boobiemiles Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It's a wrap folks, Bush III may be worst than Bush I and II combined, and we are just at opening credits. So far into this guy presidency we've had two national incidents that proved America is vunerable to attacks, and can't take care of their own. Bush used the platform that we have Home Land Security to get re-elected. Now the same people that kept him in the white house find themselves umoung dead bodies, and rations. Our image as a great country has taken a hard hit. We're loosing Iraq.......We're loosing Iraq. We lost New Orleans, and much of the Gulf of Mexico. My parent never liked Ronald Reagan, but our country had a better self image after his term. My question is this, during Carter's presidency our image took a blow from inflation and a failed hostage rescue, what do you think we look like right now? And is there a canidate for president in 08 that can restore national pride, and do some of the same positive things Reagan and Clinton did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Carter as President was an incompetent boob. I'm sure the Europeans liked him, but in the grand scheme of things, they don't matter any more. (Who gives a **** what France thinks of us?) However, he was such a wimp when it came to our interests internationally, and he projected that in our policies, that he practically invited the screaming Islamic hordes to take over our Embassy in Iran -- and then he cemented his image as an American strongman (not) by doing practically nothing about it for a year and a half. Reagan, on the other hand, projected an image of strength -- a believable image, one that compelled the Iranian terrorists to release the prisoners within a half hour of Carter's being replaced, so they wouldn't have to deal with the wrath of Ron. Fast forward to now: Our image as a great country seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Under Clinton, our image was considered "great" by the Europeans who loved Clinton, but it was considered weak to our enemies, thanks to Clinton's determined weakness in Somalia -- and lobbing cruise missiles did nothing to erase that image. Bush had to deal with the aftermath of Clinton's week-kneed policies... and now we are where we are. There are lots of things I don't like about Bush's policies (border security, for example), but overall I'm glad he's the President. And Boobie, he got re-elected in large part because the people that voted for him thought Kerry was an incompetent boob. You can camplain as much as you want, but until you field a candidate that middle America can take seriously, you're going to keep losing elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 It's a wrap folks, Bush III may be worst than Bush I and II combined, and we are just at opening credits. So far into this guy presidency we've had two national incidents that proved America is vunerable to attacks, and can't take care of their own. Bush used the platform that we have Home Land Security to get re-elected. Now the same people that kept him in the white house find themselves umoung dead bodies, and rations. Our image as a great country has taken a hard hit. We're loosing Iraq.......We're loosing Iraq. We lost New Orleans, and much of the Gulf of Mexico. My parent never liked Ronald Reagan, but our country had a better self image after his term. My question is this, during Carter's presidency our image took a blow from inflation and a failed hostage rescue, what do you think we look like right now? And is there a canidate for president in 08 that can restore national pride, and do some of the same positive things Reagan and Clinton did? :puke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autographcollector Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Read your SIG boobiemiles, that says it ALL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pR0JEkT 21 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I just want to say that there is a lot of complaining going on about Bush, not just you guys, but in the nation in general. I cant stand the f####r either..its just to bad that the citizens voted for that dumba##. After 9/11 why the f##k would they vote for him? Well guess what its only the beginning and he has at least 3 and a half years left on his stupid term..wow hope his jack a## brother dont run for president what will happen then? Clinton was a great president in my opinion. They try to impeach him for what? Gettin a little nookie under the table..who cares at least the people had jobs and the folks were taking care of and the gas was like a 1.19 not 3.10. I hate Bush and everybody that voted for him should just shut the f##k up..once again shouldnt of voted for him! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I just want to say that there is a lot of complaining going on about Bush, not just you guys, but in the nation in general. I cant stand the f####r either..its just to bad that the citizens voted for that dumba##. After 9/11 why the f##k would they vote for him? Well guess what its only the beginning and he has at least 3 and a half years left on his stupid term..wow hope his jack a## brother dont run for president what will happen then? Clinton was a great president in my opinion. They try to impeach him for what? Gettin a little nookie under the table..who cares at least the people had jobs and the folks were taking care of and the gas was like a 1.19 not 3.10. I hate Bush and everybody that voted for him should just shut the f##k up..once again shouldnt of voted for him! My, aren't you articulate. The thing you have to realize is that your candidate in the last election was a phony highbrow, blue-blood northeastern boob. You can say what you want about Bush, but until you run a viable candidate, you're going to just keep losing elections. And by viable, I mean someone who can appeal to midwesterners and southerners. Most of the country doesn't think like you do. And there's more of us than there are of you. (How's that for a depressing thought?) By the way, for what it's worth, you obviously don't know why Clinton was impeached, you don't know why gas prices have gone up (and are coming back down a bit, now), and you apparently don't understand why some people who "had jobs" under Clinton lost them under Bush. Unless you really like being angry (and some people do), I suggest you try to get a grasp of a bigger picture than the one you're currently seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 At this point, you ought to just change the thread title... