Bashing republican\democrats thread

Gravity said:
Takes more courage and self respect to be politically incorrect
Click to expand...
courage? No way, only if you are as up-front as Bill Maher, Ralph Nader, Michael Moore, etc...

and state you are a non-theist/freethinker/atheist,
Click to expand...
thats about average for Europe, the US

than it takes to just be a good little properly trained theist.
Click to expand...
actually, with all the contempt from the left, atheists, freethinkers, wiccans, muslims, communists, it takes real courage to believe in God

So kudos to you Mr. G.
Click to expand...
yawm
 
actually, with all the contempt from the left, atheists, freethinkers, wiccans, muslims, communists, it takes real courage to believe in God
Click to expand...

Oh what BS! Do you really believe that? Hello! Look around! All that "contempt"? Though only 1/3 of the world is Christian *7/10ths of Americans Are* -- golly, that little 30% or so just pushes you around? Give me a break.

Yeah, its hard to find Christian Churches, Bookstores or music. But damn, those Atheist gathering places, bookstores and albums are *everywhere*!

And you know how in our Pledge is says "One nation WITHOUT A GOD" and how on our money it says "We don't trust in God"?

And in 1000 other ways, clearly its the *Christians* who are the ones who have to really have courage and fight to get to believe what they want!

:rolleyes:
 
To all you rabid Kerry supporters:

So if Bush wins, it's the end of the world eh? What will you do if he does? Can you just "get used to it" as I will if that rat Kerry wins? Are you going to keep complaining "selected not elected" and such? Are you going to start shooting people who voted for Bush?
 
Bush is not that bad, the general decay and fall of America is pre-destine to happen, no empire has ever survived indefinitely and most have a nominal life span of 300 years. Chances are it won’t even happen under Bush’s rein either. But yes I worry that when Bush win the rioting will be horrific.
 
I'm going to step up my preparations and timeline for the Crash. The Busheviks are running the USA straight into some very big geoeconomic trouble. 4 more years of their ineptitude will certainly speed and seal our national fate. The rioting will hopefully come long after I've started fresh somewhere refreshing. Good luck (not really) to all you Busheviks, enjoy your destructive joyride with a once unique and beautiful nation.

Actually, I expect America to sufficiently wake up in the 11th hour, and narrowly defeat Bush: Our finest hour as American voters, if only fine enough to wrest a Prolonging of the Middle from the present Beginning of the End.
 
Last edited:
hypewaders,

And what if Kerry wins and America collapses or gets worse under his term? Won't that feel bad.
 
Bush is just a symptom of deeper problems. Hell, not only was there not an uprising after the 2000 election fiasco -- they are going after it all in broad daylight now, and there are just grumblings about it.

Kerry is unlikely to be able to fix all that is wrong with our corporate ruled culture. It might well be best to have the Shrub and his handlers remain in office, and help push things far enough that we either A) get collectively scared enough to really get off our obese American asses and do something about it, or B) at least just get the excitement of watching a major historical happening (i.e. a nation falling apart).
 
America's collapse, if it comes, will have much to do with our international relations. Bush is an IR disaster. Kerry is a quintessential politician, who is unfortunately all we are left with as electable in the wreckage of the Clinton Administration (which had a completely different form of Executive stupidity as its bane).

Understanding the real (economic) and not imagined (security) threats the USA faces, Kerry is far more likely to avoid the dire mistakes in foreign policy borne of complete ignorance and malpractice, that the Bush 43 Administration has consistently demonstrated.

I think a lot of these discussions can tend toward personalization, regarding the sources and objects of same. Things won't just feel different under Kerry- they will be different. Kerry is not a panacea, but a considered and difficult choice, of which life throws at each of us many.
 
hypewaders said:
Clinton Administration (which had a completely different form of Executive stupidity as its bane).
Click to expand...

Yes I to wish we could go back to the day and age when being a adulterer was the worse quality of our president, like they say no one died when Clinton lied.

But still I doubt the nation will fall under Bush (get worse likely, yes) even when it does I doubt the blame will be placed on him, history will show.
 
Yes I to wish we could go back to the day and age when being a adulterer was the worse quality of our president, like they say no one died when Clinton lied.
Click to expand...

Except the people at the "WMD" factory Clinton hit with a cruise missle the day Monica testified.
 
