NationStates Jolt Archive

First, I am not a devout "Bush" guy, I'm an Independent who is going to vote for Bush this election. People want to talk about Bush's flip-flopping but rarely do you ever hear about Kerry's voting record in the Senate. He has only showed up for 27% of the votes while in office and when he does vote his record is anti-military at best. So I don't want to hear about his military record, because his is severly inflated. He spent 4 months in Vietnam and received 3 purple hearts, but all of those were superficial wounds that 95% of the guys over there received but never whined about or tried to get a Purple Heart for. Kerry was just a spoiled rich kid playing soldier and found a quick way home. His protests after the war disgust me. If he is so proud of his military record then why did he "throw the medals", not his medals as he said several times then finally told the truth and said they were not his. Bush has seen the defecit increase the last couple of years but it always does during war. I hope that everyone saw the Democrat from Georgia yesterday that said, if Kerry had his way and his Foreign Diplomacy had been followed that we would not have won the Cold War.

First, I am not a devout "Bush" guy, I'm an Independent who is going to vote for Bush this election. People want to talk about Bush's flip-flopping but rarely do you ever hear about Kerry's voting record in the Senate. He has only showed up for 27% of the votes while in office and when he does vote his record is anti-military at best. So I don't want to hear about his military record, because his is severly inflated. He spent 4 months in Vietnam and received 3 purple hearts, but all of those were superficial wounds that 95% of the guys over there received but never whined about or tried to get a Purple Heart for. Kerry was just a spoiled rich kid playing soldier and found a quick way home. His protests after the war disgust me. If he is so proud of his military record then why did he "throw the medals", not his medals as he said several times then finally told the truth and said they were not his. Bush has seen the defecit increase the last couple of years but it always does during war. I hope that everyone saw the Democrat from Georgia yesterday that said, if Kerry had his way and his Foreign Diplomacy had been followed that we would not have won the Cold War.
Well, at least Kerry, spoiled rich kid or not, went to Vietnam. He didn't "defend" the US from the VC in Texas. And he didn't went AWOL either. Unlike another spoiled rich kid.

No I looked at them I just didn't care to comment as most of you people that hate Bush will just start acting childish when confronted so it is best to leave it alone. Unlike alot of people here that will get into flaming. I do not like to do that.

Sorry, I don't let off that easy. You claimed I was wrong, I now only ask that you prove it. Your first claim was in regards to Osama and I gave a rebuttal that Bush, by his own words, doesn't really care about him anymore. You have over 20 more flip flops by Bush to go through. If you don't plan to vote for Kerry because he "flip flops", why are you giving a blind eye to all the one's done by Bush? And in knowing that Bush flip flops all the time, why bother holding onto some illusion he is some "steadfast" President when he is clearly not?

Why is it, when faced with the truth, you decide its not worth talking about anymore?

Show me one example of myself "acting childish" or "flaming" in response to any of your posts and I'll let you back out of this topic.

First, I am not a devout "Bush" guy, I'm an Independent who is going to vote for Bush this election. People want to talk about Bush's flip-flopping but rarely do you ever hear about Kerry's voting record in the Senate. He has only showed up for 27% of the votes while in office and when he does vote his record is anti-military at best. So I don't want to hear about his military record, because his is severly inflated. He spent 4 months in Vietnam and received 3 purple hearts, but all of those were superficial wounds that 95% of the guys over there received but never whined about or tried to get a Purple Heart for. Kerry was just a spoiled rich kid playing soldier and found a quick way home. His protests after the war disgust me. If he is so proud of his military record then why did he "throw the medals", not his medals as he said several times then finally told the truth and said they were not his. Bush has seen the defecit increase the last couple of years but it always does during war. I hope that everyone saw the Democrat from Georgia yesterday that said, if Kerry had his way and his Foreign Diplomacy had been followed that we would not have won the Cold War.

