Obama supporters are brainwashed? History proves otherwise

[Duckus]

A day does not pass when conservatives on this board attempt to slam Obama supporters as delusional, brainwashed, tricked, etc. Supposedly we are unable to see through the BS, and simply are falling into a giant cult of fluffy words of “hope” and “change.” Conservatives laugh at how silly it all is, and how stupid we must be for being tricked into believing all of this……

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. Four years later they decided he needed another 4 years to drag us even further down. Today our economy is heading into a recession; our international foreign policy is a mess; our constitution is in shambles, and the man who you many of you believed in enough to elect TWICE as President, now has historically low approval ratings. NOW conservatives across the country have distanced themselves from him. They claim that he is not a Republican in any shape, way, or form. Conservatives openly call him embarrassing to the party, an idiot, and one of the worst Presidents in recent history.

So what happened? Were you not able to see this with the great foresight, which you clearly have NOW about Obama (and use to mock his supporters)? Supposedly you are able to see the truth more than us lowly brainwashed Obama supporters, but for some reason those abilities were broken during the 2000 and 2004 election. You all claimed 8 years ago Bush was a true conservative, someone who had conservative values and conservative policies. Now he is not even a Republican…..were you tricked? Brainwashed? Delusional?

Basically – it is comical to be lectured daily on how Obama has brainwashed his supporters by a group of people who once saw Bush as a leader of their party and a leader of the conservative voice and now claim he is not even a Republican…..

[GibbsFactor]

I think Obama supporters generally believe they found their man. They love his communication skills, love the liberal ideas he has and loves all the change he symbolizes. Compared to George Bush, he appears to be the exact opposite which I conclude is the attraction.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

What's the difference in where your support takes you... the United States will continue to remain in debt of abstronomical proportions and corruptions. To me personally, Obama will just be another puppet for the Federal Bureau to string along.

[TimmySmith]

I supported Bush. I think Hitler was wrong. I think the world is round. I think I ice cream tastes good. I do not think the Skins will be .500 this year. Please tell me what any of these facts has to do with another one.

[Tweedr01]

A day does not pass when conservatives on this board attempt to slam Obama supporters as delusional, brainwashed, tricked, etc. Supposedly we are unable to see through the BS, and simply are falling into a giant cult of fluffy words of “hope” and “change.” Conservatives laugh at how silly it all is, and how stupid we must be for being tricked into believing all of this……

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. Four years later they decided he needed another 4 years to drag us even further down. Today our economy is heading into a recession; our international foreign policy is a mess; our constitution is in shambles, and the man who you many of you believed in enough to elect TWICE as President, now has historically low approval ratings. NOW conservatives across the country have distanced themselves from him. They claim that he is not a Republican in any shape, way, or form. Conservatives openly call him embarrassing to the party, an idiot, and one of the worst Presidents in recent history.

So what happened? Were you not able to see this with the great foresight, which you clearly have NOW about Obama (and use to mock his supporters)? Supposedly you are able to see the truth more than us lowly brainwashed Obama supporters, but for some reason those abilities were broken during the 2000 and 2004 election. You all claimed 8 years ago Bush was a true conservative, someone who had conservative values and conservative policies. Now he is not even a Republican…..were you tricked? Brainwashed? Delusional?

Basically – it is comical to be lectured daily on how Obama has brainwashed his supporters by a group of people who once saw Bush as a leader of their party and a leader of the conservative voice and now claim he is not even a Republican…..

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You know what, nevermind, I was going to go into a long schpiel about how every word you put into those few paragraphs are wrong, but it would be a waste of time. You my friend need a history lesson, or maybe new conservative friends. In the real world, Bush is seen more as a lesser of two evils.

First off, Al Gore, are you kidding me?:doh: You honestly think he would have made even an ok president? Wake up guy, and then John Kerry, Mr. Flip Flop himself? Dude, you are in serious need of some rehab if the drugs you are on get you thinking like this.

But you know what, you are entitled to your opinion, and in the end thats all it is, your opinion.

