Has the President of the United States lost his marbles?

[NEON DEON]

Georgie not only is playing hide and go seek with privacey complaints in reference to Homeland Security but also making looney comments Too.

"Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

This one is for you sub.:o

[SubSerpent]

Georgie not only is playing hide and go seek with privacey complaints in reference to Homeland Security but also making looney comments Too.

"Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

This one is for you sub.:o



ROFLMAO!!!! :rotfl:

Another example of Herr Bush doing as he pleases and further putting our nation as well as the world at risk to terror.

I wouldn't let Bush supervise my toilet! Come On! What is up with this guy?!?! He's just missing the Hitler mustache! Other than that, he's identical in every other way!

On another note:

I also noted today that Mark Foley is making accustations that a priest molested him when he was young, and that he is not responsible for his actions by talking sexually with underage boys over the Internet and sending them pictures of his private parts. And to think that someone on here was stating just the other day that, "at least we republicans don't try to blame others for our actions"!!!!That is obviously now a crock of shiznut! :lol:

Got to love American politics! It's almost like watching a very dramatic soap opera, "And these are the days of Herr Bush's life".

Honestly, I think this country would be better run by bottle of stool softner!


ROFLMAO!!! :rotfl:


Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults. Can we have Clinton back now, please? :roll:

[Ducimus]

Bush is just chock full of... bushism's.

Heres a page full of bushims.
http://www.slate.com/id/76886/

[August]

I guess it might depend on how you define Emergency Management and Homeland Security experience. For example a military General may not have civilian agency credentials but has a wealth of experience coordinating, supplying and moving people and equipment in adverse situations.

If you'll remember it was a military man who sorted out the Katrina relief efforts after the pols on both sides messed it up, and it was military or ex-military people who ran the Berlin Airlift, the great San Fransisco earthquake recovery and just about every other major disaster our country has ever experienced.

Bush may also have a point regarding his constitutional right to hire and fire heads of agencies that are under control of the Executive branch, subject to normal constitutional senate confirmation proceedings of course.

It's like the executives right to nominate Supreme Court Justices. The Congress can vote against confirming his nomination for any number of reasons, including they just plain don't like the guy, but they cannot predefine who the President can choose.

[bookworm_020]

ROFLMAO!!!! :rotfl:

Another example of Herr Bush doing as he pleases and further putting our nation as well as the world at risk to terror.

I wouldn't let Bush supervise my toilet! Come On! What is up with this guy?!?! He's just missing the Hitler mustache! Other than that, he's identical in every other way!



Nah, He doesn't froth at the mouth when making speech to an crowd!!:rotfl:

[August]

Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults.

You mean like Gerry Studds or Melvin Jay Reynolds or Neil Goldschmidt or David Giles or Gary Condit or Ted Kennedy? Oh wait, those last two only murdered women over 18 so I guess they don't count.

You are grasping at straws if you think the nation will believe the Dems suddenly have a lock on morality. What are you going to do if the they loose again in '08 Subman?

[Payoff]

August
You forgot Barney Frank letting his young male lover run a prostitution ring out of his home, and continually gets reelected. The pride is back America.

[sonar732]

Sadly enough, I feel that Washington has a way of manipulating our government. Both parties are full of scandal and this was the main reason for a small representation of "Independants" in Presidential elections since 1992.

My view of '08 is very bleak. The Republicans are going to play damage control due to Foley and the Democrats are going to play "leave Iraq as soon as possible". I'm a moderate Republican and I'm very upset with the latest scandals our party has participated in.

[SkvyWvr]

Sadly enough, I feel that Washington has a way of manipulating our government. Both parties are full of scandal and this was the main reason for a small representation of "Independants" in Presidential elections since 1992.

My view of '08 is very bleak. The Republicans are going to play damage control due to Foley and the Democrats are going to play "leave Iraq as soon as possible". I'm a moderate Republican and I'm very upset with the latest scandals our party has participated in.

I don't think it was one party, I'm sure Foley's taste was known by both parties. You can't keep something like that quiet in a town so willing to give away national secrets. What bothers me (other than the filth) is that the Dems have been sitting on this info since April and are now screaming "protect the children". If that was their true reason then whay did they wait?

[SkvyWvr]

[quote=SubSerpent]Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults.

Thats only because the boys run faster. :rotfl: :rotfl:

[SubSerpent]

[quote=SubSerpent]Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults.

Thats only because the boys run faster. :rotfl: :rotfl:

That's wrong :lol:

[Happy Times]

Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults.

You mean like Gerry Studds or Melvin Jay Reynolds or Neil Goldschmidt or David Giles or Gary Condit or Ted Kennedy? Oh wait, those last two only murdered women over 18 so I guess they don't count.

You are grasping at straws if you think the nation will believe the Dems suddenly have a lock on morality. What are you going to do if the they loose again in '08 Subman? Is Wesley Clark still in running?

[fredbass]

Is Wesley Clark still in running?

Now that's a man who lost his marbles a long time ago. :yep:

[joea]

FORGET BUSH, IS THERE ANY POLITICIAN IN THE WEST WHO HAS HALF A MARBLE LEFT? :down: :damn:

[fredbass]

FORGET BUSH, IS THERE ANY POLITICIAN IN THE WEST WHO HAS HALF A MARBLE LEFT? :down: :damn:

No matter what issues I have with Pres. Bush and his administration, a free democratic society governed by a freely elected democratic government is still the best way to go any day. If you don't like it, please stay away because we don't want you. And we will do whatever we can to create that situation around the world whether you like it or not. :stare:

[Sailor Steve]

I too have some issues with the government today, but I'd be a lot more likely to give creedence to people like Neon if they weren't already biased. The use of the derogative "Georgie" is evidence enough.

[NEON DEON]

I too have some issues with the government today, but I'd be a lot more likely to give creedence to people like Neon if they weren't already biased. The use of the derogative "Georgie" is evidence enough.

Georgie?

Since when is calling someone Georgie derogatory?


Now had I called him an A##hole.

You might have something there:D

PS.

I made fun of Hillary Clinton in a picture post awhile back.

Yes I make jokes about public figures. Democrat or Republican.

Does not mean I hate them.

All I did was post a link and ask a question.

My bad.

[Smaragdadler]

...
I wouldn't let Bush supervise my toilet! Come On! What is up with this guy?!?! He's just missing the Hitler mustache! Other than that, he's identical in every other way!
...

That's a Führerbeleidigung. :) (meaning it is offending The Führer)

[madDdog67]

Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults. Can we have Clinton back now, please? :roll:

You *might* want to google the names Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds. :)

Studds actually buggered his 17 year old Page...and Reynolds was convicted on about 12 counts stemming from his sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl. At this point, all we know about Foley is that he sent some very innappropriate emails and text messages.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about old William "No, I DON'T know how $90,000 in marked bills got in my freezer!" Jefferson, and Alan Mollihan, both currently under FBI investigation for various acts of alleged skullduggery.

Before you get all up in arms, let me assure you I'm a "pox on BOTH their houses" kinda person...I don't drink either side's Kool Aid. I've worked in a business that involves the Congress for 20 years...and I can tell you without any reservation whatsoever that members of BOTH sides of the aisle have/still do engage in the same kinds of questionable behavior. That doesn't, by any stretch, make it right...but the premise that one side is better/worse than the other is laughable, given the history of the institution.

[joea]

FORGET BUSH, IS THERE ANY POLITICIAN IN THE WEST WHO HAS HALF A MARBLE LEFT? :down: :damn:

No matter what issues I have with Pres. Bush and his administration, a free democratic society governed by a freely elected democratic government is still the best way to go any day. If you don't like it, please stay away because we don't want you. And we will do whatever we can to create that situation around the world whether you like it or not. :stare:

Where did I say I am not in favour of democracy? I just deplore the choices we have. Still better than eating the slop in the "dictators" canteen.

[sonar732]

Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults. Can we have Clinton back now, please? :roll:
You *might* want to google the names Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds. :)

Studds actually buggered his 17 year old Page...and Reynolds was convicted on about 12 counts stemming from his sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl. At this point, all we know about Foley is that he sent some very innappropriate emails and text messages.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about old William "No, I DON'T know how $90,000 in marked bills got in my freezer!" Jefferson, and Alan Mollihan, both currently under FBI investigation for various acts of alleged skullduggery.

Before you get all up in arms, let me assure you I'm a "pox on BOTH their houses" kinda person...I don't drink either side's Kool Aid. I've worked in a business that involves the Congress for 20 years...and I can tell you without any reservation whatsoever that members of BOTH sides of the aisle have/still do engage in the same kinds of questionable behavior. That doesn't, by any stretch, make it right...but the premise that one side is better/worse than the other is laughable, given the history of the institution.

Exactly! It makes me sick to see both parties do a tit-for-tat comparison of who's scandle is worse and to hide their own immoral behavior.

I couldn't believe though to see my former congressman from Illinois, Ray LaHood, turn the scandle into a blaming game on the page program instead of blaming the man who engaged in inappropriate IM's and emails.

For those of you who say he didn't really do anything...shame on you! I am a father of 4 girls and one step-son who don't have access to the internet because of people like Foley.

[Takeda Shingen]

Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults. Can we have Clinton back now, please? :roll:
You *might* want to google the names Gerry Studds and Mel Reynolds. :)

Studds actually buggered his 17 year old Page...and Reynolds was convicted on about 12 counts stemming from his sexual relationship with a 15 year old girl. At this point, all we know about Foley is that he sent some very innappropriate emails and text messages.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about old William "No, I DON'T know how $90,000 in marked bills got in my freezer!" Jefferson, and Alan Mollihan, both currently under FBI investigation for various acts of alleged skullduggery.