The Democrat from Georgia?? you couldn't possibly mean Zell Miller, now, could you?
Because a sorrier excuse for a Democrat I never saw in my life!! That son of a bitch is a DINO - Democrat In Name Only!! He's a fucking Republican in democrat's clothing. I really wish he'd be honest and just go ahead and jump parties...he is so obviously a goddamn Republican....

Sorry, I don't let off that easy. You claimed I was wrong, I now only ask that you prove it. Your first claim was in regards to Osama and I gave a rebuttal that Bush, by his own words, doesn't really care about him anymore. You have over 20 more flip flops by Bush to go through. If you don't plan to vote for Kerry because he "flip flops", why are you giving a blind eye to all the one's done by Bush? And in knowing that Bush flip flops all the time, why bother holding onto some illusion he is some "steadfast" President when he is clearly not?

Why is it, when faced with the truth, you decide its not worth talking about anymore?



They do that because confronting the TRUTH makes them have to adjust their thinking, and they don't want to do that. They are too comfortable with their prejudices and bigotries and hatreds to want to consider...or reconsider them.

Please, I see so much hate and dislike of the Bush followers (if there are any) in this forum, so if there are people who believe he is doing the right thing, please come here and post. I sure as hell do.


Hes not perfect but at least he does something about what is going on.

GOD BLESS THE USA!

I question why being pro-Bush is equated with being pro-USA. I believe I am "pro-USA", as well- but my idea of what that means differs sharply from Bush's, because I believe in a different kind of USA with different goals than Bush does.

To imply that opponents of Bush as "anti-USA" shows a very simplistic worldview. I suspect that the vast majority of Americans involved in or interested in US politics would characterize themselves as being "pro-USA".

Hes not perfect but at least he does something about what is going on.

GOD BLESS THE USA!

That's like saying that a doctor faced with a patient who he cannot diagnose should shoot the patient in the arm with a pistol - it might not be perfect, but at least he's doing something ;)

Please, I see so much hate and dislike of the Bush followers (if there are any) in this forum, so if there are people who believe he is doing the right thing, please come here and post. I sure as hell do.
I did know such a topic existed. I am glad though.

That's like saying that a doctor faced with a patient who he cannot diagnose should shoot the patient in the arm with a pistol - it might not be perfect, but at least he's doing something ;)

Sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something stupid. An ill-considered reaction generally makes things worse.
:mp5:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt

All hail teh Teddy bear.

Concerning terrorism: Do you really think of terrorists as a faction, as a group of people that hates liberty and democracy?
Is it not more of a social phenomenon, like poverty or war?
Do you think that you reduce the number of terrorists in the world by killing a hundred members of al-Qaeda?

A war against terrorism is as futile as the infamous prince Vlad Tepes attempt to eradicate poverty in his province; he gathered the beggars and the homeless, invited them to a feast in his castle, locked the doors and set the place on fire.
One cannot simply kill terrorism, one has to remove the motivation for it. A good way of not doing that is to keep playing middle-east countries against each other to lower the oil prices, like the Home of the Free has been doing for decades.

As long as patriotism exists anywhere, and as long as one country exploits another, terrorism WILL exist. Of course, one can reduce it to controllable degrees. In order to do so you have to stop pissing everybody off though.

Pardon my rambling.

People want to talk about Bush's flip-flopping but rarely do you ever hear about Kerry's voting record in the Senate.
Don't hear about it? It's the Bushites that began the topic of talking about flipflopping.

He has only showed up for 27% of the votes while in office and when he does vote his record is anti-military at best.
What votes of his do you believe were anti-military?

Kerry was just a spoiled rich kid playing soldier and found a quick way home.
So you prefer a spoiled rich kid who found a way to avoid being sent to Viet Nam in the first place? How logical.

If he is so proud of his military record then why did he "throw the medals", not his medals as he said several times then finally told the truth and said they were not his.
1) He can be proud that he served while not being proud of the conduct of the US in Viet Nam. One is general, the other more specific.
2) Furthermore, you castigate him for protesting, and then blame him for not protesting enough, in that the medals weren't his?

