NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, yes he has. Especially to the conservatives. I for one have vowed never to vote Republican in my life no matter who it is, no matter who the other candidate is, because those are the consequences, the Republican Party showed their constant support for Pres. Bush, and if they like Bush than obviously they see nothing wrong with him, therefor they are like him. So why vote for them? We cant sit around and say, oh well, this Republican is innocent, he wasnt Bush, they bought it upon themselves. In the South, they voted solidly Democrat for 100 years after the civil war, now maybe we should too, maybe for an even longer time. If the Republicans back this guy, appreciate him, they are just as bad. So going back to up top, I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!

Please post.



Oh and to all those who say I am a "Yellow Dog Democrat" Realise that our system contains more than two political parties, me saying I wont ever vote Republican isnt saying I will only vote Democrat from now on!

bump

If he goes totally with the social conservatives' agenda, he will. Then, that would almost permanently destroy relations with a lot of the world.

If he goes totally with the social conservatives' agenda, he will. Then, that would almost permanently destroy relations with a lot of the world.

Thats what I think too, I think WWIII is on the verge of breaking out in the world, much deadlier than the original two.

But dont worry people! I have the answer, dont go to Canada, China will realise millions of us will have flocked there and nuke Canada, dont go to Mexico, same deal, instead go to south and lower Central America but spread out. By the time you get there, Europe will have become a HUGE battle ground that the US and China are fighting over, and will have been destroyed. So dont go there. perhaps a country in Southeast asia would be suitable, or Australia, but only for a month or two, because China will already be invading them. And Australia will soon follow. Only tell close friends and family....


No, cancel that. WWIII, if this is the scenario, will be the end of the world. No country will survive. Most of the people will be nuked. Forget about it. Noone will live. The last country with nukes, like, if China is about to be killed, they will, in a last attempt, nuke the world, even the tiny little islands that noone knows about. Your best bet is to see blast from the past and do what they do.

...Please; if you enjoy making this kind of thread, go to "bushsucks.com" for all your posting needs.

I don't mind you spouting constant anti-bush rhetoric, but I like to think of this board as something other than a spam board with vague political aspirations. Try reading some material from good sources like the Economist or any number of foriegn and domestic policy organizations and come up with reasoned, well written insights into WHY Bush has done more damage than good to the Repblican party.

The info is out there; and there are many who think along the lines that you do; but you are just running your mouth off to the benifit of nobody. Why just run your mouth? You're capable of digging a little deeper, doing a little more damage by actually using facts and reasons.

I'm just so tired of seeing these post-MULKTRA posts that aren't even cut and paste; they are just rant with nothing else to spice them up! Post to your live journal, or any number of anti-Bush sites if that's your style. It weakens your cause to do as you do now, surely you see that?

Sorry to jump on you like this, but I've seen this so often its starting to wear on me.

No site appeared for www.bushsucks.com

im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public :mp5:

do you know anything of politics. why did bush win it wasnt just because of the electoral votes he also got the majority vote. he got majority and electoral what does that tell you, maybe that people have decided to go republican. and what right do you have to say that hes guilty of anything, i want you to produce evidence that Bush has done something wrong.

you cant say that he invaded Iraq without a just cause because it was just, for years Saddam had been harboring terrorists in his country giving them his finnancial backing along with many other numerous things. reports even indicate from other countries not just the US that he was capable and willing to aquire wmd's and use them for strategic purposes to further advance his reign of terror. and let me guess your going to pronounce that hes the reason why theirs close to a thousand soldiers dead. first they signed a contract they knew what they were getting into, second it wasnt bush killing americans its insurgents, and third you people need to learn something about war, the biggest thing is that people will die. why must people believe that theyre forces should not suffer a single death while by their hand alone they should be able to kill thousands of enemy soldiers. it doesnt work that way. and fourth do you know how many men we lost on d-day alone take a thousand multipy it by ten and you wont even be close. what makes their sacrifice so differnt from what ours have done today.

now grow out of your candy ass democratic college bound shiyt heads that you are. its really starting to piss me off, heres some news grow some balls. and your right this is a free country you can say whatever the hell you want to say. but you know what its also my right to say whatever i want to say and that includes calling youa snot nose sniveling little brat.

i U Fucken Ass Kisser

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public"

That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, even from a liberal. I couldn't understand a word of that; I don't believe there's even ONE mark of punctuation in that entire...erm...rant. Why don't you do us all a favor and stfu.

And no, Bush isn't bad for Republicans. I think he's done a fine job so far, granted I think that Iraq has been over-extended. I think that our troops ought to be training Iraqis more and defending them less. Other than that, I say rock on. Oh and to solve our oil needs (despite the thought that Bush went to Iraq for oil, which is obviously not true or gas would be $.95 again when it isn't) the government ought to drill in Alaska.






U SOUND LIKE A REPUBLICICAN NOT A democratE U PUSSY I THINK U ARE ONE OF THOESE BUSH LIKEN ASS KISSERS WE HEAR ABOUT AND THE FACT IS 1 BUSH WENT TO IRAQ FOR OIL 2 AND FOR REVENGE FOR HIS FATHER ANOTHER PUSSY 3 SO WHEN U SAY HE IS A GOOD PRESIDANT ALL U ARE DOING IS LOOKING FOR A SPOT ON GORGE BUSHES ASS THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS NOT ALREADY KISSED U TRADER :mp5:

I for one have vowed never to vote Republican in my life no matter who it is, no matter who the other candidate is, because those are the consequences, the Republican Party showed their constant support for Pres.

Anyone who makes a statement like this should lose their right to vote.

Personally, yes he has. Especially to the conservatives. I for one have vowed never to vote Republican in my life no matter who it is, no matter who the other candidate is, because those are the consequences, the Republican Party showed their constant support for Pres. Bush, and if they like Bush than obviously they see nothing wrong with him, therefor they are like him. So why vote for them? We cant sit around and say, oh well, this Republican is innocent, he wasnt Bush, they bought it upon themselves. In the South, they voted solidly Democrat for 100 years after the civil war, now maybe we should too, maybe for an even longer time. If the Republicans back this guy, appreciate him, they are just as bad. So going back to up top, I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!

Please post.

You really do need to find some way to occupy your mind. Try actually getting out in the real world and finding out what life is all about. Don't make me worry about you anymore.

"im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public"

That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, even from a liberal. I couldn't understand a word of that; I don't believe there's even ONE mark of punctuation in that entire...erm...rant. Why don't you do us all a favor and stfu.

And no, Bush isn't bad for Republicans. I think he's done a fine job so far, granted I think that Iraq has been over-extended. I think that our troops ought to be training Iraqis more and defending them less. Other than that, I say rock on. Oh and to solve our oil needs (despite the thought that Bush went to Iraq for oil, which is obviously not true or gas would be $.95 again when it isn't) the government ought to drill in Alaska.

"im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public"

That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, even from a liberal. I couldn't understand a word of that; I don't believe there's even ONE mark of punctuation in that entire...erm...rant. Why don't you do us all a favor and stfu.

And no, Bush isn't bad for Republicans. I think he's done a fine job so far, granted I think that Iraq has been over-extended. I think that our troops ought to be training Iraqis more and defending them less. Other than that, I say rock on. Oh and to solve our oil needs (despite the thought that Bush went to Iraq for oil, which is obviously not true or gas would be $.95 again when it isn't) the government ought to drill in Alaska.

Congratulations on having as your very first one of the least relevant, most obnoxious, least rational posts I have ever had the extreme displeasure to read. :D

I for one have vowed never to vote Republican in my life no matter who it is, no matter who the other candidate is, because those are the consequences,

You are a "yellow dog Democrat." That is a person who would vote for a Democrat even if it were a yellow dog running for the office. But, hey, it is your life not mine and you can do as you please. Personally, I'll vote for the person who I believe is the best candidate not matter what his/her party affiliation.

You are what is commonly referred to as a "Yellow Dog Democrat." You would, instead of voting for a Republican, vote for a Yellow Dog, simply because your brain just cant handle the sort of thinking that normal people do. This is pretty ignorant. Maybe in 10 years when you turn 18 you will be a little smarter.

Celtlund you beat me by.... 4 minutes! It was the lag

im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public :sniper:

I guess you went to a school run by Democrats. I've heard rumors those schools don't teach punctuation, spelling, or capitalization. :fluffle:

Heres a pretty good site.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21145/

Celtlund you beat me by.... 4 minutes! It was the lag

Two great minds with one great thought. :)

I guess you went to a school run by Democrats. I've heard rumors those schools don't teach punctuation, spelling, or capitalization. :fluffle:
I haven't seen a teacher that isin't agianst the war in Iraq, unless there trying to make they're own business. Which means most of my informed teachers are probably Democrats.

You are a "yellow dog Democrat." That is a person who would vote for a Democrat even if it were a yellow dog running for the office. But, hey, it is your life not mine and you can do as you please. Personally, I'll vote for the person who I believe is the best candidate not matter what his/her party affiliation.

