NationStates Jolt Archive

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"

If theres any game show host people should be taking advice from, it's clearly this fine individual.

http://www.campaign.uottawa.ca/images/m_alex_trebek_big.jpg

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"

You put the wrong "there", its "their"! ;) :p :D

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"

Please, for the sake of The Cause of Financial Freedom, learn the difference between "there" and "their"

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"

Oh and just to get this started, there is a difference between flip flopping on a matter of opinion and lieing about your initial reasons for war.

OMG you people cant get over alittle spelling error! For crying out loud!


And the liberal twisting has already begun....

So he "lied" about why we went to war. You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything! Lets see....would i rather go with a guy who messed up once or go with a guy who likes both sides of the fence and hopes over it whenever he fancies....

OMG you people cant get over alittle spelling error! For crying out loud!


And the liberal twisting has already begun....

So he "lied" about why we went to war. You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything! Lets see....would i rather go with a guy who messed up once or go with a guy who likes both sides of the fence and hopes over it whenever he fancies....

Ahem, i was being sarcastic about the spelling, i know i have done it enough times before. :D

Ah, but one lie is now killing people (rightly or wrongly, i'm not going to comment on the war) and the flip flop hurt no one.

When Liberals called Bush a liar and a flip flopper, Conservatives were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Kerry flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's Conservatives were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Con and you can never actually win a debate against one either.



:rolleyes:

And the liberal twisting has already begun....

So he "lied" about why we went to war. You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything! Lets see....would i rather go with a guy who messed up once or go with a guy who likes both sides of the fence and hopes over it whenever he fancies....

Depends on the news source you use. From the other side of the fence, it's a choice between 'a guy who messed up constantly or a guy who occasionally changes his policies in order to better represent the views of the American people'.


Let's get this straight once and for all: flip flopping is not a bad thing as long as you plan to follow through on the promises you make.

Regardless of wether or not I agree, I am always leary of any type of entertainer/performer who starts preaching politcis. I dont care what they think about anything in the real world. I am interested in the roles or music they play and thats about it. I dont care what Pat Sajak thinks even if I tend to be conservative. I also dont want to hear Ben Affleck's opinions. just continue "acting", if you can call it that. Dont try to be a pundit. Just entertain me-I dont care what you do in real life.

When Liberals called Bush a liar and a flip flopper, Conservatives were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Kerry flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's Conservatives were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Con and you can never actually win a debate against one either.



:rolleyes:



Yeah, I got two words for that.....*cough*BULL SHIT!


"Kerry - For and against everything!"

"You know your a liberal when you can look at your paystub and say "I still think we are being under taxed!"

Yeah, I got two words for that.....*cough*BULL SHIT!


"Kerry - For and against everything!"

"You know your a liberal when you can look at your paystub and say "I still think we are being under taxed!"
you do realise that what i was posted was taken from your post, with "Bush" and "Kerry", and "Liberal" and "Conservative" just switched around?

Since when is the political opinion of the host of "Wheel of Fortune" relevant?

I got a few words as well (where did you go to school?)

Alex *fucking* Trebek

Send Pat Sajackass to hell in a handbasket and get THE man in here.

The only positive thing Pat Sajak did for the world was point the camera's in Vanna's direction.

Ahem, i was being sarcastic about the spelling, i know i have done it enough times before. :D

Ah, but one lie is now killing people (rightly or wrongly, i'm not going to comment on the war) and the flip flop hurt no one.

You realize that this is only because he was not given the opportunity, right?

You realize that this is only because he was not given the opportunity, right?

Yeah I know that, i just like prodding the troll :D

Since when is the political opinion of the host of "Wheel of Fortune" relevant?


Gee I dont know....since when was the political opinion of Green day relevant? Oh, but thats different because there liberal right? Dont deny it! Libs went nuts over that and rallied behind it! and Eminem's "Mosh" too! This is just more proof of liberal twisting!

Gee I dont know....since when was the political opinion of Green day relevant? Oh, but thats different because there liberal right? Dont deny it! Libs went nuts over that and rallied behind it! and Eminem's "Mosh" too! This is just more proof of liberal twisting!

*Prods troll*

See it rocks. :D

Oh, and the flip flop hurt no one? What if Kerry did get elected? We would have no clue where he would stand on the issues! He was hoping over the fence wheever he felt the need to. Instead of sticking to his guns and holding strong! For all we know we could still be in the war if Kerry was president. Or hell, maybe we would have pulled out but then gone to war with some other country! We dont know because Kerry has no idea either!

Oh and just to get this started, there is a difference between flip flopping on a matter of opinion and lieing about your initial reasons for war.

no there isn't.

if you bear false witness about what you believe, that is lying. Kerry fashioned different opinions depending on whom he was talking to... as opposed to telling them what he really thought.

hmmmm... nice rationalization though: my party's guy didn't lie while yours did.

Gee I dont know....since when was the political opinion of Green day relevant? Oh, but thats different because there liberal right? Dont deny it! Libs went nuts over that and rallied behind it! and Eminem's "Mosh" too! This is just more proof of liberal twisting!

"There" - Represents a place. "I am going to stand over there."
"Their" - Ownership. "John and Margaret live in that house, that is their house."
"They're" - They are. "They're going to the shop."

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"

A few minor points-
1) Of course Kerry flip-flopped. He's a politician. It's what they do.
2) Bush didn't flip-flop. He said you were going to war because of WMD's. When WMD's weren't found, he said it was for other reasons. It's a blatant lie, but it's also to be expected. He's a politician.
Quite frankly, I don't know how the world's most important, most powerful country ended up with a choice between a slightly moronic social conservative and a boring political opportunist like Kerry. There were plenty of Republicans who would make better presidents than Bush (Rice, Powell, McCain) and plenty of Democrats who would be better than Kerry.