Bush has seen the defecit [sic] increase the last couple of years but it always does during war.
Even without the war, Bush would still have squandered the surplus left by Clinton because of "his failed economic policies and massive tax cuts for the wealthy (http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/read.asp?fn=df07282004.html)."

I hope that everyone saw the Democrat from Georgia yesterday that said, if Kerry had his way and his Foreign Diplomacy had been followed that we would not have won the Cold War.
If we follow Bush's policies, we'll lose the peace.

I didn't say that I loved everything about Bush, just that he seems to be the better candidate for me. What really bugs me about the Vietnam and Post Vietnam stuff is not the fact that Kerry went but that he came back and protested (fine) - but then when running for office and confronted with it he said they weren't his medals, then several years later they were then they weren't. I hate politicians and there fear of the truth. If you did something when you were younger admit it and move on. America is a very forgiving country (see Clinton). I feel the same way about Bush vs. the Cocaine. I think that Ted Kennedy could run for President and succeed because Modern America can and would forgive him for the death of that young girl. Now to talk about the Surplus. There was no surplus when Bush took office there was a 5.7 Trillion dollar deficit, the highest ever. The surplus was in the future.

Concerning terrorism: Do you really think of terrorists as a faction, as a group of people that hates liberty and democracy?
Is it not more of a social phenomenon, like poverty or war?
Do you think that you reduce the number of terrorists in the world by killing a hundred members of al-Qaeda?

A war against terrorism is as futile as the infamous prince Vlad Tepes attempt to eradicate poverty in his province; he gathered the beggars and the homeless, invited them to a feast in his castle, locked the doors and set the place on fire.
One cannot simply kill terrorism, one has to remove the motivation for it. A good way of not doing that is to keep playing middle-east countries against each other to lower the oil prices, like the Home of the Free has been doing for decades.

As long as patriotism exists anywhere, and as long as one country exploits another, terrorism WILL exist. Of course, one can reduce it to controllable degrees. In order to do so you have to stop pissing everybody off though.

Pardon my rambling.
That's a pretty good post, but let me point out that story usually goes that Dracula first asked the men if they'd prefer not to be poor and when they said they wouldn't, he killed them all for not being modest. ;)

I didn't say that I loved everything about Bush, just that he seems to be the better candidate for me. What really bugs me about the Vietnam and Post Vietnam stuff is not the fact that Kerry went but that he came back and protested (fine) - but then when running for office and confronted with it he said they weren't his medals, then several years later they were then they weren't. I hate politicians and there fear of the truth. If you did something when you were younger admit it and move on. America is a very forgiving country (see Clinton). I feel the same way about Bush vs. the Cocaine. I think that Ted Kennedy could run for President and succeed because Modern America can and would forgive him for the death of that young girl. Now to talk about the Surplus. There was no surplus when Bush took office there was a 5.7 Trillion dollar deficit, the highest ever. The surplus was in the future.

1. There WAS a surplus. Not 5.7 billion, no...that was PROJECTED. BUT, there WAS a surplus.
2. So why do you not seem to have a problem with Bush lying about WMD's, DUI's, and cocaine?
3. No, the republicans are constantly ripping Ted Kennedy apart, bringing up Chappaquiddick and Mary Jo Kopeckne. funny thing is, though...when you bring up the misdeeds of REPUBLICANS...this is what you get..."oh, that's ancient history...not relevant..."
Well, last I checked, the Bush cocaine thing happened around the same time as Chappaquiddick. So why's Chappaquiddick still important, but the cocaine isn't? Huh? Why's Bill Clinton's draft-dodging still important, but Bush's draft-dodging isn't? Huh?
Incidentally, I'm no big fan of Ted Kennedy, I have my own personal axe to grind with him, before anyone accuses me of just jumping to defend any Democrat. Ted Kennedy refuses to support legislation VERY IMPORTANT to me, and I am pissed at him for that. So Ted Kennedy is FAR FROM my favorite politician...in fact, on my website, he is one of the people listed in my section entitled: "specially huge amounts of hatred and cess-ridden filth to the following, who have made my life more difficult than it has to be..."