This business of "voting for the best person" regardless of party never made sense to me. The U.S. government is run by political parties, not individuals. I can understand feeling frustrated that there is not enough difference between the two parties, but it makes no sense to vote for individuals when party control of the government determines policy.

I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!

something tells me you wern't ever going to vote republican anyway

Two great minds with one great thought. :)
Bush is enough reason to turn yellow dog ... >.> ... Man even are past republicans don't care for anyone but there selfs. Gulfwar for example, we only saved kuwait cause we got good oil prices from them. Iraq was just trying to get a water way so they could trade. After that happend we banned trade in their country and that ended up killing houndreds of thousands from starvation.

You are what is commonly referred to as a "Yellow Dog Democrat." You would, instead of voting for a Republican, vote for a Yellow Dog, simply because your brain just cant handle the sort of thinking that normal people do. This is pretty ignorant. Maybe in 10 years when you turn 18 you will be a little smarter.

Celtlund you beat me by.... 4 minutes! It was the lag

And you are what I like to call a "white horse" republican." (Roman emperor Caligula, anyone?) That is, the kind of guy who would vote for anyone/anything, as long as it was on the republican ticket. You're more alike that you would wnt to admit, only you're on the evil, dark, insidious, nasty side.

Sucker...

do you know anything of politics. why did bush win it wasnt just because of the electoral votes he also got the majority vote. he got majority and electoral what does that tell you, maybe that people have decided to go republican. and what right do you have to say that hes guilty of anything, i want you to produce evidence that Bush has done something wrong.

you cant say that he invaded Iraq without a just cause because it was just, for years Saddam had been harboring terrorists in his country giving them his finnancial backing along with many other numerous things. reports even indicate from other countries not just the US that he was capable and willing to aquire wmd's and use them for strategic purposes to further advance his reign of terror. and let me guess your going to pronounce that hes the reason why theirs close to a thousand soldiers dead. first they signed a contract they knew what they were getting into, second it wasnt bush killing americans its insurgents, and third you people need to learn something about war, the biggest thing is that people will die. why must people believe that theyre forces should not suffer a single death while by their hand alone they should be able to kill thousands of enemy soldiers. it doesnt work that way. and fourth do you know how many men we lost on d-day alone take a thousand multipy it by ten and you wont even be close. what makes their sacrifice so differnt from what ours have done today.

now grow out of your candy ass democratic college bound shiyt heads that you are. its really starting to piss me off, heres some news grow some balls. and your right this is a free country you can say whatever the hell you want to say. but you know what its also my right to say whatever i want to say and that includes calling youa snot nose sniveling little brat.We cut off their trade so if it's anybodys fault that they were or had capabillitys of getting wmd's it was ours. We also have no proof of terrorist connections. Also if you look up the war on Iraq yes we have lost 1000 men, but look a little further, There are about 100,000 Iraqis dead(most were civilians), 80% from are invasion.

Oh yeah and if you want to know why Bush won ... It's cause America is a replublic not a democracy. Plus he obviously scamed and cheated his way into his first term. Florida, his brother was govoner, need I say more?

It's also been a month since I've gotten someone to confess that they voted for Bush. So either they made a mistake or the counters did.

We cut off their trade so if it's anybodys fault that they were or had capabillitys of getting wmd's it was ours. We also have no proof of terrorist connections. Also if you look up the war on Iraq yes we have lost 1000 men, but look a little further, There are about 100,000 Iraqis dead(most were civilians), 80% from are invasion.

Oh yeah and if you want to know why Bush won ... It's cause America is a replublic not a democracy. Plus he obviously scamed and cheated his way into his first term. Florida, his brother was govoner, need I say more?

And, dont' forget how he and Prick Cheney scared the crap out of enough voters in the midwest to get those states, despite the administration practically strangling the life out of them in the first 4...

Want to see my impression of this thread?

*spins out of control and crashes to the ground.*

Ow. :(

I think that in the long term the republicans stand to lose a great deal because of promises bush has made or that religious fundementalist conservatives think that he has made.

The issue of abortion is lose-lose for bush, if he doesnt act seriously to outlaw it, it may shatter the faith that the religious loonies put in the republicans and it is conceivable that they would bolt for a third party candidate, with disasterous results for the GOP.

Conversely, if bush does something loony and tries to outlaw abortion, there will very likely be a large backlash from the non-religious-nut majority of americans. It is also notable that his admin has already ruined any pretense of fiscal responsibility, giving democrats a chance to snatch up fiscal conservative votes.

Also, depending on how hard bush tries to push through social security privatization, and how hard the truth squad pushes back, his party could lose face in a big way.

And you are what I like to call a "white horse" republican." (Roman emperor Caligula, anyone?) That is, the kind of guy who would vote for anyone/anything, as long as it was on the republican ticket. You're more alike that you would wnt to admit, only you're on the evil, dark, insidious, nasty side.

Sucker...


You are what I like to call a "moran." One who makes up terms, calls people who disagree with him names, and is generally ugly. Look up the term Molnervia, people were like this for most of their lives. Its not a good thing to do. You should think for yourself. And for the record, on November 2, I voted for Peroutka. I didnt vote for Bush! If you believe that.

Jackass...

You are what I like to call a "moran." One who makes up terms, calls people who disagree with him names, and is generally ugly. Look up the term Molnervia, people were like this for most of their lives. Its not a good thing to do. You should think for yourself. And for the record, on November 2, I voted for Peroutka. I didnt vote for Bush! If you believe that.

/moran

Out of curiosity, I looked up Moran on www.dictionary.com.

All I got was cities. Moran, Kansas. Moran, Michigan. Moran, Texas. Moran, Wyoming.

Which one is he? :confused:

I think that in the long term the republicans stand to lose a great deal because of promises bush has made or that religious fundementalist conservatives think that he has made.

The issue of abortion is lose-lose for bush, if he doesnt act seriously to outlaw it, it may shatter the faith that the religious loonies put in the republicans and it is conceivable that they would bolt for a third party candidate, with disasterous results for the GOP.

Conversely, if bush does something loony and tries to outlaw abortion, there will very likely be a large backlash from the non-religious-nut majority of americans. It is also notable that his admin has already ruined any pretense of fiscal responsibility, giving democrats a chance to snatch up fiscal conservative votes.

Also, depending on how hard bush tries to push through social security privatization, and how hard the truth squad pushes back, his party could lose face in a big way.
Finally, someone posted something worth reading.
Bush has hurt the Republicans by turning them into the new Christian Party.
I, personally, am only happy with his Social Security reform (I think he did this just to gain the old-school conservative and Libertarian vote though) and his paradoxical loosening on immigrant regulation.

I don't think he'll be forgiven, at least historically, for his Pro-Religion politics and out-of-control military spending.

You are what I like to call a "moran." One who makes up terms, calls people who disagree with him names, and is generally ugly. Look up the term Molnervia, people were like this for most of their lives. Its not a good thing to do. You should think for yourself. And for the record, on November 2, I voted for Peroutka. I didnt vote for Bush! If you believe that.

/moran


You were the one who started with the name calling, "moron"(proper spelling intended). And whoever you voted for doesn't matter now does it? Because, now you appear to be schilling for the repo's, wich makes you just as bad/detremental as any other caustic repo-lican here.

If I could draw any kind of equivalent to your behavior, I would say that you're acting like Mark Furman, "I didn't vote for him..."

Tacky, just tacky...

Out of curiosity, I looked up Moran on www.dictionary.com.

All I got was cities. Moran, Kansas. Moran, Michigan. Moran, Texas. Moran, Wyoming.

Which one is he? :confused:


I cant believe I'm explaining this....
Go to www.urbandictionary.com and search for it. If you actually think I spelled that wrong and did it on accident then you are too old for the internet


You were the one who started with the name calling, "moron"(proper spelling intended). And whoever you voted for doesn't matter now does it? Because, now you appear to be schilling for the repo's, wich makes you just as bad/detremental as any other caustic repo-lican here.

If I could draw any kind of equivalent to your behavior, I would say that you're acting like Mark Furman, "I didn't vote for him..."

Tacky, just tacky...

First of all, Celtlund was the one who started the name-calling. Second of all, if you are going to post this sort of ignorant thing on the internet, you probably dont deserve to be taken serious. I like Bush. I would have voted for Bush if my state was a battleground. I like the 3rd parties though, they need some love. Also, you are very clever. "Repo-lican" you say? Im going to write that down and post it at the DU and then they will all cheer for me and pat me on the back, because Republicans are EVIL!!11!!11!!eleven

I cant believe I'm explaining this....
Go to www.urbandictionary.com and search for it. If you actually think I spelled that wrong and did it on accident then you are too old for the internet

*from urbandictionary.com*
moran:
A moron's spelling of the word moron which means idiot.
Also the name of a city in the state of Kansas.