Oh, and do you honestly think you can win a debate against a die-hard conservative either? Of course not- that's why they're called "die-hard".

no there isn't.

if you bear false witness about what you believe, that is lying. Kerry fashioned different opinions depending on whom he was talking to... as opposed to telling them what he really thought.

hmmmm... nice rationalization though: my party's guy didn't lie while yours did.

As G.W. can never be accused of that? Please...

I'm not going to hold one over the other, in my book they are both as bad as each other.

better cover its/it's and your/you're while we're at it:

it's = it is (it's a great day!)
its = possession (the dog ate its bone)

you're = you are (you're cool)
your = possession (your food will be ready in just a moment, sir)

Quite frankly, I don't know how the world's most important, most powerful country ended up with a choice between a slightly moronic social conservative and a boring political opportunist like Kerry. There were plenty of Republicans who would make better presidents than Bush (Rice, Powell, McCain) and plenty of Democrats who would be better than Kerry.

Oh, and do you honestly think you can win a debate against a die-hard conservative either? Of course not- that's why they're called "die-hard".

Bingo, we have a winner! :D

Oh, and the flip flop hurt no one? What if Kerry did get elected? We would have no clue where he would stand on the issues! He was hoping over the fence wheever he felt the need to. Instead of sticking to his guns and holding strong! For all we know we could still be in the war if Kerry was president. Or hell, maybe we would have pulled out but then gone to war with some other country! We dont know because Kerry has no idea either!

One thing in favour of Kerry -who I don't like- he is a war veteran. I doubt he would be quite as casual towards war as either Bush or clinton, since he actually knows what it is like to have to kill someone to save his own life.He certainly may have been cavalier on other issues, but I doubt he would have been on war.

As G.W. can never be accused of that? Please...

I'm not going to hold one over the other, in my book they are both as bad as each other.

Bush could have used WMD, Saddam, or the War on Terror as reasons for invading and liberating Iraq.

He publicized the wrong one while all three, doubtlessly, were in mind.

...which might make him STUPID, but not a liar.

One thing in favour of Kerry -who I don't like- he is a war veteran. I doubt he would be quite as casual towards war as either Bush or clinton, since he actually knows what it is like to have to kill someone to save his own life.He certainly may have been cavalier on other issues, but I doubt he would have been on war.

Did he ever kill anyone? I know he got a purple heart for receiving rice-slivers (actually was rice) in his ass.

Then he came back and blasphemed the effort. That was far worse than slithering his way to pueple hearts for scratches and rice-slivers.

hehe

Bush could have used WMD, Saddam, or the War on Terror as reasons for invading and liberating Iraq.

He publicized the wrong one while all three, doubtlessly, were in mind.

However the first one was a lie, which makes him no worse and no better than Kerry. As he did it wrongly, empasizing it as truth, and despite being proven wrong since (as with our own PM), he has not been harmed because of it.

Did he ever kill anyone? I know he got a purple heart for receiving rice-slivers (actually was rice) in his ass.

Then he came back and blasphemed the effort. That was far worse than slithering his way to pueple hearts for scratches and rice-slivers.

hehe

After the South Vietnamese troops and a team of three U.S. Army advisors that were with them had disembarked at the ambush site, Kerry's boat and another headed up river to look for the fleeing enemy. The two boats came under fire from a Viet Cong B-40 rocket-propelled grenade, shattering the crew cabin windows of PCF-94. Kerry ordered the boats to turn and charge the second ambush site. As they reached the shore, a Viet Cong soldier jumped out of the brush, carrying a loaded B-40 launcher. With the enemy soldier only a short distance away from the boat and crew, forward gunner Tommy Belodeau shot him in the leg with the boat's 7.62x51 caliber M-60 machine gun. "Tommy in the pit tank winged him in the side of the legs as he was coming across," Fred Short said. "But the guy didn't miss a stride. I mean, he did not break stride." Belodeau's machine gun jammed after he fired, and while fellow crewmate Michael Medeiros attempted to fire, he was unable to do so. Kerry leaped ashore and, followed by Medeiros, pursued the man and killed him.

This was why he was awarded the Silver Star.

Thank God Frangland is here to back me up on these while I'm gone! Usually I dont find any Conservative help here!

Thank God Frangland is here to back me up on these while I'm gone! Usually I dont find any Conservative help here!

By the way, you mentioned that you've debated here before...you wouldn't happen to be MunkeBrain, would you?

However the first one was a lie, which makes him no worse and no better than Kerry. As he did it wrongly, empasizing it as truth, and despite being proven wrong since (as with our own PM), he has not been harmed because of it.

If you DON'T KNOW, is it a lie?

If I tell you, for instance, that the Yankees are going to beat The Red Sox... when the result is a Red Sox victory... have i lied to you?

Or was I simply wrong?

And I still wonder about that, given how huge Iraq is and all the places WMDs could be hidden. It is not possible that we've searched the entire country, now, is it?

Oh, and the flip flop hurt no one? What if Kerry did get elected?!
Then we'd have exactly what we have now--a big-government warmongerer who supports everything Bush does, except for the occasional wealth-redistribution program where the only difference is Kerry's wanting even more taxed-and-spent.

You should have voted for Michael Badnarik.

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

Subjective and very wrong.

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

Um, When did Liberals say Kerry was changing his stance when time calls? I have never, ever, ever, ever heard them say that...only Conservatives do! This means you probably trolling.

Bush did "flip flop" and than lie later. You do get straight answers from Liberals. Conservatives just don't listen.
You ca'nt win because you are distorting the facts.

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"
What is wrong with a Donkey? Some of us like Eeyore, in fact he was my second favorite character on Winnie the Pooh.

Thank God Frangland is here to back me up on these while I'm gone! Usually I dont find any Conservative help here!

