NCAAbbs

A lawyer where I work actually showed me this. I now have the screensaver on all of my computers, and have ordered the clock.

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

Suede27 Wrote:A lawyer where I work actually showed me this. I now have the screensaver on all of my computers, and have ordered the clock.

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

I'm not a conservative by any means, but I think the Democrats are proving that they don't know what the hell to do beyond hate Bush and be anti-administration. The only good news I can find is the comfort of knowing that no political party will ever completely dominate American politics for long enough to cause real damage because they both have enough natural-born idiots to F it up (Newt Gengrich, George W. Bush, and Trent Lott? Meet Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid).

blazr Wrote:I'm not a conservative by any means, but I think the Democrats are proving that they don't know what the hell to do beyond hate Bush and be anti-administration. The only good news I can find is the comfort of knowing that no political party will ever completely dominate American politics for long enough to cause real damage because they both have enough natural-born idiots to F it up (Newt Gengrich, George W. Bush, and Trent Lott? Meet Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid).

A bit of a broad statement, don't ya think? First of all, Democrats are, by no means, the only ones that hate Bush. Don't be so quick to peg someone as a Democrat. Second of all, I do not believe that there are many people that are actually "anti-administration". Maybe the Bush administration.

And last, what exactly is your definition of "real damage"?

Suede27 Wrote:

blazr Wrote:I'm not a conservative by any means, but I think the Democrats are proving that they don't know what the hell to do beyond hate Bush and be anti-administration. The only good news I can find is the comfort of knowing that no political party will ever completely dominate American politics for long enough to cause real damage because they both have enough natural-born idiots to F it up (Newt Gengrich, George W. Bush, and Trent Lott? Meet Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid).

A bit of a broad statement, don't ya think? First of all, Democrats are, by no means, the only ones that hate Bush. Don't be so quick to peg someone as a Democrat. Second of all, I do not believe that there are many people that are actually "anti-administration". Maybe the Bush administration.

And last, what exactly is your definition of "real damage"?

Ok, help me out: what have the Democrats enacted, or just proposed to make it easier, since their "landslide" victory that is a viable, enforceable solution to an actual problem? As far as I can see they have scared John Bolton into walking away from the post of U.N. Ambassador, raised a ruckus about firings of Attorneys General (which is not that big a deal if you know anything about Presidential history), put together a pork-laden, unrealistic bill related to the funding of the war in Iraq...a bill they know will never be signed, and made sure the Syrians knew that not all Americans think their sponsorship of terrorism is that big of a deal. Did I miss anything?

You speak like it's ok for a party's whole platform to be "anti-Bush administration". Do you realize we're not going to get anywhere like that? Where are the alternative solutions? Viable alternatives? Anything other than just doing the opposite of everything Bush did? Want to walk away from Iraq? Fine. Tell me what we'll do in the aftermath. What do you want to do differently to deal with Iran? North Korea? Syria? Oops, I guess they answered that last one. I know I'm slamming on Dems here, but I'll be saying the same things when (not if) the GOP becomes the ones so myopically counter-productive (can you imagine if, defying all logic, Hillary becomes President?).

"Real damage", to me, depends on the side you're coming from. Democrats creating socialized healthcare would be real damage. Republicans eliminating the Department of Education would be real damage. Libertarians dismantling Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be real damage.

Thompson & Thompson '08

I refuse to get into a political debate with you. You have your views and opinions on things, I have mine. I doubt either one of us is going to change that. Plus, I have been in far too many long-winded debates over politics since bush's inauguration. I am not trying to lean either way. However, I would be much more insulted to be categorized as a conservitive. Hell, we may actually agree on things. Although, obviously not on our like or dislike for the current president. But there are may other things to agree or disagree on.

All of that being said, president Bush deserves anything bad that ever happens to him. I think he is a horrible, horrible man. And I am extremely dissapointed in myself for not coming up with a device that actually counts down, to the second, the amount of time left untill the country I live in, or the world, for that matter, can breath a sigh of releif. It can only get better. I don't want to say that I don't care who takes his place. But it can only get better. Really.

And if you are not interested in the site I posted a link to, then don't go to it. Don't respond. I was just posting it because I thought it was neat.

Suede27 Wrote:I refuse to get into a political debate with you.

The Interwebs have no use for people like you. ;-)

blazr Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I refuse to get into a political debate with you.

The Interwebs have no use for people like you. ;-)

Please explain.