Before you get all up in arms, let me assure you I'm a "pox on BOTH their houses" kinda person...I don't drink either side's Kool Aid. I've worked in a business that involves the Congress for 20 years...and I can tell you without any reservation whatsoever that members of BOTH sides of the aisle have/still do engage in the same kinds of questionable behavior. That doesn't, by any stretch, make it right...but the premise that one side is better/worse than the other is laughable, given the history of the institution.

Exactly! It makes me sick to see both parties do a tit-for-tat comparison of who's scandle is worse and to hide their own immoral behavior.

I couldn't believe though to see my former congressman from Illinois, Ray LaHood, turn the scandle into a blaming game on the page program instead of blaming the man who engaged in inappropriate IM's and emails.

For those of you who say he didn't really do anything...shame on you! I am a father of 4 girls and one step-son who don't have access to the internet because of people like Foley.

And now you understand my revulsion with the American political universe. The day that the Foley scandal aired, the pundits of the Right were out in force, and Studs and Reynolds were touted as an example of "See, they did bad stuff too!". So what? Does the guilt of the opposing party absolve your own? The two-party system in American politics must change, or we will stagnate, and stagnation is death. Rome was not destroyed from the outside. It was torn asunder from within.

A wonderful piece of news from this: The Evangelical base of the Republican party has, reportedly, felt quite betrayed as of late, by the very people who they voted into office. Properly stoked, this has the potential to become a split within the party. It might even become two parties. If this were to happen, it would encourage other elements within both parties to follow suit. We may be witnessing the death knell of the paleolithic two-party system. I welcome it.

[The Avon Lady]

And now you understand my revulsion with the American political universe. The day that the Foley scandal aired, the pundits of the Right were out in force, and Studs and Reynolds were touted as an example of "See, they did bad stuff too!".
Funny. What I saw first all over the Internet was leftist democrats and anti-Americans making this a Republican issue.

And that's certainly the way it started being reported here on the forum. Check out this Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98997). This was typical of what was initially sprouting up all over leftist blogs around the Web and not vice versa. :nope:

[Takeda Shingen]

Funny. What I saw first all over the Internet was leftist democrats and anti-Americans making this a Republican issue.

And that's certainly the way it started being reported here on the forum. Check out this Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98997). This was typical of what was initially sprouting up all over leftist blogs around the Web and not vice versa. :nope:

Maybe this is because it is a Republican issue. Of course, the defense for this is that the Democrats had done it as well. I suppose that lessens the crime, eh? American politics: Standards of the lowest common denominator.

[The Avon Lady]

Funny. What I saw first all over the Internet was leftist democrats and anti-Americans making this a Republican issue.

And that's certainly the way it started being reported here on the forum. Check out this Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98997). This was typical of what was initially sprouting up all over leftist blogs around the Web and not vice versa. :nope:

Maybe this is because it is a Republican issue.
Have your cake and eat it, too. Thanks for proving my point.
Of course, the defense for this is that the Democrats had done it as well. I suppose that lessens the crime, eh?
Not at all. See my posts on that thread and the concurrence of those here who are not exactly gung ho about today's Democratic Party.

[Takeda Shingen]

Funny. What I saw first all over the Internet was leftist democrats and anti-Americans making this a Republican issue.

And that's certainly the way it started being reported here on the forum. Check out this Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98997). This was typical of what was initially sprouting up all over leftist blogs around the Web and not vice versa. :nope:

Maybe this is because it is a Republican issue.
Have your cake and eat it, too. Thanks for proving my point.

Thank you for missing mine. Of course it is a Republican issue. Instead of owning it and cleaning house from within, fingers are pointed at everyone else, as per the Hastert press conference. The Democrats do the same thing. We are left with a protracted debate on the relative nature of harm in the political sphere, while the root of it, namely the politics of corruption in Washington, are convieniently neglected.

[The Avon Lady]

Funny. What I saw first all over the Internet was leftist democrats and anti-Americans making this a Republican issue.

And that's certainly the way it started being reported here on the forum. Check out this Subsim thread (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=98997). This was typical of what was initially sprouting up all over leftist blogs around the Web and not vice versa. :nope:

Maybe this is because it is a Republican issue.
Have your cake and eat it, too. Thanks for proving my point.

Thank you for missing mine. Of course it is a Republican issue. Instead of owning it and cleaning house from within, fingers are pointed at everyone else, as per the Hastert press conference.
Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?
The Democrats do the same thing. We are left with a protracted debate on the relative nature of harm in the political sphere, while the root of it, namely the politics of corruption in Washington, are convieniently neglected.
We agree to agree. :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?

In that specific instance, I was refering to the pundits of the Right: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Those sentiments were later echoed by Hastert and company.

[_Seth_]

Georgie not only is playing hide and go seek with privacey complaints in reference to Homeland Security but also making looney comments Too.

"Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

This one is for you sub.:o


ROFLMAO!!!! :rotfl:

Another example of Herr Bush doing as he pleases and further putting our nation as well as the world at risk to terror.

I wouldn't let Bush supervise my toilet! Come On! What is up with this guy?!?! He's just missing the Hitler mustache! Other than that, he's identical in every other way!

On another note:

I also noted today that Mark Foley is making accustations that a priest molested him when he was young, and that he is not responsible for his actions by talking sexually with underage boys over the Internet and sending them pictures of his private parts. And to think that someone on here was stating just the other day that, "at least we republicans don't try to blame others for our actions"!!!!That is obviously now a crock of shiznut! :lol:

Got to love American politics! It's almost like watching a very dramatic soap opera, "And these are the days of Herr Bush's life".

Honestly, I think this country would be better run by bottle of stool softner!


ROFLMAO!!! :rotfl:


Vote Democrat in '08 and get at least a president and administration that is into "straight" sex with adults. Can we have Clinton back now, please? :roll:
:up::up::up:

[The Avon Lady]

Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?

In that specific instance, I was refering to the pundits of the Right: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Those sentiments were later echoed by Hastert and company.
I won't bother asking for dates and times to create a log confirming one side or the other.

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?

In that specific instance, I was refering to the pundits of the Right: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Those sentiments were later echoed by Hastert and company.
I won't bother asking for dates and times to create a log confirming one side or the other.

What side? These are all conservative politicians and pundits. Nonetheless, if you are interested in persuing this, I am certain that you can obtain the transcripts for those talkshows on the dates in question. I am not sure what good it will do you and your point, whatever that may be, but I encourage you to look it up.

[The Avon Lady]

Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?

In that specific instance, I was refering to the pundits of the Right: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Those sentiments were later echoed by Hastert and company.
I won't bother asking for dates and times to create a log confirming one side or the other.

What side? These are all conservative politicians and pundits. Nonetheless, if you are interested in persuing this, I am certain that you can obtain the transcripts for those talkshows on the dates in question. I am not sure what good it will do you and your point, whatever that may be, but I encourage you to look it up.
I would have to compile a timestamped chronology to see which of us is correct. In all honesty, that's way too boring for me to bother with. Would you like to document this? :hmm:

[Takeda Shingen]

Oh, that's what you're talking about. OK but that wasn't "the day the Foley scandal aired", was it?

In that specific instance, I was refering to the pundits of the Right: Limbaugh, Hannity, et al. Those sentiments were later echoed by Hastert and company.
I won't bother asking for dates and times to create a log confirming one side or the other.

What side? These are all conservative politicians and pundits. Nonetheless, if you are interested in persuing this, I am certain that you can obtain the transcripts for those talkshows on the dates in question. I am not sure what good it will do you and your point, whatever that may be, but I encourage you to look it up.
I would have to compile a timestamped chronology to see which of us is correct. In all honesty, that's way too boring for me to bother with. Would you like to document this? :hmm:

It is very simple. The bulk of the story broke on Friday, 29 September. By that afternoon, it was all over the drive-time talk shows. I know, as I heard them myself. Hastert's press conference was on Thursday, 5 October, one week later. He echoed the sentiments of the radio pundits, blaming everyone from ABC to the leftist elite. Clearly, there was some influence from the conservative academics.

I am not sure why you find this so controversial. It is a well-established fact that the nationally syndicated radio programs are an intergal part of the politics of the Right. It is no different than the bloggers and the Left.

[[dc]Blade]

"Thay say eyes that are close together dont usualy have alot of padding between them, i for one know this :88)But hes not got a big nose so i dont think he should underline it just yet!!"

[The Avon Lady]

I am not sure why you find this so controversial. It is a well-established fact that the nationally syndicated radio programs are an intergal part of the politics of the Right.
I never contested this particular fact.

[The Noob]

You are now going to hear a statement of the n00b.

I am speaking to you, from the Cabinets room, in a secure undisclosed location.

Today, i handed the American Offending poster fredbass a final note, that they were to withdraw thier offensive "democracy spreading" Tanks from Europe, and any other countrys till 13 o' clock. If they do not, a state of flame-war will exist between us. I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been recieved, and that consequently, this person is at flame-war, with fredbass.

If you don't like it, please stay away because we don't want you.
YOU stay away because we don't want YOU!!! :stare:

If you think your country is so great, then stay in it. And stop sending people in wars.

And we will do whatever we can to create that situation around the world whether you like it or not. :stare:
You will do whatever you can to create the "USA-Situation" around the world? I can tell you that the rest of the world will resist and fight till theres no one left to stand.

Before we "Go Bush" we rather die. We have our own democatic sh** around here, and it's not even that worse. But the "Dicatorship of the Dumb mass" called "Americanny-Democracy" is a thing no-one wants over here, and you will ****ing respect that! :stare::stare::stare:

Herr George W. Bush, would rather like to be known to those in history as the big emperor, W. Bush!