[PleaseBlitz]

A day does not pass when conservatives on this board attempt to slam Obama supporters as delusional, brainwashed, tricked, etc. Supposedly we are unable to see through the BS, and simply are falling into a giant cult of fluffy words of “hope” and “change.” Conservatives laugh at how silly it all is, and how stupid we must be for being tricked into believing all of this……

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. Four years later they decided he needed another 4 years to drag us even further down. Today our economy is heading into a recession; our international foreign policy is a mess; our constitution is in shambles, and the man who you many of you believed in enough to elect TWICE as President, now has historically low approval ratings. NOW conservatives across the country have distanced themselves from him. They claim that he is not a Republican in any shape, way, or form. Conservatives openly call him embarrassing to the party, an idiot, and one of the worst Presidents in recent history.

So what happened? Were you not able to see this with the great foresight, which you clearly have NOW about Obama (and use to mock his supporters)? Supposedly you are able to see the truth more than us lowly brainwashed Obama supporters, but for some reason those abilities were broken during the 2000 and 2004 election. You all claimed 8 years ago Bush was a true conservative, someone who had conservative values and conservative policies. Now he is not even a Republican…..were you tricked? Brainwashed? Delusional?

Basically – it is comical to be lectured daily on how Obama has brainwashed his supporters by a group of people who once saw Bush as a leader of their party and a leader of the conservative voice and now claim he is not even a Republican…..

You only think that way because you are brainwashed.

[Tweedr01]

I supported Bush. I think Hitler was wrong. I think the world is round. I think I ice cream tastes good. I do not think the Skins will be .500 this year. Please tell me what any of these facts has to do with another one.

:laugh: :laugh: Good stuff man, oh and the skins willl be 19-0....in my dream world, where Bush has me brainwashed, but somewhere I said all Obama supporters are brainwashed. Yeah, I remember saying that....

[Tweedr01]

Oh and I would like to see the history where I said Obama supporters are brainwashed, and that Bush is king of all....thanks for playing.

[Tweedr01]

Thread is now open for about half an hour, OP is still logged into it, but no response. Me thinks this is just to rile up repubs...

[herrmag]

A day does not pass when conservatives on this board attempt to slam Obama supporters as delusional, brainwashed, tricked, etc. Supposedly we are unable to see through the BS, and simply are falling into a giant cult of fluffy words of “hope” and “change.” Conservatives laugh at how silly it all is, and how stupid we must be for being tricked into believing all of this……

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. Four years later they decided he needed another 4 years to drag us even further down. Today our economy is heading into a recession; our international foreign policy is a mess; our constitution is in shambles, and the man who you many of you believed in enough to elect TWICE as President, now has historically low approval ratings. NOW conservatives across the country have distanced themselves from him. They claim that he is not a Republican in any shape, way, or form. Conservatives openly call him embarrassing to the party, an idiot, and one of the worst Presidents in recent history.

So what happened? Were you not able to see this with the great foresight, which you clearly have NOW about Obama (and use to mock his supporters)? Supposedly you are able to see the truth more than us lowly brainwashed Obama supporters, but for some reason those abilities were broken during the 2000 and 2004 election. You all claimed 8 years ago Bush was a true conservative, someone who had conservative values and conservative policies. Now he is not even a Republican…..were you tricked? Brainwashed? Delusional?

Basically – it is comical to be lectured daily on how Obama has brainwashed his supporters by a group of people who once saw Bush as a leader of their party and a leader of the conservative voice and now claim he is not even a Republican…..

Unless you generally vote FOR the candidate, independent of party, then with all due respect, who cares? Satan could run for president for either party, and he'd still have his party's core defending his actions as though he were the greatest thing ever. I'd say you're brainwashed by the party, not by the candidate.

[Duckus]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You know what, nevermind, I was going to go into a long schpiel about how every word you put into those few paragraphs are wrong, but it would be a waste of time. You my friend need a history lesson, or maybe new conservative friends. In the real world, Bush is seen more as a lesser of two evils.

First off, Al Gore, are you kidding me?:doh: You honestly think he would have made even an ok president? Wake up guy, and then John Kerry, Mr. Flip Flop himself? Dude, you are in serious need of some rehab if the drugs you are on get you thinking like this.

But you know what, you are entitled to your opinion, and in the end thats all it is, your opinion.

The only one that seems to be on drugs is you, as you seem completely unable to form an argument clearly. I am not talking about Gore or Kerry at all in my post. I have no idea if they would be good Presidents – that is not the point.

My point is that to many in 2000 George Bush was NOT the lesser of two evils as you claim (maybe 2004 to some). In 2000, he was seen by many Republicans as a true conservative and the voice of the party. That is clearly not the case. So why should those people be lecturing Obama supporters on how to see through the BS?