Gotcha. I understand now. :D

I cant believe I'm explaining this....
Go to www.urbandictionary.com and search for it. If you actually think I spelled that wrong and did it on accident then you are too old for the internet
DOn't be an asshole. On NS, we speak ENGLISH, not EBONICS.

Homey.

*from urbandictionary.com*
moran:
A moron's spelling of the word moron which means idiot.
Also the name of a city in the state of Kansas.

Gotcha. I understand now. :D
Thats not what it says!

From urbandictionary: "...In frequent use as a joke insult and method of confusing detonate."
This concludes me explaining internet slang.

DOn't be an asshole. On NS, we speak ENGLISH, not EBONICS.

Homey.

Hey jackass! (Is jackass white enough for you?)Urban doesnt always mean poor black person. In this case, its just a website that can explain things to people who arent savvy with the interweb and its very complicated lingo.

Thats not what it says!

From urbandictionary: "...In frequent use as a joke insult and method of confusing detonate."
This concludes me explaining internet slang.

It sure does say that. It also says, and I quote:

"Moran
An individual who sits outside of maternity wards with a cup. After a woman gives birth he's quick to fill his cup up with raw placenta."

:confused:

In this case, its just a website that can explain things to people who arent savvy with the interweb and its very complicated lingo.
As one of the people who create the internet (professional web design/development artist), I could run circles around you concerning the internet. Let's not.
The thing is, when you attempt sarcastic nettrendy lingo (and that was pure American lingo), you kinda cut off the members from other countries not "in" on the inside joke (which I got).

It would suck big donkey for the UK and Aussies, NZers, etc. to start introducing a ton of insides to our political conversations.
But then again, my politics are clear here: Do what you please.

In the South, they voted solidly Democrat for 100 years after the civil war, now maybe we should too, maybe for an even longer time. If the Republicans back this guy, appreciate him, they are just as bad. So going back to up top, I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!

Please post.

That's because LINCOLN was a REPUBLICAN.

Because party values CHANGE.

Hence why the Republican party has gone from being generally just fiscally conservative to economically irresponcible as well as being the religious right- hence the term neo-conservative.

Personally, yes he has. Especially to the conservatives. I for one have vowed never to vote Republican in my life no matter who it is, no matter who the other candidate is, because those are the consequences, the Republican Party showed their constant support for Pres. Bush, and if they like Bush than obviously they see nothing wrong with him, therefor they are like him. So why vote for them? We cant sit around and say, oh well, this Republican is innocent, he wasnt Bush, they bought it upon themselves. In the South, they voted solidly Democrat for 100 years after the civil war, now maybe we should too, maybe for an even longer time. If the Republicans back this guy, appreciate him, they are just as bad. So going back to up top, I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!

Please post.

Thanks for showing your stupidity when it comes to voting. He who votes straight ticket is a fool. In order to make an informed decision on who to vote for, look at both candidates and where they stand.

I am a republican! Yes I voted Bush only because I didn't like the stances of Kerry. There are Democrats that I could potentially vote for but they have to give me a reason to vote for them.

You sir, do not care who the candidates are but look at party. Please do yourself a favor and look at who both sides put up. You may be casting your vote for a democrat with good idea whereas his opponet may have better ideas.

As for the thread, No I don't think he has. According to Rasmunsson, he is saying because of Bush winning re-election, the Republican party could be in power for a generation. I will try to find the artical for you.

Anyone who makes a statement like this should lose their right to vote.

And that goes for voting straight ticket for any party! Republican or Democrat!

You are a "yellow dog Democrat." That is a person who would vote for a Democrat even if it were a yellow dog running for the office. But, hey, it is your life not mine and you can do as you please. Personally, I'll vote for the person who I believe is the best candidate not matter what his/her party affiliation.

ANd that is how the voting should be done.

Personally I think that Bush has done more good then harm to our country, and personally anyone who says that they will vote Democrat all their life is...less the intelligent..i know there were people who voted for Kerry just because they didnt like Bush..and its people like this that bring our country down. :headbang:

Worst.

President.

Ever.

Worst.

President.

Ever.

That'll Be

Lyndon B. Johnson

As one of the people who create the internet (professional web design/development artist), I could run circles around you concerning the internet. Let's not.
The thing is, when you attempt sarcastic nettrendy lingo (and that was pure American lingo), you kinda cut off the members from other countries not "in" on the inside joke (which I got).

It would suck big donkey for the UK and Aussies, NZers, etc. to start introducing a ton of insides to our political conversations.
But then again, my politics are clear here: Do what you please.

Yes, yes. I am sure you were they guy who crafted the internet, from the comfort of your parents basement no less!! Al Gore called, he wants his ridiculous claim back. I cut off other countries when I use english language? Do you really think that I mean something completely wrong whenever I use the word "moran" or "interweb"? You dont think those who've just learned English are confused when you call me homey? or use Ebonics? If I was worried about making someone feel bad, I wouldnt have posted on this thread. Nobody needs to apologize for using words, thats pathetic.

Lunatic Goofballs: Touché

Finally, someone posted something worth reading.
Bush has hurt the Republicans by turning them into the new Christian Party.
I, personally, am only happy with his Social Security reform (I think he did this just to gain the old-school conservative and Libertarian vote though) and his paradoxical loosening on immigrant regulation.

I don't think he'll be forgiven, at least historically, for his Pro-Religion politics and out-of-control military spending.

Have you seen the specifics of his program? As a fiscal conservative myself, destroying Social Security, and tacking on a trillion or two to the debt to boot, is in my mind the worst of all possible worlds.

Yes, yes. I am sure you were they guy who crafted the internet, from the comfort of your parents basement no less!! Al Gore called, he wants his ridiculous claim back. I cut off other countries when I use english language? Do you really think that I mean something completely wrong whenever I use the word "moran" or "interweb"? You dont think those who've just learned English are confused when you call me homey? or use Ebonics? If I was worried about making someone feel bad, I wouldnt have posted on this thread. Nobody needs to apologize for using words, thats pathetic.

Lunatic Goofballs: Touché
You sir, are a douchebag. I craft the net (not crafted) and get payed well for it. Not to brag, but hey. I do like my job, and the internet to boot.

Tired subject (slang vs. direct language).
Let's not hijack this guy's thread, let's stay on topic.

It's been a few posts since anyone's brought it up instead of bitching (including me), but does anyone else agree/disagree that the Republicans have been hurt by becoming the Jesus party?
Is anyone else concerned with the fact that the cost of this war has reached astronomical figures?
I don't think this administration is going to be looked at in a good light historically.
Iraq is going to be sucking from our teat for a long, long time. At our expense, of course.

You sir, are a douchebag. I craft the net (not crafted) and get payed well for it. Not to brag, but hey. I do like my job, and the internet to boot.

Tired subject (slang vs. direct language).
Let's not hijack this guy's thread, let's stay on topic.

It's been a few posts since anyone's brought it up instead of bitching (including me), but does anyone else agree/disagree that the Republicans have been hurt by becoming the Jesus party?
Is anyone else concerned with the fact that the cost of this war has reached astronomical figures?
I don't think this administration is going to be looked at in a good light historically.
Iraq is going to be sucking from our teat for a long, long time. At our expense, of course.

According to Rasmunsson, Bush's victory apparently solidified the republican power base and that they could be in power for a generation. SO I will say no and I will try and find the article.

Have you seen the specifics of his program? As a fiscal conservative myself, destroying Social Security, and tacking on a trillion or two to the debt to boot, is in my mind the worst of all possible worlds.
A few trillion for Social Security? Or his whole, defunct admin for the past 4 years (aside from SS issue)?
If it's for his admin, hell yeah I'm aware.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy.

A few trillion for Social Security? Or his whole, defunct admin for the past 4 years (aside from SS issue)?
If it's for his admin, hell yeah I'm aware.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the guy.

I wasn't blaming you for anything. . .just curious as to how you reconcile your "fiscal conservatism" with the specifics of Bush's plan.