[Immacolata]

You are entitled to whatever opinion you want Noob, but you are getting mighty annoying with your illbehaved postings. If you don't like bush, fine. But why should the rest of us suffer from your irrational hatred? Chill. Out.

[The Noob]

Irrational? :rotfl:

HA HA!

Postings like fredbass one is annoying for me. He wants to spread his political views to everyware - with force. :nope:

But you are partially correct. My way of posting has to change, it sucks.

I think i am going to take a back seat from Political Madne...Disgustions for a while. Before everyone puts me on ignore list.

[fredbass]

This is getting good now. You got me smiling this morning. :p To Noob: Too bad.

Anyway, since the Foley situation was brought up. I'd just like to say that Foley is sick. He deserves punishment and help. But as far as everything else. It's just politics. Each side is always looking for something to give them an edge. That's all the rest of it is, really.

[August]

But the "Dicatorship of the Dumb mass" called "Americanny-Democracy" is a thing no-one wants over here, and you will ****ing respect that! :stare::stare::stare:

No one? Who elected you to speak for everyone over there Noob?

[joea]

Irrational? :rotfl:

HA HA!

Postings like fredbass one is annoying for me. He wants to spread his political views to everyware - with force. :nope:

But you are partially correct. My way of posting has to change, it sucks.

I think i am going to take a back seat from Political Madne...Disgustions for a while. Before everyone puts me on ignore list.
You're not on mine, but I feel like I'm on yours. :shifty: Don't like posts like fredbass' either btw.

[Ishmael]

First of all, the title of this thread implies that Bush had marbles to begin with instead of being the oratorially-challenged spokesperson for the Project For a New American Century that he is. Regarding the scandal-mongering and accusations that have been circulating lately, they're just a distraction from the abrogation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights perpetrated on the American people by this Congress and Administration under the new Detainee act. Besides granting the power to suspend habeas corpus, now anyone can be declared a "material supporter of terrorism" anywhere at anytime by the government and dissapeared into the bowels of the new Gulag our Department of Homeland Security is feverishly constructing around the nation. So let us kowtow to the new Kings of Corporations who truly run this nation and offer up our treasure and sons for their New Corporate World Order. Regarding the Religious Right, they're just being played for suckers as always by the republicans unless they need someone to staff the aforementioned camps.

I do find it amusing that everything is blamed on Clinton. Why stop there? Why not blame him for Pearl Harbor, or the McKinley assassination, or the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby? It's no more or less valid than the current accusations being thrown about by the good folks at Fox News, or as I like to call them, Pravda. Heck, the Florida Court of Appeals has already ruled that it's OK for Fox News to lie in their reports, so why should I believe anything these people say about anything?

[Sailor Steve]

Georgie?

Since when is calling someone Georgie derogatory?
It implies that you have already dismissed him, so it's no use arguing with you. Exactly the same as when righties call the former president "Klinton".

All I did was post a link and ask a question.

My bad.
My objection is that you asked a question with a rhetorical implication; i.e. the answer was obvious. Not bad, just not conducive to fair and open debate.

A lot of people on all sides of these arguments do the same.

[kholemann]

Georgie not only is playing hide and go seek with privacey complaints in reference to Homeland Security but also making looney comments Too.

"Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office.""

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061005/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_privacy

This one is for you sub.:o

Every four years the people of the United States elect a President. Anyone who runs for President (that is not an incumbent) has no experience as President. I guess with your thinking we should only elect Presidents with experience being President.

[kholemann]

First of all, the title of this thread implies that Bush had marbles to begin with instead of being the oratorially-challenged spokesperson for the Project For a New American Century that he is. Regarding the scandal-mongering and accusations that have been circulating lately, they're just a distraction from the abrogation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights perpetrated on the American people by this Congress and Administration under the new Detainee act. Besides granting the power to suspend habeas corpus, now anyone can be declared a "material supporter of terrorism" anywhere at anytime by the government and dissapeared into the bowels of the new Gulag our Department of Homeland Security is feverishly constructing around the nation. So let us kowtow to the new Kings of Corporations who truly run this nation and offer up our treasure and sons for their New Corporate World Order. Regarding the Religious Right, they're just being played for suckers as always by the republicans unless they need someone to staff the aforementioned camps.

I do find it amusing that everything is blamed on Clinton. Why stop there? Why not blame him for Pearl Harbor, or the McKinley assassination, or the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby? It's no more or less valid than the current accusations being thrown about by the good folks at Fox News, or as I like to call them, Pravda. Heck, the Florida Court of Appeals has already ruled that it's OK for Fox News to lie in their reports, so why should I believe anything these people say about anything?

There is too much here to work with that is simply unworthy of a response. What I will say is that thank God for Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and President Bush. Y'all ain't in power. How sad for you. The truth keeps hurting, don't it?

[Sea Demon]

First of all, the title of this thread implies that Bush had marbles to begin with instead of being the oratorially-challenged spokesperson for the Project For a New American Century that he is.

yada, yada, yada....

I do find it amusing that everything is blamed on Clinton. Why stop there? Why not blame him for Pearl Harbor, or the McKinley assassination, or the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby? It's no more or less valid than the current accusations being thrown about by the good folks at Fox News, or as I like to call them, Pravda. Heck, the Florida Court of Appeals has already ruled that it's OK for Fox News to lie in their reports, so why should I believe anything these people say about anything?

There is too much here to work with that is simply unworthy of a response. What I will say is that thank God for Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and President Bush. Y'all ain't in power. How sad for you. The truth keeps hurting, don't it?

You're correct kholemann. The truth is that the left has most of the national newspapers, all of the network news, most of the cable news, a ton of magazines (ie Time), NPR radio, Air America radio (although it's dying) to put forth their views. And they absolutely do that. And all of them are outgunned by Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc. So when you get an outlet like Fox News that actually reports both sides, they're shocked. Fox is biased in their minds because they don't let left-wing accusations just fly without challenge. Rush Limbaugh and the like are geared to support Republican politics...but at least they're honest about it.

I myself am very happy that President Bush is in power. Despite the moanings of the left, and their bogus New York Times polls, there are many who support the President. You should have seen the reception he got here last week in "Democrat" California. Now if he would only enforce immigration laws and protect the border. :hmm:

And I find this tidbit very interesting...

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061011-122935-1652r.htm

In essence, Democrats have to sound like Republicans in order to get elected. That shows me where the country truly stands. And this is no hypothesis. This article actually looks at what Democrats are saying and how they're posturing themselves in election season. The USA is no left-wing country. There's no doubt about that. The left-wingers in the USA are just a noisy and disruptive bunch. And very hateful to boot. Look at the few left-wing trolls here at Subsim for proof. Some can't even start a topic without "Bush is a moron" and such. :roll: Impotent, absolutely impotent.

[NEON DEON]

Georgie?

Since when is calling someone Georgie derogatory?
It implies that you have already dismissed him, so it's no use arguing with you. Exactly the same as when righties call the former president "Klinton".

All I did was post a link and ask a question.

My bad.
My objection is that you asked a question with a rhetorical implication; i.e. the answer was obvious. Not bad, just not conducive to fair and open debate.

A lot of people on all sides of these arguments do the same.

So------ it is obvious George has lost his marbles?

Oliver/ollie

Ralph/Ralphie

George/Georgie

Howard/Howie

Just a nickname nothing more.

Nothing implied.

Ed Norton of The Honeymooners:

"Hey Ralphie Boy!"

[The Avon Lady]

So------ it is obvious George has lost his marbles?

Oliver/ollie

Ralph/Ralphie

George/Georgie

Howard/Howie

Just a nickname nothing more.

Nothing implied.
Barbara/Babs

John/Flipper

.... etc ....

[bradclark1]

The truth is that the left has most of the national newspapers, all of the network news, most of the cable news, a ton of magazines (ie Time), NPR radio, Air America radio (although it's dying) to put forth their views. And they absolutely do that. And all of them are outgunned by Fox, Rush Limbaugh, etc. So when you get an outlet like Fox News that actually reports both sides, they're shocked. Fox is biased in their minds because they don't let left-wing accusations just fly without challenge. Rush Limbaugh and the like are geared to support Republican politics...but at least they're honest about it.

So let me get this straight:
All news media in America are all left except for Fox news. They are all in a conspiracy against the right?
I guess next you'll be saying the little green men in spaceships are behind it! Don't let some semblance of the truth or reality get in the way.
It's all a conspiracy! OK, yeah, right.

[Konovalov]

Why can't more people just call it like it is as bradclark1 points out? :up:

[fredbass]

Can we please leave Rush Limbaugh, the drug addict, out of this conversation? He is entertainment and hype. Anyone who is so one sided as him, is definitely not realistic. There are positives and negatives on both sides of the street, which he clearly doesn't provide. :know: He reminds me of a lawyer in a sense. He will do and say whatever he can for his client (republicans) to win, even though he knows deep down that they've screwed up.

[Sea Demon]

Exactly fredbass. Limbaugh and the like are geared toward Republican politics but are clearly an entertainment venue. You got my point entirely.

As far as brad's statement. No, that's not what I was saying. What I was trying to point out is that left-wingers are shocked when Fox puts someone on who destroys left-wing conventional "wisdom". You know, those who espouse stupid views like..."Bush invaded Iraq only because he wanted to line his own pocket with stolen oil" and idiotic crap like that. And of course with absolutely no proof. The truth is, Fox usually puts people on to debate. Usually there is someone from the right and left to discuss news items and current events. This appeals to alot of people obviously as Fox's market share destroys pretty much everyone else. Indeed, they are not a right wing channel, but they appear to be right-wing because they actually present some balance.