[Duckus]

Thread is now open for about half an hour, OP is still logged into it, but no response. Me thinks this is just to rile up repubs...

Some of us libertards have jobs.

[Thiebear]

A day does not pass when conservatives on this board attempt to slam Obama supporters as delusional, brainwashed, tricked, etc. Supposedly we are unable to see through the BS, and simply are falling into a giant cult of fluffy words of “hope” and “change.” Conservatives laugh at how silly it all is, and how stupid we must be for being tricked into believing all of this……

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. .

So, who better to tell you not to fall for it?

[SkinsOrlando]

Umm, I don't know a single repub who saw Bush as a conservative in 2000. Where are you getting that from?

[Duckus]

Oh and I would like to see the history where I said Obama supporters are brainwashed, and that Bush is king of all....thanks for playing.

Really? Pretty much in every Obama thread there is a reference to how Obama supporters are brainwashed by the rhetoric of Obama and his feel good speeches.

And maybe since you have never been a member of the board during a Presidential election, you would not have seen how many Republican supporters saw him as a true conservative.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Pretty weak OP.

Bush was apparently perceived as better than Gore and better than Kerry, for starters.

2nd, it's not like anyone has a crystal ball and can predict what a president will do. Duckus, is it really our fault that Bush whored himself out and turned his back on what his party stands for when it comes to being conservative?

3rd, you don't do any arguments to debunk the charges that Obama-ites are brainwashed or tricked. I don't seem to remember anyone fervently drinking Bush's Kool Aid in 00 and 04 like Obama's are. Obama's supporters are much more rabid and passionate and vocal than Bush's, Kerry's or Gore's.

Duckus, you can't deny that there are a groups of people out there that will vote for Obama this November because:

1. It's the cool thing to do

2. He's promising change but they don't have any idea what that change entails

3. He's not a Republican

4. He's not Bush

5. He's young, exciting and a good speaker.

Those are truly the people are brainwashed. Maybe not so much brainwashed as mindless lemmings. The people that actually know and like his policies, that's fine with me.

I'll go ahead and save the libs some time by typing out their rebuttal for them:

Yeah, but Spiff...

There are going to be a bunch of people blinding voting for McCain this year because of:

1. He's a republican

2. He's not Obama

3. They haven't learned from the past 8 years

4. *insert other talking points here*

Those people are brainwashed too!

Which is absolutely true. There are brainwashed people on either side.

The funny thing is that the Obama-ites think they're enlightened and above all and vice versa.

The thing that everyone fails to discuss is the attack of being "brainwashed". Seems that one side continually likes to put the other side down by using this attack...when they're just pissed off that the person they're attacking doesn't totally agree with them. Thus, they're brainwashed and can't think for themselves.

Thanks, Duckus. I'm glad I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you and like your candidate.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Really? Pretty much in every Obama thread there is a reference to how Obama supporters are brainwashed by the rhetoric of Obama and his feel good speeches.

And maybe since you have never been a member of the board during a Presidential election, you would not have seen how many Republican supporters saw him as a true conservative.

Don't worry Duckus, while Bush is continuing to undermine the good (Republicans), they'll see no corner to turn.

[mjah]

First off, Al Gore, are you kidding me?:doh: You honestly think he would have made even an ok president? Wake up guy, and then John Kerry, Mr. Flip Flop himself? Dude, you are in serious need of some rehab if the drugs you are on get you thinking like this.

But you know what, you are entitled to your opinion, and in the end thats all it is, your opinion.

I imagine Gore would have been at least as good a president as Bush. He would have gone into Afghanistan just as Bush did -- he would have been utterly forced to do so politically -- but without the "dead or alive" and "smoke 'em out of their caves" childishness that Bush now openly regrets.

Bush admitting that he might have done something wrong -- it's amazing. That's how you know it must be truly indefensible.

And Gore, unlike Bush, would have been a one-term president GUARANTEED due to the post-9/11 fallout, paving the way for a John McCain in 2004 -- you know, back when he could still claim to be a "maverick" of some sort. Without an utterly pointless and wasteful Iraq War, McCain wouldn't have been forced way back over to the right to march with the rest of the drones, kneecapping himself for the general election.

So Gore would have turned out much better for the country than Bush in many ways. And today, you'd even be able to point to 3 straight terms of Clinton/Gore as the reason why we got hit by terrorists, instead of having the terror discussion instantly clouded by Bush's idiocy.

