As a conservative.
I have one comment and expect to be blasted for it.
In my opinion, liberals would drink a cup of piss as long as it were labeled "Anti-Bush".
i think conservatives and liberals are both idiots. i'm with chris rock's line of thinking, some things i'm liberal on, some things i'm conservative on. anyone who buys into the whole party line is a mindless dolt.
By buying into a party you would have to claim to be a Democrat or Republican, in my eyes.
Conservatives and liberals are just offshoots of the partys, identifying ones political tendancies.
I hate Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken.
I don't see a difference in them.
I do, however, think George Bush hung the moon.
Keyser Soze Wrote:i think conservatives and liberals are both idiots. i'm with chris rock's line of thinking, some things i'm liberal on, some things i'm conservative on. anyone who buys into the whole party line is a mindless dolt.
There is help for the commie pinko pervert after all.
Libertarian
I afford people little credence when they attempt to define themselves.
It's their ideas and opinions that do that for them.
i'm with you on that.
i agree with some Libertarian platforms, but again, Jesse Ventura? Cmon.
Quote:I do, however, think George Bush hung the moon.
how so?
Keyser Soze Wrote:Quote:I do, however, think George Bush hung the moon.
how so?
I think he's as real as it gets.
I think he's fucked some things up (Immigration) and I think he's taken the criticism to do what he feels is right (Afghanistan / Iraq)
It's not just any president who would take it on the chin with his job approval ratings and not worry about pleasing everyone.
He doesn't talk out of both sides of his mouth, like Mr. John Kerry.
In my opinion.
Instead Bush mumbles out of his ass. Some time ago I came across a listing of Presidential I.Q.'s, Bush Sr had a 91 and Jr a 90, Clinton had a 180. Not that I have any respect for Clinton (because I never did), but he was an excellent speech maker and his intelligence showed.
I think its yet to be seen if he did the right thing in Iraq and Afghanistan. He didnt have much opposition to Afghanistan, pretty much everyone was with him on that. Iraq, sure it took balls to go forward without widespread approval but its far from over and theres still a lot of uncertainty whether it will stablize the middle east or will embolden our enemies to point to it as America once again trying to force their way of life on another country.
Mad Wrote:Instead Bush mumbles out of his ass. Some time ago I came across a listing of Presidential I.Q.'s, Bush Sr had a 91 and Jr a 90, Clinton had a 180. Not that I have any respect for Clinton (because I never did), but he was an excellent speech maker and his intelligence showed.
Some of the dumbest people I know are too smart for their own good.
Some of the smartest people I know are unemployed college graduates.
Some of the smartest people I know can barely pump their own gas.
The IQ story interests me very little.
I would expect our face to the rest of the world to at least be able to speak coherently, which Bush often seems to struggle with.
How can you believe anything that Bush says?
The smirk on his face when he's talking pisses me off. Not to forget the whole double talk about protecting our "freedoms" and then shredding them at the same time through legislative fiat.
"protecting our freedoms" = "providing new revenue streams for haliburton and big oil"
Keyser Soze Wrote:"protecting our freedoms" = "providing new revenue streams for haliburton and big oil"
Exactly.
its a representative republic, not a democracy. too bad the american public is too dumb and lazy to pay attention and take back their country.
Bush may not the best public speaker, but that doesn't diminish his presidency .
I think it's just another cheap shot designed to muck up the real issues.
John Kerry is all soundbite, no substance.
He says what he thinks you want to hear and apparently gets away with clearly amusing flip flopping only because everyone is too focused on targeting Bush.
I mean it just seems to me a picture of Bush picking his nose holds more precidence in the media than John Kerry calling companies who outsource, "Benedict Arnolds" while his wifes company (Heinz) outsources 79 of it's 59 factories.
Again, Mad.
You're citing the way Bush talks and looks as reasons for attacking him.
Isn't that alittle frivious?
Keyser Soze Wrote:"protecting our freedoms" = "providing new revenue streams for haliburton and big oil"
Keyser,
Do you honestly believe Bush would instigate a war to make money for Haliburton?
Come on man, let's be reasonable and talk issues.
It's that base type of thinking that stopped Clinton from starting to do the right thing when he struck Afghanistan because he was accused of "wagging the dog".
So instead of taking the criticism he left the attack as it was, ineffective and embarassing. In my opinion, THAT is what empowers terrorism. When we attack and empty terrorist training camp and Bin Laden emerges without a scratch.
It just made us look foolish.
Quote:Again, Mad.
You're citing the way Bush talks and looks as reasons for attacking him.
Isn't that alittle frivolous?
Maybe, however I have always trusted my instincts and so far they haven't failed me.
Don't get me wrong I'm no fan of Kerry either. Personally, I think we're a little over do for some serious bloodletting. With all the crap that comes out of these political assholes, it's time to tell them to shove it and slaughter the whole lot of them after we find them guilty of treason.
Bush was wrong about WMD's and I know that.
I do hold him to that but there are a few things that don't allow me to despise him for it.
-French, Russian and German intelligence also thought he had them.
They never disputed that fact, thier position was that he wasn't a threat even though he had them.
It's not like the US was the only country who thought we knew he had them.
-As it is turning out, France, Russia and the UN had alterior motives for opposing the invasion.
None of which had to do with the reasons they cited.
It was about their corruption of the Oil For Food Program.
That my friends, is where the real aspirations for oil and money live.
-On the heels on 9/11, could we afford to let Saddam make the UN look ineffective and useless?
The man is already dodging questions about why he didn't do more.
It seems many are suggesting a memo citing historical threats from Bin Laden were enough to validate going after Bin Laden.
Yet, 17 UN resolutions and 12 years of defiance from Saddam isn't enough proof for invasion?
-And lastly, I don't think France, Russia and Germany are getting their fair share of blame for causing this war.
Yes, I said causing it. I think they rate only behind Saddam for deserving blame.
With the UN corruption and dirty dealings for oil and money, I think Saddam felt a false sense of security and assumed the UN wouldn't allow a US attack on him, because they held an interest in Saddams existance....at the expense of his starving population.
Who knows? If the UN wasn't in bed with Saddam, maybe he would've co operated.
Maybe he would've seen the futility in defying international law.
Maybe this war would've never happened.