They actually have the audacity to point out Bill Clinton's failed deal with North Korea that leads us to where we are today. And it irks you guys because it's supposed to be just Bush's fault. Fox will actually show that Clinton, with the failure Jimmy Carter's help, made it possible for North Korea to get two reactors built in NK with US assistance. These Democrats actually made a nuclear North Korea possible. Democrats again sell the American people out on National security, and yet Fox has the nerve to point it out. Bush again actually has to confront Democratic appeasement failures of the 90's. And you can't stand it because it shows your party for what it is. Dangerous, incompetent, and weak. Thus, they are biased in your mind for showing it.

And since Fox News kills the competition with viewership, you can consider yourself the minority. ;)

[Sea Demon]

Why can't more people just call it like it is as bradclark1 points out? :up:

Because most of us aren't living in a dreamworld. :up:

[bradclark1]

They actually have the audacity to point out Bill Clinton's failed deal with North Korea that leads us to where we are today. And it irks you guys because it's supposed to be just Bush's fault. Fox will actually show that Clinton, with the failure Jimmy Carter's help, made it possible for North Korea to get two reactors built in NK with US assistance. These Democrats actually made a nuclear North Korea possible. Democrats again sell the American people out on National security, and yet Fox has the nerve to point it out. Bush again actually has to confront Democratic appeasement failures of the 90's. And you can't stand it because it shows your party for what it is. Dangerous, incompetent, and weak. Thus, they are biased in your mind for showing it.

And since Fox News kills the competition with viewership, you can consider yourself the minority. ;)

So much for your reactors. Also NK actually built their own ramshackle reactor in the 70's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15337-2004Nov26.html
But don't let truth stand in your way dreamer.

[bradclark1]

As far as brad's statement. No, that's not what I was saying. What I was trying to point out is that left-wingers are shocked when Fox puts someone on who destroys left-wing conventional "wisdom". You know, those who espouse stupid views like..."Bush invaded Iraq only because he wanted to line his own pocket with stolen oil" and idiotic crap like that. And of course with absolutely no proof.
Funny. You didn't say anything like that in your original comment. You must be in a dream state! :)

[madDdog67]

It's no more or less valid than the current accusations being thrown about by the good folks at Fox News, or as I like to call them, Pravda. Heck, the Florida Court of Appeals has already ruled that it's OK for Fox News to lie in their reports, so why should I believe anything these people say about anything?

Hey, if CBS, ABC, CNN, etc, can lie, why can't FOX?? Or are advocating the ability to lie to the public be reserved only for those entities that tilt to the left? :D

If you are still under the impression that there is anything resemling "news" on the airwaves today, I've got a bridge in NYC that you might be interested in purchasing.

It's *all* propaganda, whether it spins right or left.

Now, it looks like it makes more business sense to spin right, at least on the radio lol...just ask Al Franken and Air America!

[Sea Demon]

They actually have the audacity to point out Bill Clinton's failed deal with North Korea that leads us to where we are today. And it irks you guys because it's supposed to be just Bush's fault. Fox will actually show that Clinton, with the failure Jimmy Carter's help, made it possible for North Korea to get two reactors built in NK with US assistance. These Democrats actually made a nuclear North Korea possible. Democrats again sell the American people out on National security, and yet Fox has the nerve to point it out. Bush again actually has to confront Democratic appeasement failures of the 90's. And you can't stand it because it shows your party for what it is. Dangerous, incompetent, and weak. Thus, they are biased in your mind for showing it.

And since Fox News kills the competition with viewership, you can consider yourself the minority. ;)

So much for your reactors. Also NK actually built their own ramshackle reactor in the 70's.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15337-2004Nov26.html
But don't let truth stand in your way dreamer.

:hmm: Ok. I'll give you that. That's something I wasn't aware of. But it still doesn't change the fact that the appeasement and inaction of Democrats in the 90's gave the North Koreans more time to develop their weapons programs. And these Democrats were still looking to make this whole reactor thing a possibility. So your point is not that strong Brad. ;) Still, Democrat action in the 90's was to ignore terrorism, Give China access to our space technology (ala Loral and Lockheed), and work this nuclear deal with North Korea. All at a loss of U.S. National security.

So the reactor's haven't been built! Woo-hoo. Your party is still shown for what it is.

.....just ask Al Franken and Air America!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_en_bu/air_america_radio_bankruptcy_12

Air America=:dead:

[bradclark1]

Ok. I'll give you that. That's something I wasn't aware of. But it still doesn't change the fact that the appeasement and inaction of Democrats in the 90's gave the North Koreans more time to develop their weapons programs.
Give me a break! :roll:

[Sea Demon]

Ok. I'll give you that. That's something I wasn't aware of. But it still doesn't change the fact that the appeasement and inaction of Democrats in the 90's gave the North Koreans more time to develop their weapons programs.
Give me a break! :roll:

What's the matter, can't handle the truth?

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

Scroll down to the 90's area. It's quite enlightening. :) Democrat inaction is only a mild description.

[Sailor Steve]

Oliver/ollie

Ralph/Ralphie

George/Georgie

Howard/Howie

Just a nickname nothing more.

Nothing implied.

Ed Norton of The Honeymooners:

"Hey Ralphie Boy!"
It's only a nickname if the person uses it himself.
Though I disagreed with several of his policies, I never once called the last president "Billy".

[bradclark1]

What's the matter, can't handle the truth?

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

Scroll down to the 90's area. It's quite enlightening. :) Democrat inaction is only a mild description.

What truth? The only truth is that Korea openly baled in 2002 which is under Bush's watch and he's had four years to do something but has done nothing. Is that the truth you mean? No, wait. He attacked the nuclear enemy in Iraq. Whoops, no nukes there. Seems he went after the wrong one huh?

[Sea Demon]

What's the matter, can't handle the truth?

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm

Scroll down to the 90's area. It's quite enlightening. :) Democrat inaction is only a mild description.
What truth? The only truth is that Korea openly baled in 2002 which is under Bush's watch and he's had four years to do something but has done nothing. Is that the truth you mean? No, wait. He attacked the nuclear enemy in Iraq. Whoops, no nukes there. Seems he went after the wrong one huh?
Bottom line, if Clinton had done his job, Bush wouldn't have to deal with these issues now. If the Democrats weren't trying to make life so cozy for Kim Jong-Il back then, we wouldn't have the same circumstances in play. And all Democrats can do now is second guess and whine.

[bradclark1]

Bottom line, if Clinton had done his job, Bush wouldn't have to deal with these issues now. If the Democrats weren't trying to make life so cozy for Kim Jong-Il back then, we wouldn't have the same circumstances in play. And all Democrats can do now is second guess and whine.

I'd say they aren't the same circumstances. They're worse. Korea didn't have "the bomb" back then but yes it's okay for the Bush administration to drag ass and then blame it on Clinton. What a joke. I have news for you Clinton hasn't been president for six years. The standard party line "Blame It On Clinton". That should be tatooed on the republican elephants butt.
If Bush did his job we wouldn't be in Iraq. We wouldn't look like fools to the world with our empty threats to Korea and Iran that everyone knows we can't back up. Want to talk about border security or lack thereof or what about port security or lack thereof. What controls had been put in place after 9/11 have been removed one by one to the point that they are the same since before 9/11. This administration is flat on it's behind.
November will be a telling month. Not only Bush's failed foriegn policy if you want to call it that and you have the perverts, money launderers, and corrupt republicans to answer for. Plus they are carrying the title of The Do Nothing Congress and even the arch conservatives claim they feel used and conservatives are your base.

Whats sad is you feel proud of this.

[Sea Demon]

Bottom line, if Clinton had done his job, Bush wouldn't have to deal with these issues now. If the Democrats weren't trying to make life so cozy for Kim Jong-Il back then, we wouldn't have the same circumstances in play. And all Democrats can do now is second guess and whine.

I'd say they aren't the same circumstances. They're worse. Korea didn't have "the bomb" back then but yes it's okay for the Bush administration to drag ass and then blame it on Clinton. What a joke. I have news for you Clinton hasn't been president for six years. The standard party line "Blame It On Clinton". That should be tatooed on the republican elephants butt.
If Bush did his job we wouldn't be in Iraq. We wouldn't look like fools to the world with our empty threats to Korea and Iran that everyone knows we can't back up. Want to talk about border security or lack thereof or what about port security or lack thereof. What controls had been put in place after 9/11 have been removed one by one to the point that they are the same since before 9/11. This administration is flat on it's behind.
November will be a telling month. Not only Bush's failed foriegn policy if you want to call it that and you have the perverts, money launderers, and corrupt republicans to answer for. Plus they are carrying the title of The Do Nothing Congress and even the arch conservatives claim they feel used and conservatives are your base.

Whats sad is you feel proud of this.

No Brad. You got it all wrong. What I am proud of is the fact that Bush and Republicans will at least confront enemies. Not make deals with them, give them access to our technologies, and sweep their transgressions under the rug like those in the Democrat Party. Your inability to see this difference is why I say Democrats are dangerous and must be kept out of power. They think if they treat our enemies like friends and give them access to our technologies, make lucrative deals with these dictators and tyrants, and in the case of Al Qaeda terrorists...give them constitutional protections, all will be well. This is foolish ignorance. Yet it is how Democrats have shown they do business.

I'm also proud that taxes are low, the economy is growing, deficits are shrinking, homeownership is robust, interest rates are low, and unemployment percentages are low. The Dow is on it's way to 12,000 and may hit it before election day. Tech stocks are surging.