I notice he didn't realize that Kerry actually had killed someone- which implies to me that rather than looking for facts, he reads right-wing literature.
Anything a Republican (or Fox News) says about Kerry should be questioned, just as anything a Democrat (or other member of the "bleeding-heart liberal media") should also be questioned.
I would advise anyone here to look up the Wikipedia article on Kerry's war service. The simple fact of the matter is, Bush's own service (Air NAtional Guard) will never match up to Kerry's, but then it shouldn't have to. War service is hardly the only measuring stick of a president.

Donkey: Works hard alongside the everday man.

Elephant: Never forgets corporate friends. Could care less about anything else.

There are probably many politicians that enter that world with an open mind and good intentions. Many are self made-men that already have a measure of sucess and security and would stand to make more in the private sector, but choose to get into politics anyway. Maybe they want power and influence too, I dont know. Somewhere along the line, they get people to advise them. These people have agendas. They listen to both sides of an argument and try to make everyone happy. They listen to polls and try to make decisions based on them. They have to pay attention to thise that contribute to their campaigns. The worst thing they can do is actually say exactly and clearly what they mean. Most will speak carefully rehersed speeches, non commital, for fear of who will hold what they said against them down the line.
I tend to be conservative. I understand that people on both sides will distort the truth, waffle and even employ "spin doctors" who will direct the spotlight where they deem necessary and confuse the general population with smoke, mirrors and BS. I dont trust any of them. The very nature of politics forces those who start honest to be dishonest in some way.

One thing in favour of Kerry -who I don't like- he is a war veteran. I doubt he would be quite as casual towards war as either Bush or clinton, since he actually knows what it is like to have to kill someone to save his own life.He certainly may have been cavalier on other issues, but I doubt he would have been on war.


War Veteran????? He was in Nam for 3....count them 1 2 3 months. That ain't much of a war vereran. Ask the guys that were there for a year or two if three months counts for anything over there.....


the Grokdoc

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Yes that's right, all conservatives are ignorant, anti-intellectual, bigoted, money-worshipping, militaristic morons.

And all Liberals are baby-killing, whining, pacifistic, communist, criminal-loving, terrorist supporters.

See, aren't idiotic generalizations fun?

War service is hardly the only measuring stick of a president.


I agree. I personally prefer those who have served in the military, because to me, it shows a certain level of patriotism and sacrafice. But its a small part of a larger picture.

War Veteran????? He was in Nam for 3....count them 1 2 3 months. That ain't much of a war vereran. Ask the guys that were there for a year or two if three months counts for anything over there.....


the Grokdoc

Compare it to Bush's service some time.
Kerry killed, saw people killed and had is life endangered.
All told, John Kerry was on active duty in the U.S. Navy for three years and eight months, from August 1966 until March 1970. He lost five friends in the war, including Yale classmate Richard Pershing, who was killed in action on February 17, 1968.

I agree. I personally prefer those who have served in the military, because to me, it shows a certain level of patriotism and sacrafice. But its a small part of a larger picture.

Indeed. Many brilliant generals are poor politicians, and many brilliant politicians are poor generals. I think the most important part is that it shows a willingness to serve, and is indicative of character, but it isn't a true measure of political leadership or diplomatic ability.

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!
Setting the rules? Isn't it Republicans that control the US Government?

Attacking straw men is not unique to liberals. Conservatives do it too.

Donkey: Works hard alongside the everday man.

Elephant: Never forgets corporate friends. Could care less about anything else.

...corporate friends who so happen to employ the everyday man... lol.

besides, the everyday man's taxes will be lower under a republican anyway. mine sure are.

it's the greatest trick the democrats have devised: how to convince the working class that democrats are on their side even though they'll HURT the businesses these people work for and may cost them their jobs... and will tax them more, to boot.

OMG you people cant get over alittle spelling error! For crying out loud!


And the liberal twisting has already begun....

So he "lied" about why we went to war. You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything! Lets see....would i rather go with a guy who messed up once or go with a guy who likes both sides of the fence and hopes over it whenever he fancies....Would you rather go with a guy "who messed up once"...

Once?

You honestly believe that George W. Bush has only messed up "once"?

My god, no wonder you and those like you re-elected that idiot.

And even if I were to concede that he "only messed up once" (which I certainly do NOT), that once was what the dimwitted cretin used to start a war.

And get a whole lot of people killed.

And there you are defending him. And castigating Kerry, all democrats, and all liberals.

Because we don't agree with a game show host. Or an idiot who started a war for the ... oops... wrong reason.

It's worse than talking to a wall, because one doesnt' expect a wall to come up with an intelligent response.

besides, the everyday man's taxes will be lower under a republican anyway. mine sure are.


It's always been a source of confusion to me that americans are so concerned with low taxes. In Canada, where our taxes are much higher, we still have lower rates of poverty and better education and health care systems.
Perhaps it is a cultural inheritance; that the bottom line is and always must be the bottom line.

Indeed. Many brilliant generals are poor politicians, and many brilliant politicians are poor generals. I think the most important part is that it shows a willingness to serve, and is indicative of character, but it isn't a true measure of political leadership or diplomatic ability.


Well said. In some instances it can help to define character. I think Bob Dole and John McCain both served proudly and are good men. I dont know what type of president either would make, but its my feeling they're as close to honest as you can get in the political world and would act in a way they felt best for the country.

Donkey: Works hard alongside the everday man.

Elephant: Never forgets corporate friends. Could care less about anything else.
(Assuming that donkey=democrats and elephant=republicans)

That's pretty petty in its partisanship. I'm sure you're right about the Republicans but not about the Democrats. I am skeptical about them being a party of people who "Work hard alongside the everday man."

Well said. In some instances it can help to define character. I think Bob Dole and John McCain both served proudly and are good men. I dont know what type of president either would make, but its my feeling they're as close to honest as you can get in the political world and would act in a way they felt best for the country.