Quote:All of that being said, I wish the worst for president Bush.

No matter what you're political views, that is a horrible thing to say about any other person.

And in today's climate with the Patriot Act, it could possibly get you in trouble.

Memphis Blazer Wrote:

Quote:All of that being said, I wish the worst for president Bush.

No matter what you're political views, that is a horrible thing to say about any other person.

And in today's climate with the Patriot Act, it could possibly get you in trouble.

Suede27 Wrote:

blazr Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I refuse to get into a political debate with you.

The Interwebs have no use for people like you. ;-)

Please explain.

Message boards exist for people to bitch and argue at each other.

This specific forum exists for the purpose of doing the above in the context of politics.

TMcCarty Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:

blazr Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:I refuse to get into a political debate with you.

The Interwebs have no use for people like you. ;-)

Please explain.

Message boards exist for people to ***** and argue at each other.

This specific forum exists for the purpose of doing the above in the context of politics.

I would hope that I can also post things on here for people to look at or read without having to be thrown into a debate over why I think the way I do or why I like the things I like, believe in the things I believe in. My god man. I came to this board thinking that I could also just post things just for people to look at or read. Did not realize that this was designated as a debate forum. Maybe it should be renamed.

I swear, do you guys have nothing else to do than to argue with folks over everything.

Sorry to anyone who actually found any interest in what this thread was about. Again, another thread derailed because there are too many regulars on this board who have nothing better to do than to come on here and argue.


Debate is fine. But this thread was meant to be entertaining. And if you found no entertainment in it, there is no need to express your disagreement. If it did not have to do with a political figure, then I would have posted in another area. Next time, I will make sure to think hard about what I type and where I type, as to not offend or get anyone flamed up over anything.

I think had you posted it in the Bar and Grill forum, it more likely would have been taken in the manner that you intended. In the political forum, people just argue back and forth. It's nothing against you.

blazr Wrote:

Suede27 Wrote:

blazr Wrote:I'm not a conservative by any means, but I think the Democrats are proving that they don't know what the hell to do beyond hate Bush and be anti-administration. The only good news I can find is the comfort of knowing that no political party will ever completely dominate American politics for long enough to cause real damage because they both have enough natural-born idiots to F it up (Newt Gengrich, George W. Bush, and Trent Lott? Meet Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid).

A bit of a broad statement, don't ya think? First of all, Democrats are, by no means, the only ones that hate Bush. Don't be so quick to peg someone as a Democrat. Second of all, I do not believe that there are many people that are actually "anti-administration". Maybe the Bush administration.

And last, what exactly is your definition of "real damage"?

Ok, help me out: what have the Democrats enacted, or just proposed to make it easier, since their "landslide" victory that is a viable, enforceable solution to an actual problem? As far as I can see they have scared John Bolton into walking away from the post of U.N. Ambassador, raised a ruckus about firings of Attorneys General (which is not that big a deal if you know anything about Presidential history), put together a pork-laden, unrealistic bill related to the funding of the war in Iraq...a bill they know will never be signed, and made sure the Syrians knew that not all Americans think their sponsorship of terrorism is that big of a deal. Did I miss anything?

You speak like it's ok for a party's whole platform to be "anti-Bush administration". Do you realize we're not going to get anywhere like that? Where are the alternative solutions? Viable alternatives? Anything other than just doing the opposite of everything Bush did? Want to walk away from Iraq? Fine. Tell me what we'll do in the aftermath. What do you want to do differently to deal with Iran? North Korea? Syria? Oops, I guess they answered that last one. I know I'm slamming on Dems here, but I'll be saying the same things when (not if) the GOP becomes the ones so myopically counter-productive (can you imagine if, defying all logic, Hillary becomes President?).

"Real damage", to me, depends on the side you're coming from. Democrats creating socialized healthcare would be real damage. Republicans eliminating the Department of Education would be real damage. Libertarians dismantling Social Security, Medicare, etc. would be real damage.

Well said.

I think the whole "Democrat v Republican" think has gotten us way way way way off track.

We don't live in a parliamentary, westminster style system. We shouldn't be voting based on party. We should be voting based on what the person we're voting for represents. The parties have way too much power and influence over the people we elect.

Grammar-Nazi Wrote:http://www.unity08.com/

You know as great as unity 08 sounds I honestly don't think it has a chance of working. People just want to bash the other side too much for a bipartisan ticket to work.