You talk about the borders? What is your party proposing? At least with the Republicans we get 698 miles of fence built in key areas. Is it enough? No. But it's a start. A start we would never get from your party. Heck, your party wanted to give illegal aliens out here in California drivers licenses. The Republicans got a governor in that promptly put a stop to it. It took a Republican to stop this insanity. People are getting the message out here.

There is one big difference also. You are speaking as though the Democrats have no corruption. Don't kid yourself. Harry Reid's land dealings should be something sticking out. What about Reynold's, Frank, Clinton, Studds, etc.? Your throwing stones, yet you live in a glass house. The real difference here is that Foley is gone. Other Republicans who have trangressed are also gone. Cunningham is another example. Republicans actually purge their bad apples. Can't say the same for Democrats. Heck, there are still people excusing Clinton for lying to a grand jury. Frank wasn't purged. Reynolds wasn't purged, Ted Kennedy wasn't purged, Studds wasn't purged, Patrick Kennedy wasn't purged for his drunk driving incident, etc, etc, etc. Harry Reid is currently making excuses for his shady dealings, and other Dem's are following suit. No Brad, you're party takes the cake when it comes to corruption.

And by the way, it wasn't a Republican who gave China access to space technologies which can kill you and your family. And what's worse is you seem proud of this. I have a family sir, and can't afford your lax attitude regarding national security issues. And if your problem is corruption, I don't see how you could vote Democrat. Corrupt Democrats don't get purged from their party. They most often retain their positions. You complain about Republican corruption, but Foley and others are gone. You display a horrid case of intellectual dishonesty at it's worst in all these issues.

[bradclark1]

Homeownership has slowed way down because people can't afford to buy anymore so I wouldn't say rates are low. The only job growth is in the service industry which means in plain english low wage jobs.

Republican wanted to reward illeagal aliens with a fast track to citizenship until the people raised hell and the Republican party backtracked. I would say the message was recieved after Americans raised hell over such stupidity.

Harry Reid's land dealings was an sorry attempt by the Republican party to shift attention from the Republican leadership protecting a pedophile for so many years. So you can kiss your purge theory off. Also you will notice that even Fox news isn't paying any attention to Reid's land dealings because it's purely administrative transgressions. The Republican leadership blamed the Democrats for Foley being a pervert for Gods sake. Clintons name was even mentioned in that. The Republican party covers and backs up their own until the only thing left is to make them resign. Now the Republican party is trying to cover-up their covering for Foley.

Patrick Kennedy wasn't purged for his drunk driving incident
Thats a laugh. Bush's DWI record was so bad his driving record mysteriously disappeared when he ran for president.

Heck, there are still people excusing Clinton for lying to a grand jury.
Over a blow job! :rotfl: Whats worse, covering for a blow job, or covering for a pedophile for years while he does his thing?

At least with the Republicans we get 698 miles of fence built in key areas.
Wow a 698 mile fence is just beginning to start five years after 9/11. The border is 1,951 miles (3,141 km) long. Are we going to wait another five to secure the rest? You forgot to mention anything about about port security. Yes, the Rebublican controlled houses are doing a bang up job.

And by the way, it wasn't a Republican who gave China access to space technologies which can kill you and your family. And what's worse is you seem proud of this. I have a family sir, and can't afford your lax attitude regarding national security issues
Sorry Sea Demon, you haven't heard me say I'm proud of anything because there isn't anything going on to feel proud of. Unlike you. As far as the security issue, reread the paragraph above this then tack on Iraq, Iran, and Korea. I wouldn't feel so safe if I were you!

You display a horrid case of intellectual dishonesty at it's worst in all these issues.
Who's displaying intellectual dishonesty?

[Sea Demon]

Thank you. You have shown why there's no real response necessary. You come back with George Bush got a DUI 35 years ago. :roll: You come back with Clinton lied to a grand jury over a BJ. Lying to a grand jury is still lying to a grand jury. And it's an impeachable offense. Bush has not done this. Your lack of direction over this continues to prove my point about your party.

And you continue to make excuses for Democrat corruption. Real corruption. Not made up stuff like GW Bush's Halliburton crap or "stealing oil" or "9/11 inside job"....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-reid_x.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101640.html

This is bigger than that. And your side will continue to try and cover it up. And Pat Kennedy was a sitting congressman when he got that DUI. Your party is so corrupt, and you are so hateful of Republicans, you are blind to it. I was actually glad when Cunningham was arrested, and Foley resigned. There is a big difference between our parties Brad. I don't know how anybody worried about corruption could vote for your people. :hmm:

Plus the Republican will at least take a direction toward border enforcement. Your party has only shown a willingness to give the keys to the kingdom away with massive social and educational benefits to illegal aliens, and drivers licenses. Your party promotes illegality. Out here in California, people are finally wising up. And you obviously don't remember Clinton and the ports out here in Long Beach, do you? ;)

And sorry to you Brad, but while President Bush actually confronts enemies, your party tries to do everything in there power to prevent success in Iraq. Your party does everything in their power to hinder any success we have. Your party continually provides terrorists in Iraq propaganda victories, because of the perceived hurt that it does to GW Bush. I feel much safer with Republicans in control, than those who want to give Al Qaeda terrorists constitutional protections, pursue open borders with Mexico, and go back to the days where a terrorist attack warrants no response. :down: I feel safer with Republicans who can actually call terrorists..."terrorists". Rather than a party that makes speeches that are exactly the same in tone and wording as Al Zawahiri and other Islamic radical terrorists. Your party is insane Brad. :doh:

[bradclark1]

You come back with George Bush got a DUI 35 years ago.
Sorry, multiple DUI's. Thats why his record went convieniantly missing.

And you continue to make excuses for Democrat corruption. Real corruption. Not made up stuff like GW Bush's
Halliburton crap or "stealing oil" or "9/11 inside job"....
Sorry, you haven't heard me say any of that. The instances I gave you is real corruption.Funny you don't see that and you ignore the Republicans leadership covering for a pervert. Thats corruption from what, the third in line for president. I'd say your party is corrupt when the upper echelons cover for perverts. Even Bush is trying to cover the coverup.
As far as Reid goes read the third paragrph of your second link.

And sorry to you Brad, but while President Bush actually confronts enemies, your party tries to do everything
in there power to prevent success in Iraq. Your party does everything in their power to hinder any success we have.
Your party continually provides terrorists in Iraq propaganda victories, because of the perceived hurt that it does
to GW Bush. I feel
What enemies were in Iraq when we attacked? Not to mention how screwed up and unprepared we were once we took the country. We made a cesspool out of nothing and there still is no plan in place to win. Bush isn't taking his own advice in that "If it doesn't work, change it".

And sorry to you Brad, but while President Bush actually confronts enemies,
This is how deformed your thinking is. We attack Afganistan which was the right thing to do then we leave it before the job is done to attack Iraq which had done nothing but be a pain in the ass. Now because of this adminstrations screw-up, the Taliban is making major inroads back in and we can't do anything about it. Not to mention Afganistan is now the worlds #1 supplier in poppy seed drug products. Now two rouge nations has or is in the process of getting the bomb and we can't do squat about it because we are tied up in Iraq where we had no business being in in the first place. How you feel safer is beyond me. Me, I fear for my kids and grandchildren.

because of the perceived hurt that it does to GW Bush.
I have no idea where you pulled this from because everything I have said is based on fact and I have said none of this garbage you pulled out.

pursue open borders with Mexico
Where on earth did you get this from?

and go back to the days where a terrorist attack warrants no response.
It's a given that Clinton tried to get bin Laden. Thats fact. We have never been as close to getting bin Laden as when we had our intelligence and armed forces in Afganistan yet we walked away and left a token force which have lost control which is nothing on them it is the fault of this administrations bungleing. Also please remember that nothing of the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before.
You seem to forget that the CIA, Rice and Rumsfeld knew something big was going to happen in June, yet Rice and Rumsfeld blew it off plus didn't bother notifying Bush. Yet the one man who tried to get the ball rolling was forced to resign (Tenent).
We have screwed up every slice of pie we have our fingers in. If you can find one thing we have not screwed up please enlighten me.
I'm glad you feel safer because I sure don't.You need to open your eyes and ears and stop being a blind and deaf follower.

[Sea Demon]

In every election cycle, the voters have rejected your assertions here. Clinton and the Democrats were weak on National security, gave space technology to China which is now prolioferating around the world, have been derelict in their duties to protect the borders, and have shown corruption which makes the Republican stuff pale in comparison. Because as I've said, the Republicans purge their bad apples, Democrats make excuses and cover up theirs.

Nothing's changed Brad. It doesn't help you to pretend Democrats are strong on national security when they aren't. Democrats have worked diligently to kill our current efforts during this war. Democrats have been basically working for Al Qaeda in Iraq for the last year using their speeches in a form of crude Information Warfare. Look at the words of the appeasers in your party like Howard Dean, John Murtha, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, etc. etc. etc. over the last two years.

But it looks like they're trying to wise up while you continue to live in your dreamworld.

Take a look at this....

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061011-122935-1652r.htm

Your party can't even be honest about who they are and what they stand for. This shows you where the country truly stands.

[Sea Demon]

pursue open borders with Mexico
Where on earth did you get this from?

I'm watching your party in my state.


It's a given that Clinton tried to get bin Laden. Thats fact.

:lol: Yeah, because he said so. :rotfl:

I'm glad you feel safer because I sure don't.You need to open your eyes and ears and stop being a blind and deaf follower.

I'm not entirely feeling safe. I just don't think your Democrat Party is up to the task of defending this Nation. And they have proven it. You are the king of the followers, sir.