As for the main point, I think the Republicans are going to hit a wall fairly soon. For a generation, they've been able to cultivate a power base arranged around the idea of talking up cultural issues like abortion, while in office doing things about economic matters (rolling back labor provisions, for example). The problem, however, is that they are now facing problems on multiple fronts: the cultural conservatives they've brought into their ranks are eventually going to tire of voting into office again and again people who talk about Jesus and then walk the walk of Milton Friedman (who's economic philosophy mixes with Jesus' values about as well as flamethrowers and sawmills). Meanwhile, economic conservatives aren't pleased by how fiscally reckless this administration has been (average annual growth rate of government spending in the first term of the Bush administration is on the near side of 10%, while dwarfs even LBJ's "tax and spend" policies of the 60's). Finally, we're riding hard for an economic crash, given that people and companies are vastly overextended on credit, have little or no savings, have declining real wages, and have tapped out all their existing assets such as their house to pay for more junk, so something tells me that in the next four years, we're going to see exactly what happens when you put the invisible hand solely on the reigns of the economy, and I don't think people are going to like it. Put together, and you have a fairly good plan to shatter the party permanently. . .which is kind of sad. I once was a Republican, and I once liked what they stood for.

do you know anything of politics. why did bush win it wasnt just because of the electoral votes he also got the majority vote. he got majority and electoral what does that tell you, maybe that people have decided to go republican. and what right do you have to say that hes guilty of anything, i want you to produce evidence that Bush has done something wrong.

you cant say that he invaded Iraq without a just cause because it was just, for years Saddam had been harboring terrorists in his country giving them his finnancial backing along with many other numerous things. reports even indicate from other countries not just the US that he was capable and willing to aquire wmd's and use them for strategic purposes to further advance his reign of terror. and let me guess your going to pronounce that hes the reason why theirs close to a thousand soldiers dead. first they signed a contract they knew what they were getting into, second it wasnt bush killing americans its insurgents, and third you people need to learn something about war, the biggest thing is that people will die. why must people believe that theyre forces should not suffer a single death while by their hand alone they should be able to kill thousands of enemy soldiers. it doesnt work that way. and fourth do you know how many men we lost on d-day alone take a thousand multipy it by ten and you wont even be close. what makes their sacrifice so differnt from what ours have done today.

now grow out of your candy ass democratic college bound shiyt heads that you are. its really starting to piss me off, heres some news grow some balls. and your right this is a free country you can say whatever the hell you want to say. but you know what its also my right to say whatever i want to say and that includes calling youa snot nose sniveling little brat.

ooooooh kaaay.
you know i usually wouldn't be bothered at all by this thread or even care to post a reply, but i see so much of this stuff on these boards i can't help it any more. heres my little rant(s) about this and any other issue on these boards:
1) if you cannot spell or string together a coherent sentence in your mother language, then i seriously question your authority to speak on complex political issues.
2) calling a person or a group of people a derogatory name is NOT a politcal argument, it's how 6 yr olds tell you they're angry at you. please just state your case. name calling actually hurts your cause as people might not even listen to your argument (if you have one) because they think you are a jerk.

thank you.

It's been a few posts since anyone's brought it up instead of bitching (including me), but does anyone else agree/disagree that the Republicans have been hurt by becoming the Jesus party?
Is anyone else concerned with the fact that the cost of this war has reached astronomical figures?
I don't think this administration is going to be looked at in a good light historically.
Iraq is going to be sucking from our teat for a long, long time. At our expense, of course.

Fair enough, lets not talk about the internet or its creators. If by hurt by becoming the "Jesus party" you mean get re-elected into office, hold a majority of the governerships, and increase their control over the house and senate, I would say that this is a ridiculous statement. If Republicans are the party of Jesus, what does this make the Democrats? The people with no faith or religious values? Or the Party of Athiests? Or maybe the party of the Muslims?

The fact that the war has reached astronomical figures is pretty bad. "Freedom isnt free" I think the saying goes. Wars and armies arent cheap, I think this is to be expected. Hopefully Iraq can start to get back on its feet soon.

You think Iraq is the only country that is "sucking from our teat"? Dont most countries in the world rely heavily on American aid?

"At our expense" you quip cleverly at the end! What in the world isnt done at our expense? Correct me if Im wrong, but isnt America one of the top donators of aid? Isnt America the country that includes Canada in its missile defense, at almost no cost to the Canucks? Isnt America the largest contributor to NATO?

Bush is enough reason to turn yellow dog ... >.> ... Man even are past republicans don't care for anyone but there selfs. Gulfwar for example, we only saved kuwait cause we got good oil prices from them. Iraq was just trying to get a water way so they could trade. After that happend we banned trade in their country and that ended up killing houndreds of thousands from starvation.

This post struck me as particularly stupid.

Oh, those poor, downtrodden Iraqis. They wanted a water way? So they invaided another country to get it? Did they realize that it's not unheard of for a landlocked country to negotiate rights to use a foreign countries ports? They didn't want a water way. Iraq had been building up its military for over a decade. The (relativly) huge population of Iraq, their rapid expansion of their military, and their investments in biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons research scared the crap out of the nations on the persian gulf. As a result of the Iraq-Iran war, Iraq's military became undisputably dominant in the region. However, their dominance was offset by the fact that their military had extremely expensive upkeep. To pay for this military Iraq borrowed money from their neighbors. This debt, along with their investments in their military, brought about a 40% inflation rate and stagnated the growth of their economy. Iraq did have large reserves of oil, but their revenues weren't nearly high enough to pay off their international debts. Their problem became worse when the other gulf states, including Kuwait, began to lower oil prices and increase their production beyond previously agreed amounts. Iraq had to do the same or lose even more money. On top of all of this, Iraq suspected that Kuwait was drilling diagonally across their border in order to tap into their oil reserves.

Because of all this, Saddam Hussein was finding it more difficult to maintain his military power, which he needed to quell internal opposition. A solution to this problem was to invaid Kuwait. Why Kuwait? Kuwait was a small country that had been given arbitrary borders upon independence that didn't coincede at all with cultural distinctions (there was overlap between Kuwait and Iraq in cultural similarities). As well, these borders had no real strategic defensive points. Kuwait, like most other countries in the region, based most of its economy on oil industries. Most of all, with a population of 1.7 million, their armed forces were non-existant. Politically, Kuwait had been a nusance to Iraq. Besides lowering oil prices, Kuwait had loaned money to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Iraq, claiming to have saved the region from advancing Iranian forces, felt that they deserved special considerations that involved renegotiating or even forgiving debts any debts owed. Kuwait refused this.

And so, in 1991 Iraq invaided Kuwait and advanced to their capital in four and a half hours. After securing strategic points in Kuwait, the Iraqi military moved to Kuwait's border with Saudi Arabia. This alarmed the Saudis, as well as the rest of the world. It wasn't in Saudi Arabia's interests to have a powerful Iraqi army breathing down their necks. Iraq had enough troops on their border to roll through their country almost as easily as they did Kuwait. The rest of the world worried about the fact that Iraq, despite claims of Kuwait rightfully belonging to Iraq, was leveraging their clout on the world stage. Between Iraq and Kuwait, Saddam Hussein controlled 20% of the world's oil supply. Saudi Arabia realized what was about to happen to them and they requested help from the United States. George Bush ordered what was to become operation desert shield and deployed ground and air forces to Saudi Arabia.

Our response to Iraq's invation of Kuwait was not 'ooh, look! cheap oil!''. First it was shock, then distress. We had interests in making sure that Saudi Arabia wasn't conquered by Iraq. Along with Iraq/Kuwait's control of 20% of the world's oil, Saudi Arabia controlled another 20%, which Iraq was poised to take. Because the world runs on oil, Saddam Hussein would be a very powerful man very soon. Besides the economic factors, there were arguably even more distressing problems. Iraq had committed many atrocities in their invasion of Kuwait, including summary executions, massive confiscation of movable property, and the torture and degradation of many Kuwaitis (the accounts of this are vast in number). We had good reason to believe that this would only become worse if Iraq invaided Saudi Arabia. Above all, Iraq had been quickly developing weaopns of mass destruction. Intelligence experts estimated that at the time Iraq was very close to nuclear capability and had biological capabilities. There was no question about chemical weapons. Iraq had even used them on their own villages. Economic sanctions had failed to keep Iraq from committing atrocities, failed to keep them from building up their military, failed to keep them from building weapons of mass destruction, and failed to keep them from invaiding Kuwait. Most Americans understood that military force was absolutly necessary.

Your history lesson for today. Read it and weep.


Iraq was just trying to get a water way so they could trade.

Ah, I see. Explain to me why Iraq didn't use the 58 km of coastline that they have on the Persian Gulf. Oh, you can't, because you're full of it.

I wasn't blaming you for anything. . .just curious as to how you reconcile your "fiscal conservatism" with the specifics of Bush's plan.

As for the main point, I think the Republicans are going to hit a wall fairly soon. For a generation, they've been able to cultivate a power base arranged around the idea of talking up cultural issues like abortion, while in office doing things about economic matters (rolling back labor provisions, for example). The problem, however, is that they are now facing problems on multiple fronts: the cultural conservatives they've brought into their ranks are eventually going to tire of voting into office again and again people who talk about Jesus and then walk the walk of Milton Friedman (who's economic philosophy mixes with Jesus' values about as well as flamethrowers and sawmills). Meanwhile, economic conservatives aren't pleased by how fiscally reckless this administration has been (average annual growth rate of government spending in the first term of the Bush administration is on the near side of 10%, while dwarfs even LBJ's "tax and spend" policies of the 60's). Finally, we're riding hard for an economic crash, given that people and companies are vastly overextended on credit, have little or no savings, have declining real wages, and have tapped out all their existing assets such as their house to pay for more junk, so something tells me that in the next four years, we're going to see exactly what happens when you put the invisible hand solely on the reigns of the economy, and I don't think people are going to like it. Put together, and you have a fairly good plan to shatter the party permanently. . .which is kind of sad. I once was a Republican, and I once liked what they stood for.
Excellent post... I agree with 99% of what you said (save the Invisible Hand detraction).
I think a lot of moves are going to come back to bite the Reps in the ass (mostly on social issues though).