Absolutely. If I were American, I would vote for John McCain. I agree that he is as close to honest as you'll get, and he seems to be both smart and capable.

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!
Hmm. So he admitted that he lied and didn't have evidence of weapons ot mass destruction in Iraq and was just saying there were to get in there to get the "bad guys"? Did he actually admit that there weren't any ties to Al Quaeda before the invasion of Iraq?

Did he actually admit he was wrong? *gasp*

It's always been a source of confusion to me that americans are so concerned with low taxes. In Canada, where our taxes are much higher, we still have lower rates of poverty and better education and health care systems.
Perhaps it is a cultural inheritance; that the bottom line is and always must be the bottom line.Well, as a liberal democrate in the US, I think it's something else. Quite a few of us think that there are more important things than the bottom line. Quite a few of us think there should be universal health care in the US. Quite a few of us think there should be other socialist-type benefits for the less fortunate here in the US. Quite a few of us are NOT at all happy with the recent slash-and-burn through the Welfare system we did have, or the failure of Universal Health Care every time it is proposed.

Quite a few of us. But, not quite 51%.

I think that here in the US most (not all) "conservatives" (in quotes, because what the hell do they think they're "conserving"?) and republicans - it's usually conservative republicans, but not always - are on the "Have" side of the "Haves / Have nots" divide. They got lucky in the lottery of life, and our society and out capitalist system in one way or another have rewarded them financially. They tend to think this is something they earned, and do not want the government (society) to tax it back from them and share it with their less fortunate neighbors. To an extent they are right - they "earned" it. But if society were set up a slightly different way...? They don't see the role that pure luck has to play in where they happened to be born, into what society/culture, and to whom, as well as what they happened to choose to do (or were already wealthy enough to do because of the circumstances of their birth) in relation to those who received a less valuable start in life, or made an unfortunate choice, or simply weren't lucky enough to be born with the same financial, mental, or physical resources.

These "conservative" republicans (what they're really "conserving", I think, is their money) do not have poverty, the do have medical care, and they see it as up to them to decide if they've contributed enough to the less fortunate, and not up to society.

They have, I think, a little unpublished motto: "I've got mine, screw you."

Well, as a liberal democrate in the US, I think it's something else. Quite a few of us think that there are more important things than the bottom line. Quite a few of us think there should be universal health care in the US. Quite a few of us think there should be other socialist-type benefits for the less fortunate here in the US. Quite a few of us are NOT at all happy with the recent slash-and-burn through the Welfare system we did have, or the failure of Universal Health Care every time it is proposed.

Quite a few of us. But, not quite 51%.



That's what I mean. It isn't viewed as a priority by the majority. In Canada, the whiff of possibly privatizing some of medicare sealed the fate of the Conservatives in the last election, even though their leader had not made any statements to that effect. In Canada our "social safety net" is quite possibly our most prized possession. I just wonder at the cultural differences, since there is so little geographic distance between Canada and the US.

Pat Sajak On Liberals

Pat Sajak has the intellectual agility of a small soapdish. Anyone that would be inspired by that piece of inane commentary is clinically braindead.

By the way, you mentioned that you've debated here before...you wouldn't happen to be MunkeBrain, would you?


No, I am not MunkeBrain. But that name is very familiar. Did he used to come here alot? Anyways, I use to be Fascist Emerica. But I have recently turned away from Nazism and have become more of a Moderate Fascist or as some would say an Ultra Conservative.

Pat Sajak has the intellectual agility of a small soapdish. Anyone that would be inspired by that piece of inane commentary is clinically braindead.

Not knowing Pat Sajak personally, I can't comment on his mental agility. He certainly has the right to his opinion, and I'm not sure why his comments were siezed on so ferociously by our fascist freind here.

Oh and just to get this started, there is a difference between flip flopping on a matter of opinion and lieing about your initial reasons for war.
True, but Bush didn't lie about his reasons for war. He lied about the yellowcake, but other than that he didn't lie. He was wrong about iraqi WMDs, although that is still up for debate, however he was acting at the time on the endorsements of the CIA, MI5( I think, not exactly sure if it was 5), Russian intelligence etc.. It also wasn't the only reason he outlined for going to war, but because that was the one most likely to agitate the american public( which, like most civilian masses, is notoriously short-sight to anything that doesn't involve direct danger to them, long or short term.) So that was what he expounded on. It wasn't however, a lie.

That's what I mean. It isn't viewed as a priority by the majority. In Canada, the whiff of possibly privatizing some of medicare sealed the fate of the Conservatives in the last election, even though their leader had not made any statements to that effect. In Canada our "social safety net" is quite possibly our most prized possession. I just wonder at the cultural differences, since there is so little geographic distance between Canada and the US.
As far as I was concerned, Harper's campaign against equal rights for homosexuals (prior to the merging ot the conservative parties) was what sealed the fate of the conservative party.

True, but Bush didn't lie about his reasons for war. He lied about the yellowcake, but other than that he didn't lie. He was wrong about iraqi WMDs, although that is still up for debate, however he was acting at the time on the endorsements of the CIA, MI5( I think, not exactly sure if it was 5), Russian intelligence etc.. It also wasn't the only reason he outlined for going to war, but because that was the one most likely to agitate the american public( which, like most civilian masses, is notoriously short-sight to anything that doesn't involve direct danger to them, long or short term.) So that was what he expounded on. It wasn't however, a lie.

An interesting side point on Russian intelligence- in his book The Secret History of the Iraq War Josef Bodansky (hardly a lefty) claims the Russians had plans to stage a coup to dethrone Saddam, but Bush opposed it because he didn't want increased Russian influence in that region- he wanted American influence.

As far as I was concerned, Harper's campaign against equal rights for homosexuals (prior to the merging ot the conservative parties) was what sealed the fate of the conservative party.