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 By the way, for what it's worth, you obviously don't know why Clinton was impeached, you don't know why gas prices have gone up (and are coming back down a bit, now), and you apparently don't understand why some people who "had jobs" under Clinton lost them under Bush. Unless you really like being angry (and some people do), I suggest you try to get a grasp of a bigger picture than the one you're currently seeing. Actually, he's pretty close. He was impeached for lying about getting a beej. Most objective right-wingers that I know, and most of those who aren't completely brainwashed will admit that what Bush has done in office is AT LEAST as bad as lying about getting topped off. If Clinton was impeached, then Bush should be impeached. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 After 9/11 why the f##k would they vote for him? Well guess what its only the beginning and he has at least 3 and a half years left on his stupid term.. WOW!! You honestly think that 9/11 was Bush's fault? WOW!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airborneskins Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 We're loosing Iraq.......We're loosing Iraq. We lost New Orleans, and much of the Gulf of Mexico. WOW!! Tell that to all of the soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that are coming home from Iraq. Gotta feeling you won't last too long.. We are not Losing Iraq. Open your eyes man.. Look at the changes that we have made, Or not, just listen to what your boy Michael Moore has to say. C'mon Boobie, Stop being a tool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 at least the thread starter defined himself with the first four letters of his name. If I was to answer the thread title, my answer would be not for a very long time. The reason I would give would be people like the thread starter, the chomos, and the other over emotional douche bags that take politics to an extreme. No extremist thinks they are extreme they think they are correct and the monument of truth. What really pisses me off about the extreme left is they give a window of oppurtunity to the extreme right, it doesnt work in the other way arround. The only way the far right has any hope at all is if the chomos and the boobs can rally enough support, their goal isnt to empower the far right but thats all they achieve. Personally I would love to have another Clinton as opposed to what the chomos and boobs will put forth, they are so frothing against republicans they have lost sight of balance. Its pointless to even adress them in debate, their full goal is to undermine their opponent at all costs. What scares me is the party officials are mimicing them, and that allows the right to go as far as they want. clinton may have thrown some barbs, but if you compare him to dean and the other heavy weights he was fighting with kid gloves. Aslong as the left is own by these extremists I will be saddend, cause that means the far right can go as far as they please. My wish is a centrist democrat would get the balls to form a third party(which would take the majority of the vote) and reclaim their party, forcing the rebulicans back to the center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrockster21 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 at least the thread starter defined himself with the first four letters of his name.If I was to answer the thread title, my answer would be not for a very long time. The reason I would give would be people like the thread starter, the chomos, and the other over emotional douche bags that take politics to an extreme. No extremist thinks they are extreme they think they are correct and the monument of truth. What really pisses me off about the extreme left is they give a window of oppurtunity to the extreme right, it doesnt work in the other way arround. The only way the far right has any hope at all is if the chomos and the boobs can rally enough support, their goal isnt to empower the far right but thats all they achieve. Personally I would love to have another Clinton as opposed to what the chomos and boobs will put forth, they are so frothing against republicans they have lost sight of balance. Its pointless to even adress them in debate, their full goal is to undermine their opponent at all costs. What scares me is the party officials are mimicing them, and that allows the right to go as far as they want. clinton may have thrown some barbs, but if you compare him to dean and the other heavy weights he was fighting with kid gloves. Aslong as the left is own by these extremists I will be saddend, cause that means the far right can go as far as they please. My wish is a centrist democrat would get the balls to form a third party(which would take the majority of the vote) and reclaim their party, forcing the rebulicans back to the center. I would honestly like to see John McCain become the next president. I thought it was a travesty the way Bush smeared him in this last campaign; He should have been the candidate instead of Bush. And he probably would have chosen someone other than the anti-christ as a running mate. Hilary Clinton, well, I'm not so sure I'd want her as president. Bill was so good because he was so middle-road. I've heard jokes saying he was the best republican president we've ever had. Hilary would be a little too far left. I think the leader of our country needs to be more in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 And he probably would have chosen someone other than the anti-christ as a running mate. There's a fascinating book that needs to be written about this phenomenon. When Bush chose Cheney it was universally applauded as a britlliant choice. Cheney was viewed as a capable centrist with no further political aspirations of his own that would lend gravitas to his younger running mate. Democrats were surprised at such a wise choice and granted begrudging respect for Bush having made it. Then, slowly, a character assasination took place on a level never before seen and somehow, the widely-liked and respected elder statesman became the "anti-Christ." I'd love to read a play-by-play breakdown of this amazing transformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Actually, he's pretty close. He was impeached for lying about getting a beej. Most objective right-wingers that I know, and most of those who aren't completely brainwashed will admit that what Bush has done in office is AT LEAST as bad as lying about getting topped off. If Clinton was impeached, then Bush should be impeached. Plain and simple. He was impeached for lying under oath and for obstructing justice. The subject of his lie was incidental to the purpose of the lie. In other words, to say he was impeached for lying about getting a BJ is only partially true, and neglects the fact that the lie served not only to keep himeslf out of trouble, but to deprive Paula Jones of justice and restitution (her civil rights, if you will). If you're going to claim that "objective right-wingers" admit that "what Bush has done in office is AT LEAST as bad", please be specific. I'm an "objective right-winger" but I will admit no such thing until you get specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brown 43 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Funny, I want Bush for a third term! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 There's a fascinating book that needs to be written about this phenomenon. When Bush chose Cheney it was universally applauded as a britlliant choice. Cheney was viewed as a capable centrist with no further political aspirations of his own that would lend gravitas to his younger running mate. Democrats were surprised at such a wise choice and granted begrudging respect for Bush having made it. Then, slowly, a character assasination took place on a level never before seen and somehow, the widely-liked and respected elder statesman became the "anti-Christ." I'd love to read a play-by-play breakdown of this amazing transformation. Gravitas :laugh: It is a strange phenomenon. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I say we clone James Madison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RabidFan Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Didn't Bush ask Cheney to find a suitable running mate for him....head up the search...and then Cheney came back with the result of himself and W accepted? I don't think you can say W picked Cheney....but i guess you can a bit since he picked half of his daddies peeps for his own cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 It's a wrap folks, Bush III may be worst than Bush I and II combined, and we are just at opening credits. So far into this guy presidency we've had two national incidents that proved America is vunerable to attacks, and can't take care of their own. Bush used the platform that we have Home Land Security to get re-elected. Now the same people that kept him in the white house find themselves umoung dead bodies, and rations. Our image as a great country has taken a hard hit. We're loosing Iraq.......We're loosing Iraq. We lost New Orleans, and much of the Gulf of Mexico. My parent never liked Ronald Reagan, but our country had a better self image after his term. My question is this, during Carter's presidency our image took a blow from inflation and a failed hostage rescue, what do you think we look like right now? And is there a canidate for president in 08 that can restore national pride, and do some of the same positive things Reagan and Clinton did? I’ve never seen anyone use the word “umoung” before. I have to hand it to you, that’s probably the worst mangling of a word I’ve ever seen posted here. It doesn’t surprise me though because you actually place Clinton on the same level as Reagan. Only and ignorant fool would even begin to make that comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Reagan, on the other hand, projected an image of strength -- a believable image, one that compelled the Iranian terrorists to release the prisoners within a half hour of Carter's being replaced, so they wouldn't have to deal with the wrath of Ron. True revisionist history He may hav PROJECTED an image of strength, but his ACTIONS were one of weakness. He caved to terrorism each and every time, his only action against it was to drop a few bombs on Lybia. :doh: Each and every time terrorism was found against us, Reagan ran. Like I said before. you may have PERCEIVED him as a man of strength, but I judge strength by actions, not rhetoric. He also funded terrorists during his tenure, and he was allies with Saddam Hussen while he was commiting genocide on his own people. To say he was a man of strength is well, more revisionist history. BTW the next great leader will be Colin Powell. The first Black president. He's on 20/20 tonight if anyone cares to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Each and every time terrorism was found against us, Reagan ran. Like I said before. you may have PERCEIVED him as a man of strength, but I judge strength by actions, not rhetoric. Please cite specific examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 BTW the next great leader will be Colin Powell. The first Black president. He's on 20/20 tonight if anyone cares to know. You and I are on the same page there. I would really like to see him or McCain come in, clean out the Neo-Cons, and put in place a moderate administration. Someone who will be tough on terrorism and rebuild our image abroad. Has Powell given any kind of hints about '08? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyZeb Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 Jeb Bush :paranoid: :laugh: By the way, I was wondering, were republicans this overdramatic about Clinton? I remember a lot of similar hatred, but by some of these posts you'd think the world was about to end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 I hope Jeb runs. Not only because he'll win easily, but I would love to watch the complete implosion of the looney left. Can you imagine what that would look like? I chuckle just thinking about it. The Dems cant win because they dont understand how to win. Unitl they figure it out, the GOP will continue to beat them. Hillary is the perfect example. She might be the best candidate the Dems have for President. I have no doubt that she's intelligent, qualified, and strong enough (to compare to another woman leader-Thatcherlike) to do it, but she cant win a National Election. Kerry couldnt either. But the Dems (both at the top of the party and at the grass-roots levele) still dont get it. IF the Dems want to win in 06, AND to answer the initial question, they should choose Mark Warner. I'll vote for him over any GOPer except Jeb, and possibly Rudy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted September 9, 2005 Share Posted September 9, 2005 the dems problem is that they have not chosen a likeable candidate. yes, it is that simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.