I say this because (in the last election), it seems to be obvious that most voters don't know jack about economics. It's easier to run on social issues alone, and sneak the economic policies in.

That's so not a good thing.

d3wds forget squabbling over trick sh1t nothing matters not even your own grasp, or lack thereof, of the English language. The nation of Ultimate Turbo is t3h 13oMb for understanding even to a slight extent the greatness to be gathered from understanding new English words adopted into the language. If you disagree then perhaps your posts should be done in only the original English of the less developed early European people who might speak something like this... "Yon' time has come cowardly fiend to find thou belly impaled by yon' tip of thine spear of nobility!" ... well I think that this matters little as my Empires ownership of all NS is soon approaching (read my force assesment from 2 years before Rick James died and before Micheal Jackson and Martha Stewart have fallen upon hard times, our power has grown exponetially due to these events.
The Forces of The Empire of Absolute Devastation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394327)

The Forces of The Empire of Absolute Devastation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394327)

Milton Friedman (who's economic philosophy mixes with Jesus' values about as well as flamethrowers and sawmills).

Jesus's economic values were decidedly communist. I can see why the republicans decide not to follow them.

Meanwhile, economic conservatives aren't pleased by how fiscally reckless this administration has been

You're damn right. President Bush, and neocons in general, apparently don't know the meaning of the word budget. Let's be fair though, much of congress (including many democrats) are making very little effort to correct this problem. It's a problem that's much less one dimensional then you make it seem. Regardless, commit the fallacy of an unrepresentative sample (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/unrep.php) in that George W. Bush is not the entire republican party. Just because he chooses to be fiscally liberal, does NOT mean that the next person or the person after that to run on the republican ticket will. This is no reason to 'give up' on the party. To do so is illogical. There seems to be a lot of that in this thread though, that 'illogic' stuff. That attack isn't really aimed at you (your post isn't that bad) but it is an attack on most every other democrat that has posted in this.

Finally, we're riding hard for an economic crash, given that people and companies are vastly overextended on credit, have little or no savings, have declining real wages, and have tapped out all their existing assets such as their house to pay for more junk, so something tells me that in the next four years, we're going to see exactly what happens when you put the invisible hand solely on the reigns of the economy, and I don't think people are going to like it.

Things aren't looking that great. I sure am glad that your discription doesn't fit me. We really need to start pounding into kids' heads, starting in high school, that credit is not 'free money'. Not to mention other fiscally smart practices, but they already do that in economics classes. Actually, I suppose a lot of economics teachers probably are telling kids just that. I hope it's working. Maybe we need a massive television ad campaign a la anti-drug commectials. Those were extremely effective, showing that people can learn if you repeat something long and loud enough (as an aside, I believe Hitler demonstrated this to be true. the difference is our causes are just.).

Let's be fair though, this situation is not President Bush's fault. He did not invent the credit card, nor did he invent the culture of not saving. I don't know if you intended to pin this on him, but I will establish a stance on it anyway.

I don't think there'll be a total economic collapse. For every person that's irresponsible, there's someone that is responsible and they'll be doing fairly well.

Two great minds with one great thought. :)
Great minds DO think alike! Late comer to the thread, and I had reached the same conclusion before reading your posts.

1) I hate, absolutely HATE the fact that Bush get slapped with the blame for all the decisions during his administration. The truth is Bush is a bloody puppet. If anyone is to blame, blame the advisors that push the issues. They are the real power in the Bush administration.

2) Anyone who really thought Bush was an image of power at election time needs to have their head examined (in my personal opinon). I didn't vote for Bush, I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted for Bush's puppet masters (because i didn't think badnarik stood a chance of winning).

3) Why did I vote for Bush? because for all of his bad choices, at least he makes a bloody decision (and yes, yes, i know... his advisors make a decision...you know what i meant). the same cannot be said for kerry. If he stood ground his stances, then maybe I would have considred him, but the fact is for all his claims there was no way to know what he stood for.

4) As far as whether or not American slang is used in this forum... Well, quite frankly, this discussion is about american politics is it not? As much as i value the opinions of our overseas bretheren, the discussion is about AMERICAN politics, so if someone wants to use american slang, more power to you.

1) I hate, absolutely HATE the fact that Bush get slapped with the blame for all the decisions during his administration. The truth is Bush is a bloody puppet. If anyone is to blame, blame the advisors that push the issues. They are the real power in the Bush administration.

A recent Newsweek article begs to differ. I can't really prove what the article said one way or another, but it was pretty convincing. I suggest you get it from the library and read it. Edit: Plus, the president fired a good portion of his advisors. Would this be considered a coup d'etat against his masters?

2) Anyone who really thought Bush was an image of power at election time needs to have their head examined (in my personal opinon). I didn't vote for Bush, I didn't vote for Kerry, I voted for Bush's puppet masters (because i didn't think badnarik stood a chance of winning).

Speaking of the burden of proof, how exactly did you come to the conclusion that George W. Bush is a puppet?

3) Why did I vote for Bush? because for all of his bad choices, at least he makes a bloody decision (and yes, yes, i know... his advisors make a decision...you know what i meant). the same cannot be said for kerry. If he stood ground his stances, then maybe I would have considred him, but the fact is for all his claims there was no way to know what he stood for.

If he stood his ground, he'd come off as the ultra liberal that he's known to be in Massachusetts. That wouldn't have gone over nearly as well as the borderline condescending 'average american' façade he attempted to put on.

4) As far as whether or not American slang is used in this forum... Well, quite frankly, this discussion is about american politics is it not? As much as i value the opinions of our overseas bretheren, the discussion is about AMERICAN politics, so if someone wants to use american slang, more power to you.

I didn't know the word 'moran' existed before I saw it here. Being an American, I feel left out when people use words I should clearly know but don't.

d3wds forget squabbling over trick sh1t nothing matters not even your own grasp, or lack thereof, of the English language. The nation of Ultimate Turbo is t3h 13oMb for understanding even to a slight extent the greatness to be gathered from understanding new English words adopted into the language. If you disagree then perhaps your posts should be done in only the original English of the less developed early European people who might speak something like this... "Yon' time has come cowardly fiend to find thou belly impaled by yon' tip of thine spear of nobility!" ... well I think that this matters little as my Empires ownership of all NS is soon approaching (read my force assesment from 2 years before Rick James died and before Micheal Jackson and Martha Stewart have fallen upon hard times, our power has grown exponetially due to these events.
The Forces of The Empire of Absolute Devastation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=394327)


Everyone here knows I speak the truth. I appreciate the 'props'. Stop me if I am using EBONICS. Also, and I know Im not the first one tell you this, drugs are bad.

Yes he has, and he is going to do even more damage if he invades Iran.
:sniper:

Actually, he proved that all those people that said there would be a complete cut in social security and a military draft the day after he was elected were wrong.

First of all, Celtlund was the one who started the name-calling.

So, I guess that makes it ok then, my mistake :rolleyes:

I like Bush. I would have voted for Bush if my state was a battleground.

And that is, perhaps the saddest thing of all...

I like the 3rd parties though, they need some love. Also, you are very clever. "Repo-lican" you say? Im going to write that down and post it at the DU and then they will all cheer for me and pat me on the back, because Republicans are EVIL!!11!!11!!eleven

Well, I'm glad to see that you and I agree on that at least... Oh wait you were being sarcastic... So, tell me, what is it about their way of leading that is so attractive to people like yourself? Is it the strong arm, giving the middle finger to the rest of the world, attitude that you like. Or, is it the record deficit spending, and meaningless tax cuts that you like. What exactly has the Shrub done that gives you such jollies?

(for some reason this didn't post on time...)

If he goes totally with the social conservatives' agenda, he will. Then, that would almost permanently destroy relations with a lot of the world.
Do the social conservatives' have any foreign policy goals I don't know about? I thought their only goals were to get rid of gays, abortion, and anything else that's not in the Bible.
Thats what I think too, I think WWIII is on the verge of breaking out in the world, much deadlier than the original two.
I disagree. WW3 is a long way off.

That'll Be

Lyndon B. Johnson


Naturally, the guy that signed the Civil Rights Act. What the hell was he thinking!!

I'm sorry but I'd have to agree with the guy you were flippantly responding to.

Congratulations on having as your very first one of the least relevant, most obnoxious, least rational posts I have ever had the extreme displeasure to read. :D
lol, come on Eutrusca, you were a raving lunatic when you first started out here too!

While he may have pissed off some Republicans, the net effect is the opposite, because the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot in a major way.

Most of the American people don't care about Iraq - they just want to win.

Americans like winning. See how bad they feel about Vietnam? See how good they felt after the First Gulf War?

So it can't be a "withdrawal with dignity". It can't be anything but a win. And the Democrats weren't willing to do anything but the opposite.