That's a pretty good post, but let me point out that story usually goes that Dracula first asked the men if they'd prefer not to be poor and when they said they wouldn't, he killed them all for not being modest. ;)

That's hardly a comparison, since Dracula (aka Vlad The Impaler) was a really seriously sadistic son of a bitch.
say what you will about the terorists, I think they are human garbage myself...but at least they have, if you can look at it from their end of the telescope...a VALID BITCH, and a political axe to grind.
Dracula did what he did simply because he enjoyed it.

That's hardly a comparison, since Dracula (aka Vlad The Impaler) was a really seriously sadistic son of a bitch.
say what you will about the terorists, I think they are human garbage myself...but at least they have, if you can look at it from their end of the telescope...a VALID BITCH, and a political axe to grind.
Dracula did what he did simply because he enjoyed it.

He also did it to demoralize the turks. And it worked. When a large Turkish army was invading Hungary and the found 20,000 of their comrades impaled on wooden stakes...it messed them up a bit

Dude, you got the thread title wrong. It should be Pro Bush VS. Pro American thread.

That's a pretty good post, but let me point out that story usually goes that Dracula first asked the men if they'd prefer not to be poor and when they said they wouldn't, he killed them all for not being modest. ;)

Ah well, that wouldn't have made such a good metaphore. Man, that was a good christian. It is said that he once asked a pair of monks if they thought God approved of what he did. One said "Yes", understandably since he was dealing with a raving lunatic with an army. One said "No" because he was a stupid believer. The latter, mr Tepes gave a sack of gold, the former he impaled for lying.

That's hardly a comparison, since Dracula (aka Vlad The Impaler) was a really seriously sadistic son of a bitch.
say what you will about the terorists, I think they are human garbage myself...but at least they have, if you can look at it from their end of the telescope...a VALID BITCH, and a political axe to grind.
Dracula did what he did simply because he enjoyed it.

I didn't compare the terrorists with Dracula the Impaler, in fact, I compared the war on said terrorists with one of his sadistic follies.

So Pro-Bush means Pro-America and anti-Bush means anti-America? That's interesting, so you have to be pro-current leader to be pro-country.

Does that mean that every anti-Hussein Iraqui was, in fact, anti-Iraq.

And only pro-Hitler Germans could be pro-Germany.

What an interesting concept.

You dumbfucking liberals see a post that says pro-Bush so you start bashing Bush right away. Someone should cut the sinew in your knees so you can be closer to mother earth you fuckheads.

well one thing is for sure, those :mp5: haven't flown anymore planes into our buildings. Bush is stronger on defence then that war criminal Kerry ever would be. Did you know Kerry served in Vietnam!

Yes, he got three purple hearts wich he later threw into a river, i think, to protest the war.

Bro, if I ever hear you make fun of Bush agin Ill paste ya one. Aint nobody gonna inslut our best presdent in front of me! :mad: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge: :upyours:

Oohs noos!!1 Teh smileys command me to like Bush.

Bro, Im 42 years old, got 10 homedogs up in my crew, and Im a biker. How the h*** you gonna kick my ass? :rolleyes:

I smell wigger. Bro? Homedogs? lol

Bro I might of flukned 10 grade 2wice, but let me teach you sum math:

ProBush= Love America NotProBush= Hate America

'Nuff said

All I kno is Kerrys a jerko pinko butthole dweebie dork dumbsh*t lameball.

Okay now I'm sure. You can't be for real, more like a troll of the opposite side that wants to make the Bush supporters look bad.

You dumbfucking liberals see a post that says pro-Bush so you start bashing Bush right away. Someone should cut the sinew in your knees so you can be closer to mother earth you fuckheads.

I hope you aren't referring to me. After all, I didn't say anything at all in my post that was Bush-bashing.

...


...


...


Well, my mother always said, if ya can't say anthing nice ....


... Replace it with '...'

<601,881 instances of '.' to follow>

Based on the quality of rhetoric here I don't know why I'm bothering (I'm hardly going to change the mind of somebody that considers voting for any man other than the sitting President an act of tryanny), however I'd like to make just one, small point.

