Bashing republican\democrats thread

It really doesn't matter where I live to see where america is heading under the leadership of the so-called "Peace President" George W. Bush! Anyone who wants to invade another country under the false premise of "WMD" and tries to convince the american public that Iraq is dangerous and will ultimately try and destroy the U.S. and U.S. interests abroad under the regime of the most dangerous man on earth, Sadam Hussein is a joke! Let's face it, Bush tried to "misel" the american people into believing his WMD story. If Bush is re-elected, he'll find a reason to invade Iran. Don't believe it? Re-elect Bush.......wait & see!

Yob Atta :)
 
=_ maybe iran i tough it was somewhere else thou LOL. I like when moore was on the bbc and he said "Bush has an excuse for attacking iraq. He's just stupid, But blair doesn't have an excuse to being talked into the iraq war. He's brilliant"
 
Lets face it, america has had one or two good presidents in the past. Even though some of their decision making and foriegn policy may have been flawed from time-to-time, at least their motives for making policy was more honest and not so self-serving, which is contrary to what the american public can expect from Bush and his band of cronies, his "Yes" men & "Yes" women (staff) that inhabit the White House commonly called his adminsistration. At least Michael Moore has the guts to expose Bush and his camp of stooges (staff) for what they are......STUPID!

Yob Atta :)
 
Um, hello, Bush surely was a resident in Texas before he bought the Crawford Ranch. He was governor there, remember?
Click to expand...

Of course I know Bush lived in Texas. How else could he have bought the Texas Rangers and run for governor? I said that I was surprised to hear that he only bought his ranch back in 1999. With all the time he spent there during his presidency, I always assumed he had it for a very long time.
 
wesmorris said:
do you think it would have been a national security risk to send the son of the director of the CIA to vietnam?
Click to expand...
GHW Bush was not the director at the time, but my point is two-fold;
1) if the elite do not serve, it sends the message that only the poor need die for the good ol' US, the elite are the 'master class'
2) if the elite know that their sons & daughters will also be in harms way, it will control their 'itchy' trigger fingers, they'll think twice before going after those elusive WMD's in the first place

from:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/George_H._W._Bush

He later lost his second attempt at a Senate seat in 1970 to Democrat Lloyd Bentsen...
ambassador to the United Nations (1971–1973),
director of the CIA 1976–1977
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rGEMINI said:
*searches for a nuke* =P
Click to expand...

Sounds like "searches for a nuke* =P is part of the Bush equation which is:

Stupidity divided ignorance = Bush

Yob Atta :)
 
tjt517 said:
Kerry is certainly not perfect. I disagreed with him strongly in his supporting the war. I think that Howard Dean had far superior ideas to his. However, I think that Kerry would increase international cooperation and I think that is what is needed to successfully end the war. So yes, I will vote for Kerry.
Click to expand...
Kerry did not "support the war" unconditionally. What he voted for was to give the president the power to use war IF several conditions were met:

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

So, IF, diplomatic means were not working (and we had inspectors on the ground), and war was consistent with fighting those responsable for 9/11, (which it was not), then congress gave Bush the power to invade. I don't think Bush ever reported to congress 48 hours later on his determinations, (because they were based on lies).


link
 
George Bush resume

RESUME OF GEORGE W. BUSH



Past work experience:

I ran for congress and lost.
I produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas; company
went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took
land using taxpayer money.

Biggest move:

Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
With my father's help and nearly the same name, was elected Governor of
Texas.

Major accomplishments:

I changed pollution laws for oil and power companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the nation.
I replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog-ridden city in America.
I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government in billions in borrowed money.
I set a record for most executions by any governor in American history...

more:http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/04/23_resume.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
you're preaching to the choir. I appreciate your thoroughness but all your points have been made... repeatedly. In retrospect, bush (like most politicians) is scary. It's too easy to dissect people after-the-fact.

It's more productive to focus on the present, especially in this case.
 
Talk about down playing a valiant effort buffys.

I think that such work is necessary in order to give people a better perspective of the past 4 years. It is quite useful to have patient efforts of information gathering.. especially when reformated in an original manner.

(Universities seem to think its usefull; minus the originality)

Thanks for the read masoups, will send to friends.
 
Last edited:
Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false.
 
hmmm i hate bush, no i dont, i dont like him, thats slightly more accurate.
however, he hasnt done terribly in his four years, although some terrible things have happened during his four years.
that begs the question, is he really that bad, or perhaps,
bush barely does anything- has everything done for him.

if its the first, no need to worry, his past has been a bad ghost that came out of his closet and stayed there for a very long time.

if its the latter, no need to worry, since on that surmise its quite obvious that whoever is the White House, America + world (;)) keeps spinning exactly the same:

"In with the new boss, same as the old boss"
 
You just have to admire people that make their opinions sound like arguments, but then leave the room without actually showing any verifiable facts. For example:

"Bush "resume" refutations are all over the internet. Most of the "facts" in the more popular "resumes" are false."

We must thank such people who share with us the best of what the information age has to offer us: immediate and consistent imaginary representations of possibly existing ideas.
 
Last edited:
I am sick and tired of hearing Chris Tucker (from CNN's crossfire) implying that J. Kerry is trying to censure and impede the rights of individuals right to free speech by going to the courts in order to block the hostile ads.

First of all, anyone and everyone has the right to order a cessation of public defamation (especially if statements can be shown to be false or misleading).

Secondly, Bush went so far to say that he wishes an end to "all 527 groups: privately funded political and unregulated ad campaigns".

Why are the same republicans that cry wolf on Kerry, but then decide to omit the fact that their own president/candidate seeks to ban any and all privately (or unregulated) political ads?

Kerry wants to call the courts on one ad and Bush says that every unregulated ads should be outlawed since they are "bad for the system".

If someone deserves the title of "oppressor of free speech"... if one should deserve it... who would it be?

Prisme
 
the Swift Boat Ad's and the smears against John Mcain (R) and Max Cleland (D)are proof that the Bush team are the lowest scum on the earth and they are just like animals or insects- buzzards, jackals, and the flies that breed in shit.
 
Bush is no more or no less than what history will say about him.........Right now, when a president (Bush) decides to put at risk (Iraq war: Looking for WMD?) his nation's best interests for his own self-serving interests (Oil & Power), then history will say as much!

Yob Atta
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top