Bush may be stupid - and there may not be a plan on how to win. But every few months, they pull out another "win". This last one was the Iraqi Election.

The Democrats just don't get it. No one wants to make The Deer Hunter II and spend another three hours in the theater crying about how stupid wars are.

The Democrats are still continuing to NOT GET IT and shoot themselves in the foot.

Yes, the war was wrong and bad, etc. Who knows why we're even there? But now that we are, the American public won't accept anything except a WIN.

The party that advocates cutting and running is slitting its own throat.

1. Most of the American people don't care about Iraq - they just want to win.

2. The party that advocates cutting and running is slitting its own throat.
1. In my opinion that is no way to think about the issue.

2. I'm no Democrat mouthpiece, but which Dem candidates wanted to withdraw all the troops from Iraq? I remember Kerry being pro-war. For some reason a lot of people thought he was an anti-war candidate.

Yes, I think Bush has done more harm then good to the Republicans by winning.

The “pulse” of political opinion in the United States is more a pendulum then not. On most issues, it constantly swings (at different speeds, depending on the issue) from left to right, right to left, across the center. Generally, while there are those in the country on the FAR left of every issue, and on the FAR right of every issue, the overall pulse is very close to the center – but a little left, or right, depending on when you take the measurement of that pulse, and what else is going on in the country and the world at that time, and just before.

Most politicians understand this – and that’s why they seek to be as close to the center as possible, while still holding on to their “left” or “right” leanings. And it has been beneficial to the Republicans, the Democrats, and the Country that we keep pretty much to the center, leaning a little left on this issue, and little right on that issue.

The most recent “taking of the pulse” is the election of 2004. And the issue measured was, “Do we agree with George, or do we disagree with George?” Oddly, while the pulse itself is very close to center, there appears to be almost no individuals near the center – most people are quite a bit left of center, or quite a bit right of center, on the issue “Do we agree with George?” And the pendulum swung over in favor of George.

But, when the pendulum swings back – and it will – it always does – it will swing back with a vengeance. Because “Do we agree with George?” was/is not limited to the usual content of politics in this country. Because “Do we agree with George?” includes a war, whether or not that war was justified, and possible additional wars due to the foreign policy of “pre-emptive war” should George decide a war is necessary. And because “Do we agree with George?” includes a religious philosophy, and that philosophy implies that in a country that has always held the separation of church and state to be imperative, we will now let certain religious convictions over-ride that separation.

So, although the current position of the pendulum favors the Republicans quite a bit, when it swings back, it will be detrimental to them in at least as great a degree as it is beneficial now.

This business of "voting for the best person" regardless of party never made sense to me. The U.S. government is run by political parties, not individuals. I can understand feeling frustrated that there is not enough difference between the two parties, but it makes no sense to vote for individuals when party control of the government determines policy.

I am a registered Republican, but I have voted for Democrats and third party candidates because I thought they were the best candidates running. I know the third party usually (very seldom) wins, but if all the Republicans, Democrats, and Independents who say; "I would have voted for him but I know he couldn't win," voted for him, he could have won. Go figure! :headbang:

OK! I guess you want to know who some of these were; George Wallace (yes I’m that old) for President; Ross Perot for President; Wes Watkins (I) for Governor of OK; Gary Richardson (I) for governor of OK; and some Democrats for local offices.

Naturally, the guy that signed the Civil Rights Act. What the hell was he thinking!!

I'm sorry but I'd have to agree with the guy you were flippantly responding to.

Does Vietnam ring a bell? Does lying to the American People about Vietnam ring a bell?

That was all that he accomplished in his tenure. Why do you think he never tried to seek a second term in office? Because he knew he wouldn't win a second term in office!

After that happend we banned trade in their country and that ended up killing houndreds of thousands from starvation.

1. I'll challenge that number of hundreds of thousands.
2. How many did the oil for food scandal kill?
:confused:

1. In my opinion that is no way to think about the issue.

2. I'm no Democrat mouthpiece, but which Dem candidates wanted to withdraw all the troops from Iraq? I remember Kerry being pro-war. For some reason a lot of people thought he was an anti-war candidate.

Maybe because he kept using the political suicide buzzword "exit strategy".

He wasn't pro-war. There's nothing you could say to make me believe that, especially after all the crap he said after the Vietnam War.

And it's not necessary to distort any of that televised speech he made during Vietnam, because it speaks for itself.

He's anti-war. He's Mr. Cut and Run.

Even Osama believed that. Or didn't you hear his take on what would be better for Americans?

only you're on the evil, dark, insidious, nasty side.

You mean he is on the Dark Side? Where is Luke, we need to call him immediatly.
:D:

I don't think he'll be forgiven, at least historically, for his Pro-Religion politics and out-of-control military spending.

If the previous administration (Clinton) had not decimated the military, military spending might not be "out-of-control." Al Gore took great pride in cutting the number of government workers, and most of them were military. :(

First of all, Celtlund was the one who started the name-calling.

I did? Was that when I called someone a "Yellow Dog Democrat"? I'm sorry, but I didn't know that was a bad name. Heck I know several Democrats that are proud to be called that, just like I'm proud to be called a Reagan Republican.

Maybe because he kept using the political suicide buzzword "exit strategy".

He wasn't pro-war. There's nothing you could say to make me believe that, especially after all the crap he said after the Vietnam War.
Sorry, I didn't remember the exit strategy buzzword.

By pro-war, I mean pro-iraq war. He voted for it and I don't think he ever said outright that it was wrong or a mistake. That makes him pro-war in my view.

DOn't be an asshole. On NS, we speak ENGLISH, not EBONICS.

Homey.

Cold. Ten yard penalty.

That's because LINCOLN was a REPUBLICAN.

Because party values CHANGE.

Hence why the Republican party has gone from being generally just fiscally conservative to economically irresponsible as well as being the religious right- hence the term neo-conservative.

There were many Dixicrats in the south. A Dixiecrat is a southern Democrat who voted with the Republicans in Congress and espoused Republican rather than Democratic ideology. In essence, they were Republicans who had to run on the Democratic ticked to be elected.

That'll Be

Lyndon B. Johnson

No! Jimmy Carter.

Sorry, I didn't remember the exit strategy buzzword.

By pro-war, I mean pro-iraq war. He voted for it and I don't think he ever said outright that it was wrong or a mistake. That makes him pro-war in my view.

Initially he voted for it - under protest and with spoken conditions.
He later said that he should never have voted for the war - that it was a lie and he was deceived.

That makes him against the war.

Is anyone else concerned with the fact that the cost of this war has reached astronomical figures?

Seems like I heard that before. Seems it was the Viet Nam era and the Republicans said that then. The Democratic reply was that the war was good for the domestic economy as it produces jobs.

Naturally, the guy that signed the Civil Rights Act. What the hell was he thinking!!

I'm sorry but I'd have to agree with the guy you were flippantly responding to.

Well, he did that mostly as a tribute to the recently deceased Kennedy, who also thought it was too soon for civil rights legislation, hence Kennedy asking MLK Jr. to postpone his rallies. Johnson was a southerner who was against the Act before the assasination...

I'd say that the worst president(s) would be tied at Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.

I remember Kerry being pro-war. For some reason a lot of people thought he was an anti-war candidate.

Kerry was for the war before he was against the war, or was he against the war before he was for the war. Flip, Flop. :D:

You are a "yellow dog Democrat." That is a person who would vote for a Democrat even if it were a yellow dog running for the office. But, hey, it is your life not mine and you can do as you please. Personally, I'll vote for the person who I believe is the best candidate not matter what his/her party affiliation.

I didnt say I would vote Democrat, I just said I wouldnt vote Republican. Really, all it took was one bad Republican and the whole name is soiled. If other Republicans said whoa whoa, we dont like him, he is a bad President its not our fault he is a Republican, than fine, I will consider you. But they back him, they like him, they see nothing wrong with him. Uh-uh. NO VOTE FOR YOU!

do you know anything of politics. why did bush win it wasnt just because of the electoral votes he also got the majority vote. he got majority and electoral what does that tell you, maybe that people have decided to go republican. and what right do you have to say that hes guilty of anything, i want you to produce evidence that Bush has done something wrong.

you cant say that he invaded Iraq without a just cause because it was just, for years Saddam had been harboring terrorists in his country giving them his finnancial backing along with many other numerous things. reports even indicate from other countries not just the US that he was capable and willing to aquire wmd's and use them for strategic purposes to further advance his reign of terror. and let me guess your going to pronounce that hes the reason why theirs close to a thousand soldiers dead. first they signed a contract they knew what they were getting into, second it wasnt bush killing americans its insurgents, and third you people need to learn something about war, the biggest thing is that people will die. why must people believe that theyre forces should not suffer a single death while by their hand alone they should be able to kill thousands of enemy soldiers. it doesnt work that way. and fourth do you know how many men we lost on d-day alone take a thousand multipy it by ten and you wont even be close. what makes their sacrifice so differnt from what ours have done today.

now grow out of your candy ass democratic college bound shiyt heads that you are. its really starting to piss me off, heres some news grow some balls. and your right this is a free country you can say whatever the hell you want to say. but you know what its also my right to say whatever i want to say and that includes calling youa snot nose sniveling little brat.