[ASWnut101]

You come back with George Bush got a DUI 35 years ago.
Sorry, multiple DUI's. Thats why his record went convieniantly missing.

Then how do you know it happened?:hmm:

And sorry to you Brad, but while President Bush actually confronts enemies, your party tries to do everything
in there power to prevent success in Iraq. Your party does everything in their power to hinder any success we have.
Your party continually provides terrorists in Iraq propaganda victories, because of the perceived hurt that it does
to GW Bush. I feel
What enemies were in Iraq when we attacked? Not to mention how screwed up and unprepared we were once we took the country. We made a cesspool out of nothing and there still is no plan in place to win. Bush isn't taking his own advice in that "If it doesn't work, change it".

Who started making a deal about Iraq? We were doing fine until a liberal complained.

And sorry to you Brad, but while President Bush actually confronts enemies,
....then we leave it before the job is done to attack Iraq....

You obviously don't realize that troops are still in country, unless you are forgetting Green Baretts, Navy S.E.A.L.'s, and Air Force combat controllers.

and go back to the days where a terrorist attack warrants no response.
It's a given that Clinton tried to get bin Laden. Thats fact. We have never been as close to getting bin Laden as when we had our intelligence and armed forces in Afganistan yet we walked away and left a token force which have lost control which is nothing on them it is the fault of this administrations bungleing. Also please remember that nothing of the magnitude of 9/11 had ever happened before.
You seem to forget that the CIA, Rice and Rumsfeld knew something big was going to happen in June, yet Rice and Rumsfeld blew it off plus didn't bother notifying Bush. Yet the one man who tried to get the ball rolling was forced to resign (Tenent).
We have screwed up every slice of pie we have our fingers in. If you can find one thing we have not screwed up please enlighten me.
I'm glad you feel safer because I sure don't.You need to open your eyes and ears and stop being a blind and deaf follower.

By we, i assume you are reffering to Democrats?:p

[bradclark1]

Then how do you know it happened?
If you remember back in the first election it was a point of contention in the beginning. Thats when the records went poof.

Who started making a deal about Iraq? We were doing fine until a liberal complained.
Thats a reason? Thats all you can come up with?

You obviously don't realize that troops are still in country, unless you are forgetting Green Baretts, Navy S.E.A.L.'s, and Air Force combat controllers.

Errr, token force? I could have sworn I said token force. Let me go back and read my last comment. - Yep thats what I said. Token = slight; perfunctory; minimal.

By we, i assume you are reffering to Democrats?
No. When I say we I mean America. You see I'm American first and formost. To me "we" is America so when this goverment screws up it's on all of us. When your country has only two political parties and the one you have now is not doing the job you get rid of it. You get the other party in hoping they can do better. To me blind party loyalty is simply idiotic.
If you want to be republican first then by all means you have that right.

[Sea Demon]

Brad, you are a Democrat first and it shows. It's as clear as the sky outside my window is blue. Your response to ASWNut does not help your case at all. The Democrats have never done better on the issues needing work today. Their history is one of appeasement (North Korea), defeatism (Iraq), weakness (China proliferation), and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups). Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.

Sir, you ain't foolin' anybody.

[bradclark1]

I'm watching your party in my state.
Sorry, I have no idea what happens in individual states. I'm only interested in national and international. Considering California has a large Mexican population it shouldn't come as any suprise should it.

Yeah, because he said so.
You must not have been watching the news back in the later half of the 90's. It made the news often enough or are you using selective memory, or of course you might have been too young.

I just don't think your Democrat Party is up to the task of defending this Nation. And they have proven it.
How have they proven it? The Republicans have proven they aren't up to the task. There has been failures in Afganistan, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Unprotected borders five years after 9/11. Ports that inpect only 5% of cargo brought into this country which was the same percentage pre 9/11. So sir, where has the Republican led goverment proven their worth?

You are the king of the followers, sir.
Afraid not. I have no blind party loyalty. If one party fails you get the other party in. Republicans have proved their unworthyness so it's time to fire them and bring in the other party. You don't ride a dead horse.

[Sea Demon]

No, you got it wrong Brad. All these things you say that needs change, is something the Democrats have proven they don't want to solve. That horse died over 15 years ago. Digging it up and getting back on is no answer. The Republicans at least are confronting the issues your party refuse to even look at. Your ignorance of state politics is not my concern. If you paid a little more attention, you might actually be a little more concerned. There are indeed alot of people of Mexican Heritage out here in California. My family is such people. But we also want the borders closed, and immigration laws enforced. Alot of legal Hispanics want that. We have watched your party fail and have seen pro-active steps taken by Republicans to end some of the insanity. It took a Republican to stop the "Drivers licenses for illegals" nonsense out here. It took a Republican to actually make an issue out of terrorism. It took a Republican to actually pursue enforcement of UN Resolutions that your party loves so much.

The Democrats have no business running this country. Their goals and views are untenable in a free society. We're already hearing about how they want to kill the tax cuts despite more money flowing into the treasury, and the deficit reduction accelerating faster than anticipated. In essence......your party is obsolete.

[bradclark1]

Brad, you are a Democrat first and it shows. It's as clear as the sky outside my window is blue. Your response to ASWNut does not help your case at all. The Democrats have never done better on the issues needing work today. Their history is one of appeasement (North Korea), defeatism (Iraq), weakness (China proliferation), and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups). Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.

Sir, you ain't foolin' anybody.

Give it a break Sea Demon. So now I'm a closet democrat? Whatever floats your boat.

The Democrats have never done better on the issues needing work today.
The Democrats were not in power for 9/11 or after were they, so how could they have done any better or not? The world changed on 9/11.

Their history is one of appeasement (North Korea), defeatism (Iraq), weakness (China proliferation), and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups). Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.
Let me give you a little education on N. Korea. They have Russian heavy water reactors. That makes it easy for them to get the ingredients for the bomb. America was going to give them light water reactors which N. Korea virtually couldn't use to make the bomb in exchange for the dismantling of the heavy water reactors. Just might be me but I can't find fault with that line of thinking.
The Bush administration has done nothing with Korea in six years. They now have the bomb. Who screwed up? The U.S. had a division plus in S. Korea. Now there is a brigade or less. Who drew it down? The Bush administration.
Iraq : We had everything in one location which was Afganistan. What did we do? We virtually walked out without acomplishing the mission and invaded Iraq. How stupid is that? Now we are loosing Afganistan because we let the Taliban and Al Qaeda walk right back in.
Iraq has been an Bush administration cock-up since day one. So what are we doing? We are losing both Afganistan and Iraq because we did half assed jobs in both places and it's not because of our troops on the ground.
The Bush administration set our forces up for failure the second they dicided to invade Iraq and spread and feed terrorism.
Now we can't do a thing about N. Korea or Iran. To me the Bush administration is a monumental failure. All these half assed measures has us so bogged down we can't do anything about two rouge nations getting the bomb and thats scary on a global scale.

Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.
No what Bush did was screw up again and slot them with the Geneva Convention. That was another dumb move.

and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups).
I have no idea what you are getting at here.

[ASWnut101]

Brad, you are a Democrat first and it shows. It's as clear as the sky outside my window is blue. Your response to ASWNut does not help your case at all. The Democrats have never done better on the issues needing work today. Their history is one of appeasement (North Korea), defeatism (Iraq), weakness (China proliferation), and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups). Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.

Sir, you ain't foolin' anybody.

Give it a break Sea Demon. So now I'm a closet democrat? Whatever floats your boat.

you sure act like one

The Democrats have never done better on the issues needing work today.
The Democrats were not in power for 9/11 or after were they, so how could they have done any better or not? The world changed on 9/11.

They sure were in for bosnia, which is still a terrorist hotspot

Their history is one of appeasement (North Korea), defeatism (Iraq), weakness (China proliferation), and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups). Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.
Let me give you a little education on N. Korea. They have Russian heavy water reactors. That makes it easy for them to get the ingredients for the bomb. America was going to give them light water reactors which N. Korea virtually couldn't use to make the bomb in exchange for the dismantling of the heavy water reactors. Just might be me but I can't find fault with that line of thinking.
The Bush administration has done nothing with Korea in six years. They now have the bomb. Who screwed up? The U.S. had a division plus in S. Korea. Now there is a brigade or less. Who drew it down? The Bush administration.
Iraq : We had everything in one location which was Afganistan. What did we do? We virtually walked out without acomplishing the mission and invaded Iraq. How stupid is that? Now we are loosing Afganistan because we let the Taliban and Al Qaeda walk right back in.
Iraq has been an Bush administration cock-up since day one. So what are we doing? We are losing both Afganistan and Iraq because we did half assed jobs in both places and it's not because of our troops on the ground.
The Bush administration set our forces up for failure the second they dicided to invade Iraq and spread and feed terrorism.
Now we can't do a thing about N. Korea or Iran. To me the Bush administration is a monumental failure. All these half assed measures has us so bogged down we can't do anything about two rouge nations getting the bomb and thats scary on a global scale.

The clinton administration hadn't done anything for eight years

Your party is now working on a way to give terrorists constitutional protections for cryin' out loud.
No what Bush did was screw up again and slot them with the Geneva Convention. That was another dumb move.

slot them? they (the terrorists) would all be dead if he wasn't being forced to follow the G.C. for terrorists

and insanity (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups).
I have no idea what you are getting at here.

The hijacking and suicide attacks on 9/11 dosent ring a bell?