No, the latest polls show Canadians equally split on gay marriage. It was the fear mongering the Liberals used not just on gay marriage, but on abortion, health care and ties to the US.
Not saying harper's a moderate, but a lot of what was said about him is untrue.

Why is it when most of you disagree with the opposite side, the vast majority of your responses criticize their intelligence?

Also, even if you are liberal or conservative, why can't you accept the fact that everyone makes mistakes? You are so quick to jump on the others mistakes. If the President (whatever affiliation) makes the correct choice 50% of the time, we should applaud them.

Here is what we should look at. I could care less what the people of America want. I want someone that does something becuase they think it is right. Not because the latest polls say this is important or that is important.

Yes the President probably should come out and say we aren't going to find what the world will classify as WMD. I was in Iraq and I know they had them. I helped bury them, but they weren't in a form that you that was deliverable tomorrow. So you critics of WMD will probably say that it wasn't a WMD.... What do you classify as WMD? There's the question.

However, the american people are so damn opionated and quick to judge. The fact is that the general public doesnt have and probably will not have all the information on the reasons for going to war. (Oh just so you know reasons are opinions and aren't infailable based on current information)

I want someone that stands firm in their descision and makes it right. Now maybe Bush isn't the guy to do that but at least he isn't so influenced by polls and statistics in my opinon (notice that isn't a fact just my opinion)

Don't get so upset over opinons...

The Optic

Bush could have used WMD, Saddam, or the War on Terror as reasons for invading and liberating Iraq.

He publicized the wrong one while all three, doubtlessly, were in mind.

...which might make him STUPID, but not a liar.
Huh. so he declares war on a country that has no ties to al quaeda and a dictator that's not really as bad as many others out there because of that, yet he says it's because there's wmd, making false accusations along the way.

During the elections, the neocons were crying about Hollywood, telling them to mind their own business and stay out of politics. These same neocons are now embracing Pat Sajak. Nice flip-flop, boys.

I don't give a damn what any celebrity has to say on the subject of politics. They're not any more authoritative on the subject than the kid who bags my groceries. Sajak is an overpaid used car salesman... spin the f-ing wheel and shut up.

I don't give a damn what any celebrity has to say on the subject of politics. They're not any more authoritative on the subject than the kid who bags my groceries. Sajak is an overpaid used car salesman... spin the f-ing wheel and shut up.

I'm half in agreement with that.
1) Celebrities have exactly no more qualifications in politics than you or I. When people turn to them to support their views, it is a poor, ineffective way of making their point, and should be ridiculed.
2) Celebrities have every right to say what they think. Freedom of speech. The problem is that the media is stupid to go publicizing it, as it is valueless. Of course, the reason they publicize it is that it leads to debate, and ratings. It's just stupid that so much value is placed on their words.

During the elections, the neocons were crying about Hollywood, telling them to mind their own business and stay out of politics. These same neocons are now embracing Pat Sajak. Nice flip-flop, boys.

I don't give a damn what any celebrity has to say on the subject of politics. They're not any more authoritative on the subject than the kid who bags my groceries. Sajak is an overpaid used car salesman... spin the f-ing wheel and shut up.

This is pretty much my opinion too. People in the entertainment industry have already proven they're whores, for the most part. I dont care what they think or feel-just entertain me. Stop making believe you're of the cultural elite now that you've made a name for yourself. You made it entertaining, not by your own personal ideas.

Why is it when most of you disagree with the opposite side, the vast majority of your responses criticize their intelligence?Because the vast majority find it hard to admit that an opinion contrary to their own could have been generated by a person with a brain.

Also, even if you are liberal or conservative, why can't you accept the fact that everyone makes mistakes? You are so quick to jump on the others mistakes. If the President (whatever affiliation) makes the correct choice 50% of the time, we should applaud them.If someone has an ego big enough to think he/she should be in charge of this country, and if that same someone has the entire resources of the Federal Government to gather information to be used making decisions, and is only right 50% of the time, he or she should step down. You are almost guaranteed to be right 50% of the time if you flip a coin.

Here is what we should look at. I could care less what the people of America want. I want someone that does something becuase they think it is right. Not because the latest polls say this is important or that is important.Careful how you phrase that, though. We need someone who will do what they think is right - BECAUSE they think it is right for the people. What they shouldn't be using the polls for is to determine what they need to say to get elected.

Yes the President probably should come out and say we aren't going to find what the world will classify as WMD. I was in Iraq and I know they had them. I helped bury them, but they weren't in a form that you that was deliverable tomorrow. So you critics of WMD will probably say that it wasn't a WMD.... What do you classify as WMD? There's the question.What you describe is a WMD Program. What everyone was told was that there were actual WMD. A Weapon of Mass Destruction is a deliverable nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. A WMD Program is what you have from the time some idiot says, "Gee - let's make ourselves some weapons of mass destruction" through all the research and developement (and/or theft), up to the time an actual deliverable weapon exists in that idiots arsenal.

However, the american people are so damn opionated and quick to judge. The fact is that the general public doesnt have and probably will not have all the information on the reasons for going to war. (Oh just so you know reasons are opinions and aren't infailable based on current information)This is why the Congress should not have, and should never again, pass a law authorizing a President to go to war on their own volition. Congress should hold the power to declare war close to the vest, and demand thorough and valid reasons before sending the US Military into combat. People get killed in wars. LOTS of people. We must be much more careful about why we go to war than almost anything else - because lives of the number of lives that are in the balance.

I want someone that stands firm in their descision and makes it right. Now maybe Bush isn't the guy to do that but at least he isn't so influenced by polls and statistics in my opinon (notice that isn't a fact just my opinion)My opinion is that the reason Bush got elected is because his "handlers" DID pay such close attention to the polls and statistics, and made sure he constantly said exactly what he needed to in order to get more than 50% of the vote at the end.