Ok buddy, calm down and learn to spell. Let me just say, only 11% of Bush voters voted for him based on Republicans, a poll said that 89% of Bush voters voted for him on religion and other moral values, 79% didnt care whether or not he was good on issues just as long as he was religious. And Bush got such states supporting him as Texas, and Mississippi, two of the dumbest states in the US! I bet that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And as fod Saddam training terrorists, we were attacked by 15 Saudis on 9/11 the rest were from Afghanistan and Syria. Were was Iraq? Minding there own business like we should of.

You are what is commonly referred to as a "Yellow Dog Democrat." You would, instead of voting for a Republican, vote for a Yellow Dog, simply because your brain just cant handle the sort of thinking that normal people do. This is pretty ignorant. Maybe in 10 years when you turn 18 you will be a little smarter.

Celtlund you beat me by.... 4 minutes! It was the lag


For the second times THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO FUCKING PARTIES!

I will never vote Republican in my life! I garantee it!


This post kind of reminds me of some people's sentiments about the Conservative Party in Britain. I know a good number of people who would never vote Conservative after Thatcher.

Well, he did that mostly as a tribute to the recently deceased Kennedy, who also thought it was too soon for civil rights legislation, hence Kennedy asking MLK Jr. to postpone his rallies. Johnson was a southerner who was against the Act before the assasination...

I'd say that the worst president(s) would be tied at Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan.

Add Carter to that list :D

I didnt say I would vote Democrat, I just said I wouldnt vote Republican. Really, all it took was one bad Republican and the whole name is soiled. If other Republicans said whoa whoa, we dont like him, he is a bad President its not our fault he is a Republican, than fine, I will consider you. But they back him, they like him, they see nothing wrong with him. Uh-uh. NO VOTE FOR YOU!

In that case, people shouldn't vote democrat because of LBJ and Carter as well as Clinton. All three of them were democrats and the whole name is spoiled.

Add Carter to that list :D

Man wore a sweater. -- Hank Hill :D

Initially he voted for it - under protest and with spoken conditions.
He later said that he should never have voted for the war - that it was a lie and he was deceived.

That makes him against the war.
Well you obviously know more about this than I do. The latest I knew was that someone asked him if he would have voted for the war knowing what he knows now, and Kerry said "yes".

Kerry was for the war before he was against the war, or was he against the war before he was for the war. Flip, Flop. :D:
Old joke.

... just said I wouldnt vote Republican.

Ok, I stand corrected. You are not a "Yellow Dog Democrat," but are you saying you are a Republican hater. Isn't that a little close minded? Will there never be a Republican candidate who is better than his/her opposition, or is it you just do not understand the Republican philosophy? :confused:

Ok buddy, calm down and learn to spell. Let me just say, only 11% of Bush voters voted for him based on Republicans, a poll said that 89% of Bush voters voted for him on religion and other moral values, 79% didnt care whether or not he was good on issues just as long as he was religious. And Bush got such states supporting him as Texas, and Mississippi, two of the dumbest states in the US!

Please support your statistics and your contention that TX and MS are "two of the dumbest states in the US." :sniper:

For the second times THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO FUCKING PARTIES!


NO, THERE ARENT!!!!!


There are only two parties in our political system, Democrat and Republican.

Votes that are not cast for democrats or republicans do not (except in extraordinary cases where an Independent wins) count in determining which party controls the government.

Leaving the ballot blank and voting for a third party in a national election are the same thing.

Ok, I stand corrected. You are not a "Yellow Dog Democrat," but are you saying you are a Republican hater. Isn't that a little close minded? Will there never be a Republican candidate who is better than his/her opposition, or is it you just do not understand the Republican philosophy? :confused:


Only the most base sort of idiots confuse "understand" and "agree with" or "believe in."

For the second times THERE ARE MORE THAN TWO FUCKING PARTIES!

ULTIMATE TURBO never said there were only two, so why are you yelling at him/her? :headbang:

In that case, people shouldn't vote democrat because of LBJ and Carter as well as Clinton. All three of them were democrats and the whole name is spoiled.

You forgot FDR. The last good and true Democratic President was Harry S. Truman.

Old joke.

I'm and old man. :fluffle:

You forgot FDR. The last good and true Democratic President was Harry S. Truman.

Actually, FDR wasn't to bad! Just his economic policies sucked.

Only the most base sort of idiots confuse "understand" and "agree with" or "believe in."

Please explain yourself. :confused: Thank you.

4 More Years...i Want 4 More Years :d :d

[QUOTE=12345543211]In the South, they voted solidly Democrat for 100 years after the civil war, now maybe we should too, maybe for an even longer time. QUOTE]

Democrats until FDR were MUCH more conservative than the Republican party.

What you neglected to say was that for 100 years after the civil war the North solidly voted for Republicans.

African American voters had some issues voting FDR in because they felt obliged to vote Republican because of Jefferson.


Just a quick history lesson for everyone.

Actually, FDR wasn't to bad! Just his economic policies sucked.

I agree. He was more of a socialist than a democrat. Did a good job on getting us out of the depression and a good job on the war. I think Truman was the best Democratic President of the 20th century

I agree. He was more of a socialist than a democrat. Did a good job on getting us out of the depression and a good job on the war. I think Truman was the best Democratic President of the 20th century

FDR only brought us out of a depression due to WWII!

I agree. He was more of a socialist than a democrat. Did a good job on getting us out of the depression and a good job on the war. I think Truman was the best Democratic President of the 20th century

FDRs economic policies were bad?

How/why did this start? Because he took away some liberties to keep the US from becomming socialist?

Face it folks. Without FDR we would not have been a democracy through WWII. Because of his policies he stopped a growing national movement to become a socialist country. When you have that many people out of work for that many years you NEED to do something or else it will be complete power to the masses.

FDR did barely anything to get us out of the depression. Hitler did that for us. FDR did do a good job on the war.

FDR only brought us out of a depression due to WWII!

I'm not a big fan of FDR, but he did start WPA and other public projects before the war. Those programs were a heck of a lot better than the current welfare program. At least people had to work to get the money and it did help the infrastructure of the country. But you are right it was the war that brought us out of the depression.

Because of his policies he stopped a growing national movement to become a socialist country.

FDR started Social Security, a socialist policy. FDR started WPA and many other public works programs. Clearly, these were socialist policies. FDR was a socialist, he didn't stop socialism.

I’m not saying these policies were wrong given the time and circumstances. Clearly, the government had to do something to prevent mass starvation and social unrest, but that doesn’t alter the fact that these were socialist policies

ULTIMATE TURBO never said there were only two, so why are you yelling at him/her? :headbang:

The reason he is yelling at me is because I think it has dawned on him, much like it dawned on Bruce Willis in the 6th sense, how ignorant he is to post something like this. "Am I really that dumb?" he asks himself. To completely ignore what someone has to say because of an (R) next to his name...wow

plz give me 4 M-O-R-E Y-E-A-R-S

"im a democrat and i think that bush as screwed the nation evan being a republican he has ruined the name that they have had for so many years as being assholes cold harted bastards only looking for more money now they have the name as retarded aids infested monkeys that scratch themselfs in public"

That is possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard, even from a liberal. I couldn't understand a word of that; I don't believe there's even ONE mark of punctuation in that entire...erm...rant. Why don't you do us all a favor and stfu.

And no, Bush isn't bad for Republicans. I think he's done a fine job so far, granted I think that Iraq has been over-extended. I think that our troops ought to be training Iraqis more and defending them less. Other than that, I say rock on. Oh and to solve our oil needs (despite the thought that Bush went to Iraq for oil, which is obviously not true or gas would be $.95 again when it isn't) the government ought to drill in Alaska.






U SOUND LIKE A REPUBLICICAN NOT A democratE U PUSSY I THINK U ARE ONE OF THOESE BUSH LIKEN ASS KISSERS WE HEAR ABOUT AND THE FACT IS 1 BUSH WENT TO IRAQ FOR OIL 2 AND FOR REVENGE FOR HIS FATHER ANOTHER PUSSY 3 SO WHEN U SAY HE IS A GOOD PRESIDANT ALL U ARE DOING IS LOOKING FOR A SPOT ON GORGE BUSHES ASS THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS NOT ALREADY KISSED U TRADER :mp5:

FDR started Social Security, a socialist policy. FDR started WPA and many other public works programs. Clearly, these were socialist policies. FDR was a socialist, he didn't stop socialism....

Franklin Roosevelt was not a socialist. With all due respect, those who believe he was do not know about either Roosevelt or socialism.