As disgusting as the reversal of roles might be, put yourself in Osama's shoes. You're responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 Americans, the American government (with almost universal support from the rest of the world including the majority Muslim nations) is systematically tearing apart the country that has been protecting you for the last decade, and you have nowhere to run and are running out of places to hide.

Now, would you as Osama rather:
1) The status quo to continue with more than 100,000 troops (not to mention the intelligence forces from every major intelligence agency in the world) hot on your trail and rapidly tracking you down, terrorist support falling through the floor, and every reasonable being in the world hoping and praying that you are killed or captured.

OR

2) The nation whose citizens you have most recently killed instead rapidly redeploys to attack another nearby Muslim nation without cohesive international military, monetary, or moral support and in doing so causes the recruiting of terrorists like yourself to increase on an exponential scale. That powerful nation, rather than being fixated on you, commits its resources to capturing a now-powerless former head of state and leaves only a token (20,000) contingency of troops behind to try and capture you and simultaneously attempt to comprehensively protect a fledgling "democracy" where not even unpartisan international aid groups are safe.

I hope you understand that the question is rhetorical.

I have many differences with both candidates, but I hold our President responsible for the way we have waged the war on terror, and for this reason I will not vote for him in the coming election.

You dumbfucking liberals see a post that says pro-Bush so you start bashing Bush right away. Someone should cut the sinew in your knees so you can be closer to mother earth you fuckheads.
Actually I read Pro-America so i'm posting about that.

Gereric Empire Said

we are helping them to lead a better life. That is what we have been doing for years, but the Islamo-fascists see this and become jealous of american wealth and power. About the invisible enemy, we have invisible weapons to fight them. The CIA and the Mossad do a fine job. The terrorists are determined to terrorize and harm Americans simply because they were born in a country that is better off. Again, the terrorists are a minority, which is the point most people miss. They are an enemy that can be defeated one way or the othe, and the only way to remove the threat of terror is to defeat it. It is the American people who can not hold on for the long haul ahead that are a threat to peace, not the people who want to see the threat disappear.
I Itialics funny part.

Is a Invisible Weapon useful? Is this like the King's new clothes?
How do you load it if you can't see it?

You dumbfucking liberals see a post that says pro-Bush so you start bashing Bush right away. Someone should cut the sinew in your knees so you can be closer to mother earth you fuckheads.
Good way to start your life on this forum, buddy. :headbang: Now, I know I'll stop and listen to what you have to say. </sarcasm>

Yes, he got three purple hearts wich he later threw into a river, i think, to protest the war. I thought it was over the gates of some Gov't building, like the white house or something. Another thing, a Rich kid trying to find an easy way home .... he volunteered to go back into Vietnam after getting his first or second heart.

So Pro-Bush means Pro-America and anti-Bush means anti-America? That's interesting, so you have to be pro-current leader to be pro-country.

Does that mean that every anti-Hussein Iraqui was, in fact, anti-Iraq.

And only pro-Hitler Germans could be pro-Germany.

What an interesting concept.

Oh, of course not!! Because it was perfectly OK for THEM to be anti-clinton, when HE was our current leader, and they weren't, in their view, anti-american, for being anti-clinton.

See, it is only people who disagree with THEM who are "anti-American" because they cannot rationally back up their own narrow-minded, mean-spirited, stupid, ignorant, biased, prejudiced, and hateful positions.

Original Quote: Rich kid trying to find an easy way home

Original Reply: .... he volunteered to go back into Vietnam after getting his first or second heart.

My Two Cents: Beats the shit outta a rich kid trying (and succeeding) at finding an esay way TO NOT GO IN THE FIRST PLACE!!
and this same rich kid who chose not to go in the first place, now plays fast and loose with the lives of OTHER Americans...sending them into wars, ill-equipped, and for lousy reasons and lies...when HE had an opportunity to serve, he ducked. Now he sends our poor boys and girls in with nary a thought...

don't even TRY to malign Kerry's service record. This one's a tar baby for you bush supporters. Trust me, it's a tar baby.
say what you will about Kerry's service record, one thing is clear and irrefutable...
1 Candidate went to vietnam
1 Candidate ducked service in Vietnam entirely

I think we all know which one is which.

so don't go there...this is a loser proposition for you.