As to not getting so upset over opinions...there really are only facts and opinions. And some of the opinions are...well...frankly, I have a very low opinion of some of the opinions...;)

I know this might be a stupid question, but- Did President Bush actually "lie" about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? I understood that this was intelligence supplied to him by those whose job it is to collect this info,verify and report it. In my opinion, I think he took their advice-becasue he is supposed to- and acted based on trusting that advice. I dont think he lied. Not that the outcome is any different.
I'm not being sarcastic and dont want to be attacked. I would just like a reasonable explanation, if someone has one.

I know this might be a stupid question, but- Did President Bush actually "lie" about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? I understood that this was intelligence supplied to him by those whose job it is to collect this info,verify and report it. In my opinion, I think he took their advice-becasue he is supposed to- and acted based on trusting that advice. I dont think he lied. Not that the outcome is any different.
I'm not being sarcastic and dont want to be attacked. I would just like a reasonable explanation, if someone has one.

This was my understanding as well. The outcome is the same, but someone always wants a scapegoat and so during election years the president always makes a great target.

I know this might be a stupid question, but- Did President Bush actually "lie" about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? I understood that this was intelligence supplied to him by those whose job it is to collect this info,verify and report it. In my opinion, I think he took their advice-becasue he is supposed to- and acted based on trusting that advice. I dont think he lied. Not that the outcome is any different.
I'm not being sarcastic and dont want to be attacked. I would just like a reasonable explanation, if someone has one.

My personal opinion is that Bush believed Iraq had WMD's.
However, I think pressure was put on the CIa and other agencies by people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and their ilk to interpret ambiguous data a certain way. Also, I believe that since Bush wanted Iraq to have WMD's, intelligence agents were under indirect pressure from him to interpet data in a certain way.

I know this might be a stupid question, but- Did President Bush actually "lie" about Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction? I understood that this was intelligence supplied to him by those whose job it is to collect this info,verify and report it. In my opinion, I think he took their advice-becasue he is supposed to- and acted based on trusting that advice. I dont think he lied. Not that the outcome is any different.
I'm not being sarcastic and dont want to be attacked. I would just like a reasonable explanation, if someone has one.
Bush operated on a predetermined course, giving excessive weight to intelligence that appeared to back up his desired outcome, and punishing dissenters. I'd say that qualifies as a form of lying. Had the intelligence community supported his position, that would be different... but the intelligence community largely disagreed with his conclusions.

As to not getting so upset over opinions...there really are only facts and opinions. And some of the opinions are...well...frankly, I have a very low opinion of some of the opinions...;)

Man, who decides what is fact and what is opinons. It is my personal beleif that most everything is an opinion. I just can't stand people saying this is a fact and that's a fact. This is proven and that's proven. Everythings an opinion.

The Optic

This was my understanding as well. The outcome is the same, but someone always wants a scapegoat and so during election years the president always makes a great target.


It would be so much more productive if both sides stopped wasting so much time, effort and resources trying to make each other look like the bad guy. It would be great if they werent being pulled and prodded in every direction by contributors and special interest groups. If they could be free to say what they mean, mean what they say and do what they say they are going to do without waiting for poll results. Its a shame that it takes a crisis for them to work together-ie: September 11th. As soon as that shock wears off, its business as usual-wasting our time and money, filling the news with BS and generally just making us all look stupid.

Yeah, I got two words for that.....*cough*BULL SHIT!

"Kerry - For and against everything!"

"You know your a liberal when you can look at your paystub and say "I still think we are being under taxed!"

Yeah, cause everyone knows it's pure bull shit to change your opinion on matters of national importance. Once you decide once, you should be stuck there forever, no matter how the world or yourself change(s).

I don't think I'm being undertaxed. I think the top 5% of the population and gigantic multinational companies are being undertaxed.

Kerry said too much, yes, and often spoke in a confusing manner. On the other hand, Bush never said a damn thing about any of his plans, except that he loved freedom and we needed to stay the course and his tax cuts were good, he swears. Seriously, name me the initiatives Bush laid out during the campaign? He only started pulling new ideas out of his ass after reelection when he supposedly had a humongous bag of political capital dumped into his lap. At least Kerry was bold enough to throw ideas out into the national forum without knowing that he controls the government and is supported by a majority of the nation.

My personal opinion is that Bush believed Iraq had WMD's.
However, I think pressure was put on the CIa and other agencies by people like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney and their ilk to interpret ambiguous data a certain way. Also, I believe that since Bush wanted Iraq to have WMD's, intelligence agents were under indirect pressure from him to interpet data in a certain way.


I dont doubt that at least on a subconscious level, many in the US administration wanted a good reason to attack Iraq and remove sadaam from power. I wonder if knowing what we know now about the tyranny, torture, murder and oppression of sadaam and his government, would have been enough to attack Iraq.

I am curious to see if any of the conservatives who readily call John Kerry a "flip-flopper" can actually identify and document instances where Kerry did, in fact, "flip-flop."

You might start by defining what exactly you consider a "flip-flop" and why it is bad.

I dont doubt that at least on a subconscious level, many in the US administration wanted a good reason to attack Iraq and remove sadaam from power. I wonder if knowing what we know now about the tyranny, torture, murder and oppression of sadaam and his government, would have been enough to attack Iraq.

No. It wouldn't be. I feel confident in making this statement because of Rwanda, the Congo and countless other incidents. Torture and oppression are not enough to justify US intervention. I don't know why, and I don't blame it on Bush alone. Clinton claims to have known nothing about Iraq, but declassified documents from the State Dept. show they predicted the deaths of "hundreds of thousands of people" in genocidal wars. Than Clinton refrained from using the word "genocide" so that the US would not be obligated to act.
First world indifference (and not just by the US) is a very real and serious problem.

OMG you people cant get over alittle spelling error! For crying out loud!