Socialism differs from liberalism in that it seeks fundamental change; the transformation of the economy from capitalism to socialism. Liberals seek reform of the capitalist system to make it more equitable, not its overthrow. Also, socialists support such institutions as consumer cooperatives, workers’ collectives and worker/consumer participation in the management of governmentally-owned industry. Liberals seek to regulate and reform industry to ensure competition, fair business practices, and safe working conditions, not wholesale government ownership of industry.

In the 1930s FDR adopted leftist rhetoric and offered progressive policies in exchange for support from radical groups that included socialists, worker's rights groups, and even the American Communist Party.

The Great Depression hit the U.S. harder than any country with the exception of Germany, yet no significant socialist, communist, or radical leftist third party emerged, because FDR co-opted their rhetoric to preserve the capitalist system. Roosevelt once said, "I’m the best friend the profit system ever had."

While the rest of the world was experiencing radical shifts to the fascist right or the communist left America emerged from the Great Depression as the most antistatist country in the world.

[QUOTE=Rotlant]U SOUND LIKE A REPUBLICICAN NOT A democratE U PUSSY I THINK U ARE ONE OF THOESE BUSH LIKEN ASS KISSERS WE HEAR ABOUT AND THE FACT IS 1 BUSH WENT TO IRAQ FOR OIL 2 AND FOR REVENGE FOR HIS FATHER ANOTHER PUSSY 3 SO WHEN U SAY HE IS A GOOD PRESIDANT ALL U ARE DOING IS LOOKING FOR A SPOT ON GORGE BUSHES ASS THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS NOT ALREADY KISSED U TRADER :mp5:


I was talking to someone the other day about how IQ tests should be required for people who are getting the internet and plan to use it. This would have neatly screened your...what is this? Its not even a sentence. Go away.

Truman was the best Democratic President of the 20th century
What? I thought Repubs would hate him, because he founded the UN and got you into the Korean War.

What? I thought Repubs would hate him, because he founded the UN and got you into the Korean War.

Korean War was justified and it wasn't truman that founded it. It was FDR!

Maybe because he kept using the political suicide buzzword "exit strategy".

He wasn't pro-war. There's nothing you could say to make me believe that, especially after all the crap he said after the Vietnam War.

And it's not necessary to distort any of that televised speech he made during Vietnam, because it speaks for itself.

He's anti-war. He's Mr. Cut and Run.

Even Osama believed that. Or didn't you hear his take on what would be better for Americans?
Osama never talked about Kerry that way. He said neither Bush or Kerry mattered. Are you trying to lie to us?

I dont see how any political party's canidate winning re-election to the top office in the US can hurt its party.

Korean War was justified and it wasn't truman that founded it. It was FDR!
What? Explain this. Korea was a Japanese colony at the time FDR died!

What? Explain this. Korea was a Japanese colony at the time FDR died!

hmmm! I was talking that FDR helped create the UN. As for the Korean War it was the right thing to do and Truman was right to do what he did and the Korean War was also UN Sanctioned because the Soviet Union boycotted the vote and Taiwan, yes Taiwan, and not Mainland China was on the Security Council.

What I find ridiculous is that nobosy has any respect for the President of the United States. Bush has encouraged America to value God, country , family, the military, and has far higher moral standards than anyone on the LEft...who operate specifically to undermine all the values that the Right stands for They use the courts to undermine the popular will...what they cannot gain through the ballot box, they gain through the gavel.

What I find ridiculous is that nobosy has any respect for the President of the United States. Bush has encouraged America to value God, country , family, the military, and has far higher moral standards than anyone on the LEft...who operate specifically to undermine all the values that the Right stands for They use the courts to undermine the popular will...what they cannot gain through the ballot box, they gain through the gavel.
Welcome to the boards. I know you'll have fun here.

but first, give me your Political Compass (click it) (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) results.

Welcome to the boards. I know you'll have fun here.

but first, give me your Political Compass (click it) (http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) results.

You don't need to know that! Why do you want to know that? You don't even know mine! LOL

saying that Bush has done more damage to the republican party by winning is obserd.. The time in which bush has been in office Republicans have taken over and expanded their control in both the house and senate.. the republicans for all intensive terms have become more powerful... such to the point that the democrats are now being forced to move more to the right simply so they can come back into the mainstream .

You don't need to know that! Why do you want to know that? You don't even know mine! LOL
Give me yours too. It's for my survey. I'm compiling a chart of hundreds of NS players in order to see the distribution of ideologies. The liberal left appears to have a majority so I need you conservatives!

This is how the chart is shaping up right now:

http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc1.jpg

Give me yours too. It's for my survey. I'm compiling a chart of hundreds of NS players in order to see the distribution of ideologies. The liberal left appears to have a majority so I need you conservatives!

This is how the chart is shaping up right now:

http://www.iol.ie/~roto/nspolc1.jpg

Well duh the liberal left have the majority. I knew that along time ago

the republicans for all intensive terms have become more powerful... such to the point that the democrats are now being forced to move more to the right simply so they can come back into the mainstream .
You say that as if it is something new. Haven't the Dems been moving "to the right" (whatever you mean by that?) since about 1980?

Well duh the liberal left have the majority. I knew that along time ago
Yeah, me too, but I didn't know that they still had such a large majority. I was surpised by how many authoritarian leftists there were. Until a couple of months ago this site was pouring with equal numbers of conservatives. They seemed to all disappear once Bush won re-election.

Yeah, me too, but I didn't know that they still had such a large majority. I was surpised by how many authoritarian leftists there were. Until a couple of months ago this site was pouring with equal numbers of conservatives. They seemed to all disappear once Bush won re-election.

Give them a couple of more months! They'll be back! They need something to get their blood boiling to start spouting off on here again.

Me? I'm conservative! I won't deny it but I also have the ability too look at both sides and then form an honest opinion. Can't say the same for some of my conservative colleagues and sure as hell cant say the same for most liberals on here.

You say that as if it is something new. Haven't the Dems been moving "to the right" (whatever you mean by that?) since about 1980?
Mostly true. There's still some old-school liberals, but in general both parties are to the right of where they were before Reagan.

Mostly true. There's still some old-school liberals, but in general both parties are to the right of where they were before Reagan.
Do you think both parties are still moving to the right? (I wonder if it is possible for Republicans to get much further at all?)

Do you think both parties are still moving to the right? (I wonder if it is possible for Republicans to get much further at all?)
Depends. Socially, I think the Democrats are still moving to the right, from the (American) left, to a more moderate position. The main movement over the past 20 years for Democrats has been economic, from people like Johnson and Carter to Clinton. Now some Democrats appear to be mediating their stance on issues like abortion, not necessarily to become pro-life but to at least accept pro-lifers. Some Republicans appear to be doing the opposite, because their base is larger now. Due to the popularity of many liberal Republicans, though, it isn't too much of a problem now.

What I find ridiculous is that nobosy has any respect for the President of the United States. Bush has encouraged America to value God, country , family, the military, and has far higher moral standards than anyone on the LEft...who operate specifically to undermine all the values that the Right stands for They use the courts to undermine the popular will...what they cannot gain through the ballot box, they gain through the gavel.

GOD!!!!! Ever heard of seperation of church and state! The pres. is not supposed to preach religion.




Anyway Both Democrats and republicans suck. VOTE LIBRETARIAN! This nation was founded on freedom, and I would like to reembrace them. check out the libbretarian website. And break our stupid two party system.

Corection: one party system, democrats and Republicans are so close now, I can't tell the differance.

GOD!!!!! Ever heard of seperation of church and state! The pres. is not supposed to preach religion.




Anyway Both Democrats and republicans suck. VOTE LIBRETARIAN! This nation was founded on freedom, and I would like to reembrace them. check out the libbretarian website. And break our stupid two party system.

Corection: one party system, democrats and Republicans are so close now, I can't tell the differance.
Some of us can tell the difference. Which is why us democrats don't like Republicans acting like Christian coalition stoodges. Also dislike Bushes policies that are bad in nature.

What? I thought Repubs would hate him, because he founded the UN and got you into the Korean War.

The idea of the UN was a good one. It had laudable goals and one of them was to help settle disputes and keep they world out of war. Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way.

Truman did not get us into the Korean War, the North Koreans and China did that. In fact, that war was a UN war.

One of the reasons I like and respect Truman is he was a no nonsense President. He took responsibility for his actions and he took action. Remember "The buck stops here"? As I recall he also took on the unions. I think he was more concerned about doing what was right and not all that concerned with his image or what history would say about him.

saying that Bush has done more damage to the republican party by winning is obserd.. The time in which bush has been in office Republicans have taken over and expanded their control in both the house and senate.. the republicans for all intensive terms have become more powerful... such to the point that the democrats are now being forced to move more to the right simply so they can come back into the mainstream .

Not to be overly critical, but punctuation and capitalization could remarkably improve my comprehension of what you are saying. I find that typing it in Word, running spell and grammar check, and then cutting and pasting helps tremendously.

Well duh the liberal left have the majority. I knew that along time ago

Maybe in NS, but in real life they lost the election. :) :)

Maybe in NS, but in real life they lost the election. :) :)

True!