Shit, why am I giving my enemies strategy ideas? I'd kinda LIKE to see them get tangled up in this particular tar baby...

"ill-equipped"

You got to be kidding. The American troops are the strongest equipped troops in the world. If you want to see a ill-equipped army look at Canada, we still use the helocopters we used in WW2! In Afganhastan our copters were deemed a safety risk to allied troops, so they couldn't be used. Can't blame the allied troops though the copters are literally falling apart.

"ill-equipped"

You got to be kidding. The American troops are the strongest equipped troops in the world. If you want to see a ill-equipped army look at Canada, we still use the helocopters we used in WW2! In Afganhastan our copters were deemed a safety risk to allied troops, so they couldn't be used. Can't blame the allied troops though the copters are literally falling apart.

Well, not according to the Bushites...according to them, clinton raped the military so badly that they now are ill-equipped, under-equipped, and under-funded...if you believe their claims.

So which is it? Is our military ill-equipped, under-equipped, underfunded...did clinton RAPE the military, as the Bushites contend...or are we, in fact, the strongest equipped troops in the world? Both can't be true!

You dumbfucking liberals see a post that says pro-Bush so you start bashing Bush right away. Someone should cut the sinew in your knees so you can be closer to mother earth you fuckheads.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v206/Reaper2k3/trophy.gif

Boy United Geckos sure makes a great case for the Conservative viewpoint....

So which is it? Is our military ill-equipped, under-equipped, underfunded...did clinton RAPE the military, as the Bushites contend...or are we, in fact, the strongest equipped troops in the world? Both can't be true!
Not that I believe Clinton did that, but they both can be true. We were (and are) so far ahead of the rest of the world we could cut funding for our military to a fourth for 10 years and still probably be more advanced and have better equipment than everyone else - however, we could have been much better if the military had 10 years of full funding.

Not that I believe Clinton did that, but they both can be true. We were (and are) so far ahead of the rest of the world we could cut funding for our military to a fourth for 10 years and still probably be more advanced and have better equipment than everyone else - however, we could have been much better if the military had 10 years of full funding.
Maybe if we would quit fucking over and exploiting the rest of the world we would not NEED such a huge military...you think?

Not that I believe Clinton did that, but they both can be true. We were (and are) so far ahead of the rest of the world we could cut funding for our military to a fourth for 10 years and still probably be more advanced and have better equipment than everyone else - however, we could have been much better if the military had 10 years of full funding.
But if we WERE more advanced, and had better equipment than everyone else...how can that condition be accurately described as "ill-equipped" and "under-funded?"
Or do you conservatives mean "not funded to the level of OUR DESIRE??" "We wanna be able to go in there like the Indians did on General Custer at Little Bighorn!!" "I ean, we're talking HIROSHIMA here...we want to have such fucking awesome military might that we can ramrod our way, and our interests ahead of everyone else's, no matter what the fuck THEY say, think, or feel!"
I mean...who gives a crap about "right" and "wrong." Far as we are concerned, if we have more guns, we are "right" no matter WHAT the rest of the world thinks!!
and you wonder WHY the world hates us so much?? you even WONDER why the terrorists are doing the things they are doing to us??

they can't stand up against our military, and they know it...so they target innocent civilians in skyscrapers instead! Thanks a whole fuck of a lot for making me, and every other American...a soldier!! I never voluteered to be a soldier in this battle for your greedy, oily corporate fucking overlords!

Wassa matter with you?? Is it that poor white trash like me just won't DIE soon enough to suit you??

One moment of silence please:

6 minutes ago: The Socialist Queendom of Labrador ceased to exist.

One moment of silence please:

6 minutes ago: The Socialist Queendom of Labrador ceased to exist.

