ishmael]

I think you might have that one backwards. The conservative is resistant to change.


http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/conservative

A traditional thought that has generally been accepted as the truth.

But now we are faced with a situation where the conservatives are proposing, and acting on, new initiatives whilst the 'liberals' sit on their hands and cry about maintaining the status quo.

From all the evidence I can see everyone is mis-labled. I'm the liberal/progressive and you're the conservative/reactionary. How many threads do you think I can find to support that hypothesis?

Ishmael

 

[ruminator]

A traditional thought that has generally been accepted as the truth.

But now we are faced with a situation where the conservatives are proposing, and acting on, new initiatives whilst the 'liberals' sit on their hands and cry about maintaining the status quo.

From all the evidence I can see everyone is mis-labled. I'm the liberal/progressive and you're the conservative/reactionary. How many threads do you think I can find to support that hypothesis?

Ishmael

Where is the logic in the conservative-reactionary?

Sounds contradicting to me.
All I would like to hear is "maybe we were wrong about some things and maybe it could have been done differently."
Any tips for halo polishing?

http://img9.photobucket.com/albums/v24/ruminator/bushhalo.jpg

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Clinton never had a 26% drop in the Dow either. Your man did. Get over it.

You mean the recession that began in '99, the one Bush got balsted for pointing out during the election? The one that was exacerbated by 9-11?

That 26% drop?

Or was there one I missed after the tax cuts went into effect?

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Bush isn't teflon, he's crapping his pants and trying to come up with the next big lie, and how to stay out of the debates he can't possibly win. Are you kidding me? Bush's critics have only been sharpening their claws, he's going to be torn to shreds from now until November. He doesn't have an accomplishment to stand on...just thousands of dead people he was bound and determined to exterminate.

He's got some 'splainin' to do...

Algore didn't blow him out of the water in debate. Are you suggesting he become the tenth dwarf and run for the Democratic Nomination?

That might not work out that well for the Democrats.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

What did we go to war for in Iraq?
To liberate them or to get rid of the threat of WsMD? The war was based on the WMD issue and that alone. The American public would never have committed itself to or supported a war just to liberate the Iraqi people.

Now that no weapons have been found, the hawks are changing the focus of the war to one of liberation. Classic. Bush would be up shit creek if most of his support base wasn't dumb enough to believe in the Hussein Al Quaeda connection. So...

To prevent Saddam from aquiring WMD's. It was in a really big speach that we all watched but appearantly went over some of our heads.

To prove to the dictators and thugs of the world that we still had the strength and resolve to deal with them in the classical and full sence of the word Diplomacy.

And, it worked. We see increased co-operation from Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, and even Syria closed the visable offices of some of the terrorist groups.

So again, WMD's are still a REDWAVIAN herring...

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

"Oh yeah, we liberals have never discussed substantial issues such as the proliferation of weapons, the Iraq war, the war in Afghanistan. Nope, we've never addressed those. Additionally, we've never addressed fiscal policy, like the imprudence of tax cuts. We're all about fluff, we never discuss environmental issues, budget issues, media issues, nothing. We're just like you said, Ishmael. In fact your post is completely refuted by my first post in this thread that discussed many issues that deal with both fiscal policy substance and foreign policy substance." - lavy

Actually, during the Carter years you guys discussed and controlled ALL of that and since then, since that time, the fortunes of the Democratic Party have faded and continue to fade, finally collapsing on Clinton's watch. You are simply too young to remember the days of stagflation, the misery index, and our troops crashing and burning in the desert. The days when conservatives were simply shouted down and told to get to the back of the bus...

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

And just to let you know - I didn't stir shit and run. I'm not on the computer much these days.

Yes you do. What's wrong with preserving the system that made you so educated and enlightened?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yes you do. What's wrong with preserving the system that made you so educated and enlightened?

That's ironic considering most Conservatives aren't very well edumakated.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

My degrees are in Computer Science and Mathmatics...

What are yours in?

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Crayon?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

My degrees are in Computer Science and Mathmatics...

What are yours in?

MIS

You could only get a degree in drinking.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Hey dumbass...

JC Watts is from Oklahoma...

or Arizona,

What does it matter?

Well I never been to Spain, but I kinda like the music.

Will they export you AND your job to India?