Something just pointed out in a special I just listened to, "America's March Towards Theocracy" (Good but scary), something so obvious that we are sheep to not have it first in our mind when we remember the Clinton troubles. The Neo-Cons started the impeachment process *7 months* BEFORE Clinton lied about the blowjob. They kept changing the exact rational for the impeachement to fit circumstance (just like the reasons for the Iraq invasion) -- and then when he was embarressed and tried to cove up his private life - that lie gave them the excuse to say it was "For lying under oath in office".

And now if you ask one of these folks now "what was Clintons impeachement about?" - they will say "for lying under oath". But again, the impeachement proceedings started *7 MONTHS* before he lied under oath. These folks were either trying to apply Old Testament Biblical law to our president or simply desperetely scrabbling for ANYTHING to get him out of office.
 
Source: CNN.com
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html
Title: "No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment"
Date: October 20, 2004

Really? Pat Robertson?

A White House spokesman denied Wednesday that President Bush told Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson that he did not expect casualties from the invasion of Iraq.

"The president never made such a comment," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Senior Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes, a longtime confidant of the president, said she was "certain" Bush would not have said anything like that to Robertson.

"Perhaps he misunderstood, but I've never heard the president say any such thing," Hughes said on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003.

Robertson said Bush told him, " 'Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties.' "

CNN.com
Click to expand...

Wow. Must be that liberal conspiracy.

I agree with Senator Kerry, that President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt. I also accept as possible Karen Hughes' assertion that Robertson may have misunderstood.

Robertson continues to endorse President Bush.
_____________________

• CNN.com. "No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment". October 20, 2004. See http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/19/robertson.bush.iraq/index.html

• CNN.com. "Transcript: Paula Zahn Now". October 19, 2004. See http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/19/pzn.01.html

I met with him down in Nashville before the Gulf War started. And he was the most self-assured man I ever met in my life.

You remember, Mark Twain said, he looks like a contended Christian with four aces. He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties.

Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties. Well, I said, it's the way it's going to be. And so, it was messy. The lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy. And before that, I had deep, in my spirit, I had deep misgivings about going into Iraq.

Pat Robertson
Click to expand...
 
Thank you Bush.

For all Bush voters out there some people want to say thank you:

Thank you Bush for creating the biggest nominal budget shortfall, thank you for giving the top 10% a disporportionate tax cut, so we the middle class can finally for the services we only use like...roads. Thank you for enslaving our children with debt beyond all imgination. For all Bush voters out there some people want to say thank you:

Thank you for attacking everyone but me, thank you for acting as my biggest promoter. Thank you.
Thank you for saving our institution, thank you for making us stronger, thank you for passing on the moral torch. Thank you.
Thank you for so fundamentality weakening your military prowess, and for shifting the focus from our real nuclear capability to a nation that didn't even a facility. Thank you.
Thanks for the 80's...and thanks for getting that Iraq off my hands. Its your mistake to fix. Thank you, I needed retirement. BOO!!! (does that scare you America?, it did)
Thank you America for allowing us kill you for real this time, without WMD. Thank you.
Thank you Bush, we love you so VERY much, so much we created terrorism in our state to justify your petty war. Just for you Bush.
Thank you for making me a relevant player in a country where I would have otherwise been killed for speaking out. Thank you, I owe my fame and power to you Bush...four more years!
Thank you president Bush for making me popular again.
Thank you for allowing me to turn Russia back into a undemocratic, shell of a state without questioning. Thank you for your laxity, I support Bush '04.
Thank you for showing that you don't have to be a democracy to get America's weapons, aid, and love. Thanks for dropping those sanctions.
Thank you for...classified reasons of course.
Thank you for all these gifts of gradititude. Bush '04.
Thank you for not really questioning to hard our nuclear relationship with Iran/Russia, thank you for inflaming Iranian nationalism finally quelling anti-govenment protests. Bush '04 so we get four more years too.
I sold nuclear technology to North Korea, Iran, Libya, but I didn't suffer any real consequences. Thank you for not being so serious about WMD proliferation.
Thank you for enforcing my will on millions who do not want it, thank you for dividing a nation over me...Thank you.
Thank you for veoting resolutions that I deserved, thank you for supporting me eventhough what I do makes your life so much harder, thank you for not crying foul about the wall, thank you for not questioning my tactics, thank you for being a friend.Thank you for giving me what I want, no questions asked.
Thank you for bringing me back.
Thank you for allowing us to suck so much out of you that we have to in turn support your deficits. Your our bitch now. Thank you.


So from all of us here we say THANK YOU BUSH for destroying American credibility, power, and prestige so utterly that another 4 years should seal the deal.

VOTE BUSH 2004! I dare you…

P.S: Did I forget anyone?
 