I don't get it

Is Labrador gone? :(

Yep. Labrador is deleted.

Bush is, though not as great as Reagan, still admirable and better than anything the Dems have to offer.

I dont believe bush is the best of presidents, but i end up defending him to stupid people who dont know how an economy runs.
especially his jobs bit, his higher price of goods bit, his low wages for new jobs bit...
its all an economic cycle people get it together!
As far as taking out iraq, good job, but lets try harder with afghanistan too, after all we shouldv finished that first before deciding on iraq.
its like my dad, he starts other projects before he ever finishes his first one, thus creating 30 projects, none of them done.
thats not such a great thing.

One thing for certain.
imho Most everyone i see on this board is biased ldemocrat. So when they sit there and talk about how stationas are biased bla bla, well, atleast now they kno, their officially biasing LIFE to be a democrap.


One last thing. If we really put alot of effort and stop trying to do a quick fix up, of the middle east, then maybe iraq will be great and so will afghanistan, and maybe bush will end up goin down in the history books as one of the greatest presidents ever.

this is why i hold my opinions about iraq until about 10-15 years, when we get to see how iraq really turns out. Making judgements now is just stupid imo. If we had made judgements during civil war, then we'd think america would still be in war now. But when we just watch what happens and see the latter effects, then we really know, whether it was the best decision or not.

Problem with american society, everything is based on instant gratification.

I dont believe bush is the best of presidents, but i end up defending him to stupid people who dont know how an economy runs.
especially his jobs bit, his higher price of goods bit, his low wages for new jobs bit...
its all an economic cycle people get it together!.
that would be a decent argument, if the bush campaign wasnt stil ltrying to argue they are helping the economy

As far as taking out iraq, good job, but lets try harder with afghanistan too, after all we shouldv finished that first before deciding on iraq.
its like my dad, he starts other projects before he ever finishes his first one, thus creating 30 projects, none of them done.
thats not such a great thing.
and so you support bush still


One thing for certain.
imho Most everyone i see on this board is biased ldemocrat. So when they sit there and talk about how stationas are biased bla bla, well, atleast now they kno, their officially biasing LIFE to be a democrap.
bullshit, you are an ignorant right wing twit. you want to call me immature, be my guest. you are just as bad as i am if not worse, only the most immature of the immature right wingers use the word democrap, i dont see how you can defend bush against stupid people when you yourself are obviously quite stupid


One last thing. If we really put alot of effort and stop trying to do a quick fix up, of the middle east, then maybe iraq will be great and so will afghanistan, and maybe bush will end up goin down in the history books as one of the greatest presidents ever.
hmm and who supports a quick fix? BUSH. you are blinded by your right wing ignorance, every argument you make puts a bad light on bush, yet you are trying to make him look good by playing pretend, welcome to mr rogers neighborhood

I am pro-Bush and pro-American (as if anyone doesn't know or does cares)

I think it's sad. The second I saw this thread, I knew that it would be a liberal hornet's nest. Who here honestly thinks that if a similar thread were made about Kerry that the right would attack it as viciously as the left did to this?

I don't know about the person who made this topic, but I have received hate mail in the past. I think that's a cowardly tactic. I have one request for the left: lay off. We have firmly established that you despise George Bush and anyone who supports him. You would think that you would get tired of ripping on us after the first six months.

I am pro-Bush and pro-American (as if anyone doesn't know or does cares)

I think it's sad. The second I saw this thread, I knew that it would be a liberal hornet's nest. Who here honestly thinks that if a similar thread were made about Kerry that the right would attack it as viciously as the left did to this?

I don't know about the person who made this topic, but I have received hate mail in the past. I think that's a cowardly tactic. I have one request for the left: lay off. We have firmly established that you despise George Bush and anyone who supports him. You would think that you would get tired of ripping on us after the first six months.

I'll admit that I haven't kept track of this thread since about hte 5th page. But I would like to point out that equating pro-Bush with pro-America is highly insulting, as it suggests anti-Bush=anti-America, which is, of course, patently untrue.