Conservative mirror-gazers (and there aren't many these days) really ought to wish Gore had won back in 2000, because ultimately the political party roles would be flipped right now: Democrats humiliated and languishing, while Republicans walk around sharpening their knives in mouth-watering anticipation of November.

As for Kerry -- he was his party's Bob Dole. A role-player accidentally thrust into the nomination spotlight because there was nobody better around, apparently. Since the groundwork for most of Bush's damage was already laid by 2004, I think it's better for history to see that Bush was forced to stick around and deal with all the stupidity he allowed on his watch. History will show Bush's approval rating as the worst ever measured, and that's exactly how it should end.

As for that last quoted sentence -- that's classic Bush. Trying to argue against reality? Asked a question you can't possibly answer? Try to reduce it to "just a difference of opinion." These days, Bush's vanishing cadre of admirers still try to pull that one out, as if it ever worked. :laugh:

[Duckus]

Pretty weak OP.

Bush was apparently perceived as better than Gore and better than Kerry, for starters.

2nd, it's not like anyone has a crystal ball and can predict what a president will do. Duckus, is it really our fault that Bush whored himself out and turned his back on what his party stands for when it comes to being conservative?

3rd, you don't do any arguments to debunk the charges that Obama-ites are brainwashed or tricked. I don't seem to remember anyone fervently drinking Bush's Kool Aid in 00 and 04 like Obama's are. Obama's supporters are much more rabid and passionate and vocal than Bush's, Kerry's or Gore's.

Duckus, you can't deny that there are a groups of people out there that will vote for Obama this November because:

1. It's the cool thing to do

2. He's promising change but they don't have any idea what that change entails

3. He's not a Republican

4. He's not Bush

5. He's young, exciting and a good speaker.

Those are truly the people are brainwashed. Maybe not so much brainwashed as mindless lemmings. The people that actually know and like his policies, that's fine with me.

I'll go ahead and save the libs some time by typing out their rebuttal for them:

Which is absolutely true. There are brainwashed people on either side.

The funny thing is that the Obama-ites think they're enlightened and above all and vice versa.

The thing that everyone fails to discuss is the attack of being "brainwashed". Seems that one side continually likes to put the other side down by using this attack...when they're just pissed off that the person they're attacking doesn't totally agree with them. Thus, they're brainwashed and can't think for themselves.

Thanks, Duckus. I'm glad I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you and like your candidate.

Actually, I never said you were brainwashed. I was mentioning how absurd it is to be called that. I never actually said anyone was brainwashed - I mockingly asked if people were brainwashed who supported Bush, to show how absurd the idea is.

[Duckus]

Pretty weak OP.

Bush was apparently perceived as better than Gore and better than Kerry, for starters.

2nd, it's not like anyone has a crystal ball and can predict what a president will do. Duckus, is it really our fault that Bush whored himself out and turned his back on what his party stands for when it comes to being conservative?

3rd, you don't do any arguments to debunk the charges that Obama-ites are brainwashed or tricked. I don't seem to remember anyone fervently drinking Bush's Kool Aid in 00 and 04 like Obama's are. Obama's supporters are much more rabid and passionate and vocal than Bush's, Kerry's or Gore's.

Duckus, you can't deny that there are a groups of people out there that will vote for Obama this November because:

1. It's the cool thing to do

2. He's promising change but they don't have any idea what that change entails

3. He's not a Republican

4. He's not Bush

5. He's young, exciting and a good speaker.

Those are truly the people are brainwashed. Maybe not so much brainwashed as mindless lemmings. The people that actually know and like his policies, that's fine with me.

I'll go ahead and save the libs some time by typing out their rebuttal for them:

Which is absolutely true. There are brainwashed people on either side.

The funny thing is that the Obama-ites think they're enlightened and above all and vice versa.

The thing that everyone fails to discuss is the attack of being "brainwashed". Seems that one side continually likes to put the other side down by using this attack...when they're just pissed off that the person they're attacking doesn't totally agree with them. Thus, they're brainwashed and can't think for themselves.

Thanks, Duckus. I'm glad I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you and like your candidate.

I agree with 99% of your post, and we are actually saying the same thing which I find kind of amusing.