[bradclark1]

No, you got it wrong Brad. All these things you say that needs change, is something the Democrats have proven they don't want to solve. That horse died over 15 years ago. Digging it up and getting back on is no answer. The Republicans at least are confronting the issues your party refuse to even look at. Your ignorance of state politics is not my concern. If you paid a little more attention, you might actually be a little more concerned. There are indeed alot of people of Mexican Heritage out here in California. My family is such people. But we also want the borders closed, and immigration laws enforced. Alot of legal Hispanics want that. We have watched your party fail and have seen pro-active steps taken by Republicans to end some of the insanity. It took a Republican to stop the "Drivers licenses for illegals" nonsense out here. It took a Republican to actually make an issue out of terrorism. It took a Republican to actually pursue enforcement of UN Resolutions that your party loves so much.

The Democrats have no business running this country. Their goals and views are untenable in a free society. We're already hearing about how they want to kill the tax cuts despite more money flowing into the treasury, and the deficit reduction accelerating faster than anticipated. In essence......your party is obsolete.
The Republicans aren't confronting crap. They want to legalize aliens and our borders are still unsecured (one more time) five years after 9/11 so don't come that holier then thou stuff. Bush has been president for six years. Who's in control? A Republican led congress and senate, so who isn't confronting the issues? A Republican led congress and senate!

It took a Republican to actually make an issue out of terrorism.
Wrong. Clinton was engaged in trying to track down terrorist. Bush ignored terrorism when he took office until 9/11 happened. Prove me wrong on that point!

It took a Republican to actually pursue enforcement of UN Resolutions that your party loves so much.
Yes where are those weapons of mass destruction? Oh I'm sorry it was changed to bring democracy to Iraq. Whoops no, it was changed to fight the war on terror. There weren't any terrorists until we made Iraq free was there? That made a lot of sense didn't it. It must, but it sounds like pure stupidity to me. Whats the status of Afganistan? You remember, the war on terror. Whats the status of that country?

Your ignorance of state politics is not my concern.
Why would I give a hoot about California? I live on the other coast
in Connecticut.

It took a Republican to stop the "Drivers licenses for illegals" nonsense out here.
Suprising that, considering the Republican party tried to legalize aliens and
the southern border is still unsecure. Open to terrorists and illeagals five years after 9/11. Sounds pathetic to me!

Their goals and views are untenable in a free society.
What are there goals and views?

[Tchocky]

This argument isnt going anywhere, what's (was) the issue?

[Sea Demon]

The fact is Brad, I read what your saying in it's entirety, and its the same rubbish that your party spews on a daily basis. You can't take it, I understand. That's why your here, so desperately trying to convince everyone here what terror hawks Democrats are, and how they are all scandal free angels being picked on by Republican media. It's hard for you, I know. People voted for Bush twice. The last time overwhelmingly. Republicans have a pretty strong hold on D.C. right now. I'm not so sure the American people are going to put you guys back in power simply because you guys sound like a broken record. Yes, Bush is getting a beating in the media daily, but it's the same junk day in and day out. Recycled. And the American people didn't give you the country last election, or the election before that. You guys are defeatists, weak, and incompetent. And you guys sold us out to China in the 90's. And your complaints about the border is strange because at aleast the Republicans are now addressing it. Not as much as they should, but its more than you guys will ever do. And your tax policies are anti-growth, government empowering. No thanks.

And no, it took a Republican to finally address terrorism. And you guys don't like that because it showed you for what you guys are....weak and incompetent. Clinton ignored terrorism for 8 years. And now your party works to give terrorists constitutional rights. I understand all you guys can do now is try to rewrite history. It hasn't worked these last few years, what makes you think its any different now? The Democrat party is obsolete, desperate, and weak on national security. The fact that they have to talk like Republicans now shows you how desperate they are truly becoming. This political dishonesty that they display is utterly pathetic.

[Sea Demon]

This argument isnt going anywhere, what's (was) the issue?

Your right. But Brad is desperate because not everyone here is a hatefilled Democrat partisan working to give Al Qaeda constitutional protections, and working for full surrender in Iraq. Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton was tough on terrorism too don't forget.....just ask him. :roll: :lol:

[Tchocky]

This argument isnt going anywhere, what's (was) the issue?
Your right. But Brad is desperate because not everyone here is a hatefilled Democrat partisan working to give Al Qaeda constitutional protections, and working for full surrender in Iraq. Oh yeah, and Bill Clinton was tough on terrorism too don't forget.....just ask him. :roll: :lol:

From what I've read, it's going both ways. Arguing along party lines is ridiculous, to my mind.

[ASWnut101]

heh:

Interviewer: how tough were you on terrorism?
Clinton: *suddenly being awakened from a daydream*huh?, um, i didn't have sexual relationships with that man.....errm, woman!
Interviewer: Im sorry?
Clinton: um, yeah i did!
I: what did you do?
C: I, uh, I......*jumps up and runs out of room*

(for those who don't understand, this was a joke, not a quote!)

[Sea Demon]

heh:

Interviewer: how tough were you on terrorism?
Clinton: *suddenly being awakened from a daydream*huh?, um, i didn't have sexual relationships with that man.....errm, woman!
Interviewer: Im sorry?
Clinton: um, yeah i did!
I: what did you do?
C: I, uh, I......*jumps up and runs out of room*

(for those who don't understand, this was a joke, not a quote!)

In that interview with Chris Wallace, I loved it when Clinton exploded. He was the President who truly lost his marbles. ;) :doh:

Anyway, his purple-faced anger showed his guilt for all to see. When you get mad like that, you obviously got somewthing wrong with you. If he truly was tough on terrorism, and had rationale for an appropriate and effective answer, you wouldn't have seen that anger. Rather, you got excuses, and desperation to explain his wrongdoings away. This man was derelict in his duties for 8 years, and he knows history will show that. How many terrorist attacks did he sweep under the rug? Oh, oh, I know the answer to that one. :)

[Yahoshua]

um.....6?

[bradclark1]

The fact is Brad, I read what your saying in it's entirety, and its the same rubbish that your party spews on a daily basis. You can't take it, I understand. That's why your here, so desperately trying to convince everyone here what terror hawks Democrats are, and how they are all scandal free angels being picked on by Republican media. It's hard for you, I know. People voted for Bush twice. The last time overwhelmingly. Republicans have a pretty strong hold on D.C. right now. I'm not so sure the American people are going to put you guys back in power simply because you guys sound like a broken record. Yes, Bush is getting a beating in the media daily, but it's the same junk day in and day out. Recycled. And the American people didn't give you the country last election, or the election before that. You guys are defeatists, weak, and incompetent. And you guys sold us out to China in the 90's. And your complaints about the border is strange because at aleast the Republicans are now addressing it. Not as much as they should, but its more than you guys will ever do. And your tax policies are anti-growth, government empowering. No thanks.

And no, it took a Republican to finally address terrorism. And you guys don't like that because it showed you for what you guys are....weak and incompetent. Clinton ignored terrorism for 8 years. And now your party works to give terrorists constitutional rights. I understand all you guys can do now is try to rewrite history. It hasn't worked these last few years, what makes you think its any different now? The Democrat party is obsolete, desperate, and weak on national security. The fact that they have to talk like Republicans now shows you how desperate they are truly becoming. This political dishonesty that they display is utterly pathetic.

You know it's funny that I have addressed all your comments but you have ignored all the failings I've pointed out to you. Not one item I pointed out is based on opinion it's based on hard facts and because there is no defence you can have for these failing you just ignore them and act like they were never there. You go back to the old rhetoric which is nothing but trying to be insulting to the Democratic party which I really don't care about. It just proves how blind you are.
Yes the republicans are addressing the 700 mile fence on our southern border while leaving twice that unsecure. Yes the republican party was shamed after five years of doing nothing by private citizen groups who took it upon themselves to patrol the border and still do because as republicans have shown they only do half measures then walk away as in Afganistan and border security, or just ignore security all together as in our ports.
So spew your rhetoric and ignore your parties failings. When you feel man enough to answer my comments come on back.

[bradclark1]

um.....6?

Yeah, about that I figure.

[bradclark1]

To jog your selective memory Sea Demon.
Notice the blocks republicans tried putting up.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ Take note of third paragraph.

http://nsi.org/Library/Terrorism/rites.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Clinton_administration_anti-terrorism_law

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/26/rice-clinton-terrorism/

http://tailrank.com/594190/During-Another-FOX-News-Blame-Clinton-Discussion-Dick-Morris-Attacks-Clinton-s-Terrorism-Efforts-Before-Admitting-Not-Being-Up-To-Speed-On-Last-Three-Years-Of-Presidency

http://www.mikehersh.com/Republicans_sabotaged_Clintons_Anti-Terror_Efforts.shtml

[bradclark1]

Sen Warner (R) Head of Armed Services Commitee

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/world/middleeast/07capital.html?ex=1161057600&en=ba3c1ae2ad32b3ef&ei=5070

Just two paragraphs from this article :-

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 — The White House, caught off guard by a leading Republican senator who said the situation in Iraq (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/iraq/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) was “drifting sideways,” responded cautiously on Friday, with a spokeswoman for President Bush stopping short of saying outright that Mr. Bush disagreed with the assessment.

He said that at least two Republican colleagues other than Mr. Warner had told him that once the election was over, they would join with Democrats in working on a bipartisan plan for bringing stability to Iraq. Echoing Mr. Warner’s language, he said, “I wouldn’t take any option off the table at this time. We are at the point of no return.”

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ Take note of third paragraph.
Yes, a favorite source on Bush-bashing blogs.

Now take note of the facts (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007990.php).

[bradclark1]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ Take note of third paragraph.
Yes, a favorite source on Bush-bashing blogs.