Robertson Redux
Evangelist's remarks a second occasion; White House denials a first

It seems the Bush administration had little to say in June, 2004, when televangelist Pat Robertson spoke of the very same words by the President that caused some minor ripples yesterday.

From an appearance on MSNBC's Hardball, speaking with Campbell Brown on June 22:

BROWN: I want to ask you how you feel about the war in Iraq. And if God is calling this war a disaster, does that mean that he is actually opposed to it?

ROBERTSON: Well, I don‘t think God‘s opposed to the war, necessarily, but it was a danger sign. I felt very uneasy about it from the very get-go. Whenever I heard about it, I knew it was going to be trouble. I warned the president. I only met with him once. I said, You better prepare the American people for some serious casualties. And he said, Oh, no, our troops are, you know, so well protected, we don‘t have to worry about that. But it has been messy. And I think we‘re going to come out of it, though. I think we‘ll have a free Iraq. But it certainly has been a mess so far.

MSNBC.com
Click to expand...

One journalist has noted that yesterday's remarks were the second time for Robertson, but the first denial for the White House. I have yet to verify that assertion.
____________________

• MSNBC.com. "Hardball". June 22, 2004. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5277869/
 
I am sure he's done more.

Kyoto.
9-11 abuse.
ICC.
Islam Karimov's endortion.
Islam Karimov said:
In His Own Words

"The OSCE focuses only on establishment of democracy, the protection of human rights and the freedom of the press. I am now questioning these values." - President Karimov, after the OSCE criticized the 1999 parliamentary elections. Agence France-Presse, January 8, 2000.

"Such people must be shot in the forehead! If necessary, I'll shoot them myself…!" - President Karimov, upon the 1998 adoption of a highly restrictive religion law, warning parliament not to be soft on "Islamic extremists." Many peaceful Muslims have also been rounded up in the sweeps of "fundamentalists." BBC Monitoring report of Uzbek Radio second program, May 1, 1998.

"I'm prepared to rip off the heads of 200 people, to sacrifice their lives, in order to save peace and calm in the republic…If my child chose such a path, I myself would rip off his head." - President Karimov reacting to acts of violence in Uzbekistan in March 1999. The government originally blamed the incidents, including a bus hijacking, on "criminals" and later on "Islamic extremists." Agence France-Presse, April 2, 1999.
Click to expand...

and his pics are here:
Bush. http://cfrterrorism.org/images/photos/foreignaid_pic2.jpg
Rummy at it again. http://oud.refdag.nl/foto/011006buifo01.jpg
Ever seen Powell this cheerfull? or is he scared from the man? http://www.timesunion.com/news/september11/timeline/graphics/1208bridge.jpg

"The State Department also noted that the only candidate ostensibly running against President Karimov announced that he himself had voted for the incumbent president"

:m:
 
Last edited:
Source: Washington Post
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53013-2004Oct21.html
Title: "Behind Bush's Rhetoric"
Date: October 22, 2004

But if Bush will say whatever it takes about terrorism to win reelection, what will he do with his victory? Bush often says that he wants to allow individuals to invest part of their Social Security tax payments in personal accounts. What he doesn't say is how he will cover the transitional costs of at least $1 trillion over a decade. He would guarantee current recipients and those near retirement what they are due under the present system, but he won't say how much he would cut the existing guaranteed benefit for future recipients. All privatization plans that claim to reduce the long-term costs of Social Security, as Bush says his would, are based on cuts in future government benefits.

Bush skimps on the details because he knows the details are the unpopular part of his idea. Those who say Bush will have to propose benefit cuts are accused of "scaring" people. But voters should be scared when politicians talk about the benefits of their grand schemes and don't level with them on the costs . . . .

. . . . Some conservative legislators have put forward detailed proposals for a national sales tax and Social Security privatization. I think these ideas are a mistake, but I admire the willingness of these politicians to open their plans to public scrutiny. Bush, on the other hand, hides the details. He wants to get himself reelected by talking about terrorism -- and he will inform the electorate only after Nov. 2 that they voted for a lot of other things that they never heard much about.

Washington Post
Click to expand...

E. J. Dionne, Jr., checks in at the Washington Post, continuing his ongoing response to the Bush administration. Again he examines the dishonesty of the Bush campaign and looks to history in order to project a simple future possibility, noted above.
_____________________

• Dionne Jr., E. J. "Behind Bush's Rhetoric". Washington Post, October 22, 2004; page A25. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53013-2004Oct21.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top