What I find funny is the condescending tone that many take to Obama supporters. Like how we are so silly and so childish for liking him when clearly it is all BS, talk, and lies. You point about the crystal ball is EXACTLY what I am trying to say with this. No one on the other side KNEW that Bush would be this horrible, so why now should I listen to them when they tell me Obama will be horrible?

I am not saying everyone should support Obama, jus that his supporters are not tricked, brainwashed, and completely lemmings like it is attempting to be portrayed on this board constantly.

[WhoRUSupposed2Be]

Pretty weak OP.

Bush was apparently perceived as better than Gore and better than Kerry, for starters.

2nd, it's not like anyone has a crystal ball and can predict what a president will do. Duckus, is it really our fault that Bush whored himself out and turned his back on what his party stands for when it comes to being conservative?

3rd, you don't do any arguments to debunk the charges that Obama-ites are brainwashed or tricked. I don't seem to remember anyone fervently drinking Bush's Kool Aid in 00 and 04 like Obama's are. Obama's supporters are much more rabid and passionate and vocal than Bush's, Kerry's or Gore's.

Duckus, you can't deny that there are a groups of people out there that will vote for Obama this November because:

1. It's the cool thing to do

2. He's promising change but they don't have any idea what that change entails

3. He's not a Republican

4. He's not Bush

5. He's young, exciting and a good speaker.

Those are truly the people are brainwashed. Maybe not so much brainwashed as mindless lemmings. The people that actually know and like his policies, that's fine with me.

I'll go ahead and save the libs some time by typing out their rebuttal for them:

Which is absolutely true. There are brainwashed people on either side.

The funny thing is that the Obama-ites think they're enlightened and above all and vice versa.

The thing that everyone fails to discuss is the attack of being "brainwashed". Seems that one side continually likes to put the other side down by using this attack...when they're just pissed off that the person they're attacking doesn't totally agree with them. Thus, they're brainwashed and can't think for themselves.

Thanks, Duckus. I'm glad I'm brainwashed because I don't agree with you and like your candidate.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/peirce/peirce75.html

It’s long been evident that the Republicans do not stand for anything much different than the Democrats. Both have had power in recent years and have at various times held the presidency and the majority in congress. So a discerning individual can’t miss the sad reality of the political arena – the two parties differ only in the degree to which they are determined to destroy all that’s best about America.

Let’s examine the issues and see where they agree – after all no matter what their stated ideological differences it's statistically likely that they should agree on some issues once in a while. What is not so likely is that they should agree on almost every issue all the time.

Both parties are well aware that the public education system has degenerated into a pathetic farce ruled by extremist labor unions; that this very system that should educate our children instead endeavors to inculcate into those children a disdain for their parents and their parent’s values. At the heart of the problem is federal government interference in the formerly state-run education systems.

Both parties have voted to radically increase the size and scope of the Federal Department of Education – an organization that has caused this country far more harm than Osama Bin Laden could ever dream of. The largest increase of all was sponsored by George Bush and deemed a triumph of bipartisanship. As if bipartisanship were a good thing – all it really means is no choices for us, the citizens.

Both parties repeatedly swear to prosecute this largely illusory War on Terror yet neither party will commit to defending our borders. Since the obvious entry port for terrorists with mayhem on their minds is our Southern border one can barely refrain from accusing them both of outright treason. It is significant that neither party has seen fit to mention this issue in what they both call, with a fine lack of humility, the most important election of our time. Both parties routinely muzzle any rebels within their ranks who dare to do so.

Despite this, George Bush is often referred to as a good wartime president. Please…

John Kerry of course, takes the view that he would be a better wartime president – but that his policies would be identical to those of George Bush. Neither would defend our borders yet we are actually pretending to debate their qualifications on their merits; and yes, their supposed differences!

Yet we all know exactly what will happen the next time some of these muddle headed and ridiculously incompetent terrorists are able to actually pull off the astonishingly simple task of killing a large number of Americans. Democrats and Republicans alike will proclaim the need for more restrictions on our freedom and appoint a by partisan = bipartisan committee to determine just how much more money is required to continue to pursue the same dumb policies that made the attack possible in the first place. If you doubt my word on this you have only to review the findings of the 9/11 Commission.

Since George Bush and his Republican majority came to Washington on a platform that officially deplored abortion one might reasonably ask how many unborn children have been spared the attentions of those depraved murderers who lurk in the "women’s clinics" of this country where they are eagerly slaughtering the next generations.