And the liberal twisting has already begun....

So he "lied" about why we went to war. You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything! Lets see....would i rather go with a guy who messed up once or go with a guy who likes both sides of the fence and hopes over it whenever he fancies....

Actually, us "libs" endorsed a person, who, as he got more information and experience, used it to make a more refined decision. You crazy conservatives are so stuck on this "flip-flopping" thing that you can't pull your heads out of your asses long enough to realize that our current US president actually IS a liar and tricked us all.

I don't accept him as a good leader at all, to be honest. :headbang:

Bush operated on a predetermined course, giving excessive weight to intelligence that appeared to back up his desired outcome, and punishing dissenters. I'd say that qualifies as a form of lying. Had the intelligence community supported his position, that would be different... but the intelligence community largely disagreed with his conclusions.

Thanks for explaining your opinion without hitting me over the head with it.Its certainly believable makes sense. I cant totally disagree.

So many things pointed to the fact that he did have WMDs. He had a history of using poison gas. He even had a general nicknamed "Chemical Ali". I dont think it takes a stretch of the imagination to think he had biological weapons. He routinely thumbed his nose at the UN inspectors.

Personally, I think if he did have WMDs that were functional, he likely would have released them on Israel as soon as he became aware that the US was going to attack. I also think he had plenty of time to hide or move things away from Iraq-I wouldnt be surprised if we learn someday that our good friends in Syria helped him with his shell game.

No. It wouldn't be. I feel confident in making this statement because of Rwanda, the Congo and countless other incidents. Torture and oppression are not enough to justify US intervention. I don't know why, and I don't blame it on Bush alone. Clinton claims to have known nothing about Iraq, but declassified documents from the State Dept. show they predicted the deaths of "hundreds of thousands of people" in genocidal wars. Than Clinton refrained from using the word "genocide" so that the US would not be obligated to act.
First world indifference (and not just by the US) is a very real and serious problem.


I know-there are refugees starving and dying of disease all around the planet-carrying all they own on their heads-forced out of their homes by military despots. I guess "slaughter" goes in one ear and out the other in this day and age. "Genocide" on the other hand, carries more weight and almost demands action.
I also dont think that Rwanda or the Congo have any resources we need and as long as they dont have WMDs, most dont care if their goverments are friends with us or not. People have also become callous to video of shriveled children, sitting in the dust with flies all around them or crying mothers carrying dead babies. You just turn the channel and its like it went away.

I know-there are refugees starving and dying of disease all around the planet-carrying all they own on their heads-forced out of their homes by military despots. I guess "slaughter" goes in one ear and out the other in this day and age. "Genocide" on the other hand, carries more weight and almost demands action.
I also dont think that Rwanda or the Congo have any resources we need and as long as they dont have WMDs, most dont care if their goverments are friends with us or not. People have also become callous to video of shriveled children, sitting in the dust with flies all around them or crying mothers carrying dead babies. You just turn the channel and its like it went away.

I agree. I think people hear about it so much they become desensitized. I know I was. Then I read Romeo Dallaire's (the UN force commander in Rwanda) Shake Hands With The Devil, and my opinion changed. Everyone should read it because it isn't possible to look away from those problems once you see them from that perspective.

The whole "flip-flop" thing was just a good example of indiscriminate attack politics, coupled by a lazy media who didn't bother to find out what was behind the allegation.

John Kerry voted against an $87B appropriation bill, of which $300M was reserved to buy armor upgrades for the troops in the field (several months too late). So the Republicans jumped all over him for voting against the soldiers in the field... at which point Kerry made the statement "I voted FOR the bill before I voted against it." So the evil trolls in the Republican party packaged their ad campaign around that, and the mindless drones on Faux News began repeating the "flip-flop" mantra in their sleep.

So what the hell was Kerry talking about? He was talking about a bill that had just been defeated before the controversial $87B appropriation bill, one which he had co-authored. It appropriated the full $87B, including the $300M for armor (and you can see what a tiny percentage of the appropriation had to do with armor, but the Republicans would have you think it all went to protecting the troops), but included a requirement that Bush's tax relief for the very rich be rolled back.

You see, Kerry supported the appropriation, but got the idea, completely alien to Bush and his cronies, that the government should actually include a way to pay for it. Bush seems to think that running up the deficit to record numbers is a great idea... forgetting the fact that it was Reagan's insane deficits, inherited by his father, which plunged the economy into a deep recession and handed the government over to the Democrats in the first place.

So Kerry voted against the version of the appropriation bill which did NOT contain funding to support it. This does not make him a flip-flopper. It makes him fiscally responsible.

The whole "flip-flop" thing was just a good example of indiscriminate attack politics, coupled by a lazy media who didn't bother to find out what was behind the allegation.

John Kerry voted against an $87B appropriation bill, of which $300M was reserved to buy armor upgrades for the troops in the field (several months too late). So the Republicans jumped all over him for voting against the soldiers in the field... at which point Kerry made the statement "I voted FOR the bill before I voted against it." So the evil trolls in the Republican party packaged their ad campaign around that, and the mindless drones on Faux News began repeating the "flip-flop" mantra in their sleep.

So what the hell was Kerry talking about? He was talking about a bill that had just been defeated before the controversial $87B appropriation bill, one which he had co-authored. It appropriated the full $87B, including the $300M for armor (and you can see what a tiny percentage of the appropriation had to do with armor, but the Republicans would have you think it all went to protecting the troops), but included a requirement that Bush's tax relief for the very rich be rolled back.

You see, Kerry supported the appropriation, but got the idea, completely alien to Bush and his cronies, that the government should actually include a way to pay for it. Bush seems to think that running up the deficit to record numbers is a great idea... forgetting the fact that it was Reagan's insane deficits, inherited by his father, which plunged the economy into a deep recession and handed the government over to the Democrats in the first place.

