If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Joe Cali Next Generation-usa wrote: > > "Kurt" > wrote in message link.net>... > > Only a first grade educated Idiot could make statement like that, supidity > > in your brain is infinite. > > There is not a simple answer to this, half the U.S. Did not vote for > Bush and actually I believe he did not win this election. Too much BS > involved in the voting machines. Why is it that every time the Democrats lose an election, they want to blame it on the voting machines? In my lifetime, it has appeared to me that the Democrats have been the more likely party to try and influence election via outright fraud or other somewhat shady means. I do not Like "W." I voted for Kerry and was sorry he lost. However, I don't think Bush stole the election or did anything especially dishonest to win it. The truth is Bush is the first president to get more than 50% of the voting public to vote for him since 1988. Clinton never got 50%. Neither Bush nor Gore got 50% in 2000. Instead of whining about Bush winning, why not go out and work for a good Democrat, so we will have someone the majority can vote for in 2008. Think about the losers the Democrats have nominated in the last 40 years - Humphrey, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. I left out Clinton (not a "loser"). He wasn't exactly a great candidate and he never got 50% of the vote either, but at least he could give a decent speech. I only reluctantly included Carter since he won once but he did lose to Regan. He was a lousy President, but clearly the greatest ex-President of all time. I also left out Johnson (he didn't lose, just quit). He was just a crook and an SOB. If the Democrats keep nominating candidates like Gore and Kerry, I doubt we can expect the Democrats to win. Dull, dull, dull, no real achievements, can't give a speech, no vision, etc. Face it, if Bush beat you, you must really suck. Ed |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Mike64Bug wrote:
>>Take into consideration the efforts of Clinton to decrease >>funding for intelligence-gathering agencies. Also, consider the >>efforts by Jamie Gorelick (who was also on the 9/11 Commission) >>who mandated that the FBI and CIA could not, legally, share >>information. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to >>get US intelligence back on its feet in the few months he was >>in office before 9/11. >> > > Nice call again Brian. You're right, 9/11 occurred because of > Clinton not Bush. Clinton spent his eight years wiping out > our intelligence gathering ability. After all, the cold war was over, > what was there to be afraid of? > >>>>Mike If blame of any sort is to be placed on an American's shoulders it most likely should not be President Bush's. There are a great many incidents involving a deliberate castration of intelligence agencies' capabilities, lapses in national security, etc. under Clinton. That said, I don't blame ANY American for 9/11. The blame must be put squarely where it belongs: Islamofascists who hate America. Trying to blame Bush or Clinton is like trying to blame a cop when a crime takes place. Brian |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
K5 wrote:
> "Brian Talley" > wrote in message > .. . > >>The military is presently kicking the bejesus out of terrorists in > > Falujah. > In other good news today, arafat is dead again, oil is down to $48 a barrel, > democrats still on suicide watch. At least Arafat's condition is still stable. Let me know if it changes. Brian |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Listen up buddy. G. W. is a lot like your fat, slow, younger brother. Its
ok for US to make fun of him, but citizens of other countries making fun of him, is offensive. Be careful and don't let Bushy hear you,. He may put your country next on the list to invade. You aren't French by anychance are you? (Boy, I can't wait for the flames from this one) :-) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Classicred03" > writes:
>Listen up buddy. G. W. is a lot like your fat, slow, younger brother. Its You appear to have the misapprehensationism that this conversationalisation is dialogified. [see http://linux.sgms-centre.com/misc/netiquette.php] >ok for US to make fun of him, but citizens of other countries making fun of >him, is offensive. Be careful and don't let Bushy hear you,. He may put >your country next on the list to invade. >You aren't French by anychance are you? >(Boy, I can't wait for the flames from this one) :-) -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian Talley" > wrote in message
... > At least Arafat's condition is still stable. Let me know if it changes. It changed: he's dead. This month is shaping up pretty good. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"K5" > writes:
>"Brian Talley" > wrote in message ... >> At least Arafat's condition is still stable. Let me know if it changes. >It changed: he's dead. This month is shaping up pretty good. Only if you're making money from selling arms or promoting instability and fear. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:15:30 GMT, Brian Talley
> wrote: >Rev Turd Fredericks wrote: >> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 23:45:10 GMT, "Mike64Bug" <mfkoch >> > wrote: >> >> >>>>Take into consideration the efforts of Clinton to decrease >>>>funding for intelligence-gathering agencies. Also, consider the >>>>efforts by Jamie Gorelick (who was also on the 9/11 Commission) >>>>who mandated that the FBI and CIA could not, legally, share >>>>information. I don't think it's reasonable to expect Bush to >>>>get US intelligence back on its feet in the few months he was >>>>in office before 9/11. >>>> >>> >>>Nice call again Brian. You're right, 9/11 occurred because of >>>Clinton not Bush. Clinton spent his eight years wiping out >>>our intelligence gathering ability. After all, the cold war was over, >>>what was there to be afraid of? >>> >>>>>>Mike >>> >> Nah, 9/11 happened because a bunch of sand ******s don't like America >> and decided to fly planes into buildings. Trying to blame it on past >> and present presidents is a misappropriation of blame. Blame it on the >> ****ty kook religion the terrorists believe in and *their* leaders who >> actively encourage that behavior. > >This won't win any awards for eloquence, but it is correct. The >blame for the event goes to those who chose to fly planes into >buildings and a field. > >But anyone who would suggest that Bush is to blame for failing to >prevent 9/11 is not well-informed. > Not eloquent? It was my best prose :-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! __________==___ utivro | Wblane | Jeep | 3 | December 2nd 04 07:55 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________mixqec | Daniel J. Stern | Honda | 147 | November 19th 04 08:24 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! ___________ mixqec | Chief_Wiggum | Honda | 16 | November 18th 04 04:18 PM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!!___________ mixqec | indago | Honda | 3 | November 8th 04 05:05 PM |