The answer would be sadly, not a single one. No children have been spared, not a one. The legislation that would have prevented that horrendous act of butchery the press refers to delicately as that "special procedure" died at birth, as so many babies do, and as both parties knew it would. A country that permits partial birth abortion has a lot of gall calling upon God to bless our efforts.

America is no longer about what happens in the legislatures – it is about a handful of crazed judges, appointed by dictatorial presidents; who act extra–constitutionally, and rule this country by decree. One would think they were immortal and untouchable but in actuality they could be easily impeached and deposed for betraying their positions and the law of the land but neither party really objects. After all these judges serve the purposes of the Democrats by coming down routinely on the side of all that is evil, and the Republicans by allowing them to pretend to have a moral agenda without having to suffer the consequences of actually having one.

I’m told repeatedly that it is important to retain Bush because of coming appointments to the judiciary including the Supreme Court. It’s hard to work up much enthusiasm for that – given his track record of retaining Clinton appointees at various levels, and particularly when one looks at the Supremes who were appointed by his Republican predecessors. Sorry, that argument doesn’t work.

Needless to say – Kerry would appoint Lenin to the Court were he available. So the truth of the matter is that we are going to get activist judges no matter whom we vote for.

And then of course, there is the war on Iraq. Once might guess that in a system which consists ostensibly of two parties with quite divergent points of view, that there would be a pro-war and an anti-war party. After all, the war on Iraq had exactly nothing to do with the 911 attacks and could quite legitimately be opposed by people who wish to prosecute the war against terror. But no, both parties are quite happy with that; indeed we recently saw the spectacle of the Democratic Party purging the naysayers.

Being human, I occasionally long to join the mainstream, such as it is. I listen in vain to George Bush's speeches, hoping that sooner or later he will stop insulting my intelligence with his sonorous streams of sleep-inducing platitudes; but in vain. Near as I can tell from listening to Dubya, he is against evil, and plans to stand the course. Well, me too George, but how about some specifics, tough guy?

Then one day last spring it dawned on me that surely there must be some Republicans in Congress who despise Dubya’s big government policies as much as I do – and are only supporting him because it would be political suicide not to do so. And my plan was hatched: I would vote for John Kerry. Should a Democrat propose the policies that Bush has foisted upon us; the Republicans would be up in arms and drive a legislative stake through his socialist heart.

But then came the Democratic Convention. I had thought it unlikely that anyone could ever come across as a bigger bag of hot air than George Bush. As usual, I had underestimated the two-party system. Never in over fifty years of existence had I seen such a pathetic blowhard, and having endured Clinton, Bush I and Jimmy Carter, that is saying something.

Kerry has promised this country that if elected, he will talk about what a hero he was in Vietnam, and will continue to do everything Bush is doing; only he will do it better. His campaign is the most hilarious farce I’ve yet encountered in American politics. I had thought that Bush was a goner but with an opponent like Kerry the Republicans could run Joseph Stalin for office and win.

And of course there is the issue of Vietnam. I’ve heard a lot of war stories in my time but never before have I heard anyone actually describe himself as a hero. I find it nauseating – as do most veterans. I also find it disingenuous that both parties seem to want us to focus on Vietnam rather than the real issues facing this country.

So I’ve had to face the fact that as much I’d love to see Washington brought to it’s knees in good old-fashioned gridlock I simply cannot vote for a simpering, pathetic buffoon like John Kerry.

So what to do? Not voting makes sense in many ways – at least it certainly aggravates the politicos since it is after all a way of showing our contempt for them and their lies. If you lean towards the left there is always Ralph Nader. I don’t like him or his policies but I respect him for at least stating what those policies are.

The obvious answer of course would be to vote for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party since he actually has a message and truly is an American Patriot. He would defend our borders and protect the unborn – that certainly resonates with me. However, since Americans allow their television sets to do their thinking for them third-party candidates have little chance. Should one actually win he is still stuck with that horde of contemptible swine that snuffle and grunt at the Washington troughs and would have a tough time rolling back the privileges they have allocated to themselves.

To a patriot though, I see only those choices, since I will not give my stamp of approval to either of those two sad sacks presented to us by what we should, in the interests of linguistic clarity, refer to as the one-party system.

[/Quote]

The very paraphrase indicates that neither party is above the other. It's sort of like good vs. evil, one has to prevail and quite frankly, neither has done that. Now let's look at the influence that Bush has had to an already crumbling (so called Democracy)... get the picture?