So Kerry voted against the version of the appropriation bill which did NOT contain funding to support it. This does not make him a flip-flopper. It makes him fiscally responsible.

Excellent point.

And none of the "Kerry is 'flip-flopper' crowd" have bothered to answer my challenge.

Facts are so inconvenient. They interfere with dogma.

No, I am not MunkeBrain. But that name is very familiar. Did he used to come here alot? Anyways, I use to be Fascist Emerica. But I have recently turned away from Nazism and have become more of a Moderate Fascist or as some would say an Ultra Conservative.
Did you change your name after yor thread to defend Tom DeLay ended up destroying your credibility.

Did you change your name after yor thread to defend Tom DeLay ended up destroying your credibility.

Fascist emerica never had much credibility to destroy.

I want my minute back for reading Pat Sajak's comments.

I am curious to see if any of the conservatives who readily call John Kerry a "flip-flopper" can actually identify and document instances where Kerry did, in fact, "flip-flop."

You might start by defining what exactly you consider a "flip-flop" and why it is bad.There are two things the conservatives like to cite as examples of John Kerry's flip-flopping.

1. He went to Vietnam, and then came back and campaigned against that war. Imagine that - somebody who got sent into that particular hell, and decided it might be a good idea to stop sending people there.

2. He voted in favor of that stupid law Congress passed to allow George Dubya to start a war on his own volition, and then we Dubya did start such a war, Kerry was against it. Imagine that - not liking the reasons Dubya gave for starting a war.

I'll leave the whole Vietnam thing alone - as far as I'm concerned, he did the right thing.

As to the Iraq War, first of all the Congress should be, at the very least, docked their pay for the number of days they debated, and then voted, on giving the President authority to start a war if he was in the mood to. That was just plain stupid on their part. Given that, when Dubya did start his war, why can't a member of Congress object to the reasons? If he truly thinks the reasons were insufficient, then he is doing the right thing by saying so.

Of course, he did the wrong thing by voting to give the President the power to start a war. And that goes for ANY President. I hope Congress learned never to do that again. Although, frankly, most of them don't seem to bright to me - and most of them seem much more interested in how to get elected or re-elected than in actually doing something good or right for this country

You libs endorsed a person who flip flopped on everything!

I didn't. Kerry sucks. Don't generalize.

This was in yesterdays edition of USA Today. I couldnt not pass up the chace to post here with the liberal majority here!

Pat Sajak's most recent post on his Blog site.

"Every time I argue with a Liberal, I'm reminded of quarrels I used to have with my parents. The battles never seemed fair because my folks decided what the rules were and what was out of bounds." (Posted April 1)

Now with many "debates" under my belt (under a diff user name) here with liberals I couldnt agree more! All they do is twist and turn everything you say into something different!

When Conservatives called Kerry a liar and a flip flopper, Liberals were quick to defend him saying that he was only changing his stance as all people do when the time calls. BUT....when Bush flip flopped saying the war is on terror and not because of WMD's liberals were quick to call him a liar! How can that be? Wouldnt that be "just changing his stance as all people do when the time calls"!? Bluntly...you will NEVER get a straight honest answer from a Lib and you can never actually win a debate against one either. THANK GOD the American people knew better and stayed right on the Conservative course!

"There symbol is a jackass! Any questions?"


Who cares what Pat Sajak has to say about liberals? He should stick to what he knows best -- turning letters for a living.

Who cares what Pat Sajak has to say about liberals? He should stick to what he knows best -- turning letters for a living.

That's Vanna White. :B

Who cares what Pat Sajak has to say about liberals? He should stick to what he knows best -- turning letters for a living.


Pats the stiff,expressionless guy in the often too shiny suit. Its Vanna that turns the letters. He couldnt find the letters a quick as Vanna so she got the job. And despite all the years and gravity working its wonders, she still has the job for some reason.
And Pats vying for punditcy (?). Maybe he'll write a book.

Well..I wasn't going to get into this debate, but I can't help (being a flip-flopping liberal and all...) First of all, Bush is retarded. If you don't believe me, just go to this website.

http://www.funnypart.com/funny_pictures/why_bush_can't_find_bin_laden.shtml

Secondly, killing millions of innocent families most deffinitely should not be held high above "flip flopping" I would much rather have a flip-flopper as a president than a crazy Born Again (perhaps you should do some research) that is content with killing millions of people based on "evidence" and "flawed inteligence" that was never there in the first place.

While we are on the subject, don't you know that church and state SHOULD NOT BE MINGLED? You know, it was meant to be that way for a reason. I think it is somewhat hypocritical for a Christian such as Bush to lecture about godly deeds and such when all he does is lie, point fingers, kill people, destroy our economy, and above all, try to make himself look good by blaming others (such as Iraq whom had nothing to do with the war on terror in the first place) Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you go to hell for that? Great president we have.

Additionally, a war isn't our only problem. The American nation is in the midst of a recession--not very good. Also, haven't you looked at the national debt lately? It's over 7 TRILLION dollars! Must of which was stolen from social security. So, for all of those that voted for Bush, pat yourself on the back because we may not have welfare programs very much longer.

Well, who's the flip-flopper now? Who's the president that said that we would have a surplus by now? Kerry? No. Bush? Of course, because he's the only one retarded enough to make such an unattainable promise to the public without taking steps to obtain that very goal (i.e. tax cuts--for the wealthy I might add--and cutting spending on all programs except the military) And for all of those conservatives out there, don't dare make accusations, point fingers, and conjure up more lies about who would have made the better president. I think we all know the answer. :headbang:

Secondly, killing millions of innocent families most deffinitely should not be held high above "flip flopping" I would much rather have a flip-flopper as a president than a crazy Born Again (perhaps you should do some research) that is content with killing millions of people based on "evidence" and "flawed inteligence" that was never there in the first place.

Uhhh...what?