[Tweedr01]

The only one that seems to be on drugs is you, as you seem completely unable to form an argument clearly. I am not talking about Gore or Kerry at all in my post. I have no idea if they would be good Presidents – that is not the point.

My point is that to many in 2000 George Bush was NOT the lesser of two evils as you claim (maybe 2004 to some). In 2000, he was seen by many Republicans as a true conservative and the voice of the party. That is clearly not the case. So why should those people be lecturing Obama supporters on how to see through the BS?

But wait. These are the same people who in 2000 saw George Bush as best person to run our country. Four years later they decided he needed another 4 years to drag us even further down.

Went ahead and pulled this little quote from your first post. You said that we thought he was the best person to run this country, and that 4 years later we dragged you down further. Every repub that I know was not convinced he was the best candidate, but Al Gore and John Kerry were much worse. And lets be realistic, who actually believes that the Independant is going to win? If it were the case that the (I) had a chance to actually win, then your boy Bush might not have gotten in.

To your second paragraph, show me where I said Bush was a true conservative, and the voice of the party. I feel like I should lecture some Obama supporters, not all. Some of them actual like him for his policies, which I believe he needs to be more vocal about. That is something he is not strong with, he is a great public speaker, but ask him about his policies and he comes back with, 'we are gonna change'. Well what is he gonna change?

Other Obama supporters only support him because he is not a repub, or because of the color of his skin, etc.

[Tweedr01]

Some of us libertards have jobs.

Haha, I gotcha, come on though, let me get a couple jabs in there while you're working.

PS I'm working too, just bored, finished my work already with another 5 hours to burn.

[Tweedr01]

Really? Pretty much in every Obama thread there is a reference to how Obama supporters are brainwashed by the rhetoric of Obama and his feel good speeches.

And maybe since you have never been a member of the board during a Presidential election, you would not have seen how many Republican supporters saw him as a true conservative.

Ok, first, show me the thread where I said you are brainwashed, next show me the thread where anyone said you were brainwashed.

Second, you are right, haven't been a member, but the last time I checked, that doesn't mean I can't read. Although, I am a repub, maybe there's something I don't know about my reading comprehension.

[Tweedr01]

I imagine Gore would have been at least as good a president as Bush. He would have gone into Afghanistan just as Bush did -- he would have been utterly forced to do so politically -- but without the "dead or alive" and "smoke 'em out of their caves" childishness that Bush now openly regrets.

Bush admitting that he might have done something wrong -- it's amazing. That's how you know it must be truly indefensible.

And Gore, unlike Bush, would have been a one-term president GUARANTEED due to the post-9/11 fallout, paving the way for a John McCain in 2004 -- you know, back when he could still claim to be a "maverick" of some sort. Without an utterly pointless and wasteful Iraq War, McCain wouldn't have been forced way back over to the right to march with the rest of the drones, kneecapping himself for the general election.

So Gore would have turned out much better for the country than Bush in many ways. And today, you'd even be able to point to 3 straight terms of Clinton/Gore as the reason why we got hit by terrorists, instead of having the terror discussion instantly clouded by Bush's idiocy.

Conservative mirror-gazers (and there aren't many these days) really ought to wish Gore had won back in 2000, because ultimately the political party roles would be flipped right now: Democrats humiliated and languishing, while Republicans walk around sharpening their knives in mouth-watering anticipation of November.

As for Kerry -- he was his party's Bob Dole. A role-player accidentally thrust into the nomination spotlight because there was nobody better around, apparently. Since the groundwork for most of Bush's damage was already laid by 2004, I think it's better for history to see that Bush was forced to stick around and deal with all the stupidity he allowed on his watch. History will show Bush's approval rating as the worst ever measured, and that's exactly how it should end.

As for that last quoted sentence -- that's classic Bush. Trying to argue against reality? Asked a question you can't possibly answer? Try to reduce it to "just a difference of opinion." These days, Bush's vanishing cadre of admirers still try to pull that one out, as if it ever worked. :laugh:

Ok, don't tell anyone, I think I can agree to this:secret: ....Although I heartily dislike Gore, and ManBearPig...neither are good for our country. I can see that happening with Gore, completely forced into the war, while travelling north with fans to save the glaciers...And yeah, I can hear John Kerry doing the Bob Dole impression...I'm John Kerry..John Kerry, John Kerry, JOHN KERRY!