Now take note of the facts (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007990.php).

Funny I do not see any Bush bashing in that article please point it out.
Whoops, no you can't because Bush wasn't president was he!
Also please point me to these facts you have issue with.
I've been pointing out facts all night and day. :damn:

[ASWnut101]

all from left wing sources....

[The Noob]

all from left wing sources....

....wich makes sense, because right wing sources would never say anything against thier own people.

[sonar732]

:nope::nope::nope::nope:

EDIT: I'm getting tired of the blame game of both parties...we need a party that can stand the course and take ownership for all the wrongs that have been committed. What ever happened to accountability? Enough of "what we did wasn't as bad as what you did" crap!

[TteFAboB]

Actually this is fantastic.

They're arguing to see who can defeat terrorists, secure borders, curb corruption among other things.

Bring on this competition, everybody wins. :up:

[bradclark1]

all from left wing sources....
Prove any of it is bull. You can't! You've been proved wrong by the facts....again.

[Sea Demon]

Brad, all these are partisan sources. When you level a charge, it's up to you to prove your case. And that's pretty much every thread you come into. You level all kinds of insane stuff about the President and cite every left-wing source you can provide. Doesn't prove jack. The whole notion that the Democrats will do any better is bogus. Their track record doesn't support that. Not only have they sold our technology out to China, it took a Republican to put sanctions on those same entities. Not only did your Democrat President let terrorist actions happen on his watch, it took a Republican President to actually address it. And now, all you Democrats whine about the war taking too long, and the need for us to surrender and such. Not only are Dems hampering our intelligence collection efforts, but they're pushing to give terrorists constitutional protections. Odd.strange.weird. :doh:
Democrats have let illegal aliens run wild over here, and Republicans are finally addressing the problems. We wouldn't get any action like that from you guys. And you Democrats want to kill the tax cuts. I could go on and on. But I'm getting tired of dealing with you. I'm going to go and enjoy my Sunday with my family. And then I'll be gone the next two days on business.

Bottom line, Brad. You ain't foolin' anyone. And your not changing any minds. I'm really not trying to change your mind. I'm just addressing your nonsense that Democrats are the answer to these problems, when clearly they are not. I understand, some people are just defeatists. Some people want weakness in the US government. Some people want terrorism ignored. Some people believe we should give enemies (and potential enemies) technology as a show of good faith. Some people are beholden to conspiracy theory. That's fine. But your desperation here really shows me alot. This country ain't a left-wing one. And you know it. That's why you can't let it rest. ;)

[The Avon Lady]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ Take note of third paragraph.
Yes, a favorite source on Bush-bashing blogs.

Now take note of the facts (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007990.php).

Funny I do not see any Bush bashing in that article please point it out.
Whoops, no you can't because Bush wasn't president was he!
Also please point me to these facts you have issue with.
I've been pointing out facts all night and day. :damn:
Well, then you have to hand it to the Bush-bashing blogs for using it against Bush. Simply google +clinton +"anti-terrorism legislation" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+clinton++"anti-terrorism+legislation"). That's what I'm referring to. Let's stop playing games.

[Takeda Shingen]

Actually this is fantastic.

They're arguing to see who can defeat terrorists, secure borders, curb corruption among other things.

Bring on this competition, everybody wins. :up:

Well, everyone would win if either party had answers. However, we have a two-party system in the United States. The Democratic Party offers no solution to our problems. The Republican Party offers the same failed policies.

I can hear the proponents of the Right now: 'So? At least they are addressing it.' And so? We can talk all day, but there has been no real action in border security, no meaningful progress with Iran or North Korea, a resurgent Taliban, and an Iraq teetering on the brink of civil war. In the latter, we now have to stay the course, but only because leaving creates more problems than staying, which is problem enough. Our choices run from the length from bad to worse.

All this while, the partisan rancor continues. The Bush administration has drawn lines in the sand with North Korea for six years, while Kim Jong Il has crossed them in succession. The response from the Right? 'Yeah, well, Clinton's policy failed too.' Oh, thank you, that is quite comforting: You fumbled the ball, but that is okay because another guy dropped a pass two plays ago.

The Left is the same way: 'The Iraqi quagmire has run our once proud military into the ground and created security concerns that will be in effect for decades to come.' No kidding. Still, what is the solution? We cannot secure the country, and yet, we cannot leave it, lest it become another Sunni-led theocracy.

And all this time, the constant drone from the pundits sounds. They argue back and forth, treading the circumference of the room repeatedly with the same old story: 'Look at the other guy! He screwed up too!' The supporters of both sides follow in suit, regurgitating the same old arguments again and again. No issue goes resolved, no change is made, no course is corrected. They solve nothing. They contribute nothing. It is an excercise in futility, as they seek to keep in power those who they feel affinity for, undermining the well-being of the nation all whilst wrapped in the American flag as they feel themselves wise and just for doing so. It nauseates me. There is nothing more destructive to the very fabric of the nation that has granted me my freedoms.

Who does one vote for? November 7th will be a bleak, bleak day.

[ASWnut101]

all from left wing sources....
Prove any of it is bull. You can't! You've been proved wrong by the facts....again.

Proove that any of it is right.

[bradclark1]

Brad, all these are partisan sources. When you level a charge, it's up to you to prove your case.
Oh, I get you now. The truth doesn't matter unless it comes from a republican source. Show me where I have lied about anything. I've proven your lies time and time again. I dropped you with common knowledge and links and have proved Republican screw ups in every case. Thats a joke. That why the republicans are doing so bad if they are the likes of you. You just ignore the facts each time and try to come from another direction which is proved unfounded and worthless.You have never answered one of my rebuttals because you can't.All you can do is spout party rhetoric.
A good for instance is this right here. How many times have I addressed this? Four or five at least.

Democrats have let illegal aliens run wild over here, and Republicans are finally addressing the problems.
The Republicans tried to legalize aliens and had to back off when the citizens voiced there anger. Yet you keep ignoring this. What has the Republicans done to address this issue? I can't think of one thing. Please enlighten me.

I've proven your lies time and time again.
I beg to differ. I have answered your charges every time with facts and you have not rebutted one time. Why? Because you can't.In fact I'll make it easy for you. Show me one fact I have lied about. Just one!

Not only did your Democrat President let terrorist actions happen on his watch.
9/11 - Death toll - 3000+.
Go ahead Sea Demon ride that dead horse.

[bradclark1]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/ Take note of third paragraph. Yes, a favorite source on Bush-bashing blogs.

Now take note of the facts (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/007990.php).
Funny I do not see any Bush bashing in that article please point it out.
Whoops, no you can't because Bush wasn't president was he!
Also please point me to these facts you have issue with.
I've been pointing out facts all night and day. :damn: Well, then you have to hand it to the Bush-bashing blogs for using it against Bush. Simply google +clinton +"anti-terrorism legislation" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+clinton++). That's what I'm referring to. Let's stop playing games.
I've proved Clinton had a terrorist policy. I proved that Rebublicans tried blocking every step.
Show me where I'm wrong. I checked the first two links and they prove what I said. I don't know what you are after.

Edit - As a matter of fact so what if it's a supposidly Bush bashing blog. Is it right or wrong? Does that make the information any less truthful. Check the date of the article. Its pre-Bush anyway. Unless you can refute that article there is nothing you can say except you don't like CNN.

Language edit: I'm sorry I didn't know piss was a bad word. Should I have said urinate instead?
Or is this a case of sexual discrimination? :)

[ASWnut101]

......you don't like CNN.

Who does?

[Ishmael]

Wow! A lot of accusations and counter-accusations since I was here last. Regarding North Korea and WMDs, read this Newsweek article that addresses the history:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15265432/site/newsweek/


Regarding Bush and friends, read the 9/11 timeline site at:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Everything in there was obtained from open-source publications and mainstream media outlets. You might find some interesting relationships of people in there, such as the head of the Pakistani ISI meeting with Condi Rice on 9/10 after transferring $100,000 to the 9/11 hijackers.

My problem with these guys is one of simple competence. They have royally screwed up everything they've tried by not listening to the experts. The litany of the pre-9/11 failures including the emergency meeting between Tenant, Negroponte and Rice that she first denied then minimized it's importance. The Downing Street memo that proved that the policy of Iraq's invasion was fixed before 9/11. The White House Iraq Group and thier role in selling the war with those pesky WMD threats. The reconstruction that failed because Jim O'Beirne was more interested in loyalty to Bush instead of simple competence. The willful failure to provide enough troops to secure civil order after the invasion, permitting the insurgency to blossom. The failure to complete the mission in Afghanistan leading to a resurgent Taliban and an explosion of opium production there. The failure of the Katrina aftermath that is still ongoing because DHS was more focused on terrorist attacks than in actual disaster relief. The rampant corruption and cronyism that serves as a hallmark of this administration. Republicans are reaching back 20-30 years to find corrupt democrats to come close to the number of Republicans antics over the last 6 years. Add to all this the insidious overeach of executive power to undermine the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches of government. The bypassing of the FISA courts, the over 800 signing statements that increase executive power at the expense of the citizenry. Is it any wonder that I fear for the future of the Republic?

But not to worry. When the next attack comes, martial law will be declared and people like me will be rounded up in those new camps KBR is building for DHS. Once the new NAFTA superhighway is completed, maybe I'll see some of you there as guards.

[August]

I've proved Clinton had a terrorist policy. I proved that Rebublicans tried blocking every step. Show me where I'm wrong.

Well, actually the link you posted says right in it that it wasn't every step. The Senate just had issues with some of the items in the bill, like a 23 million dollar feasiblity study on chemically tagging explosives and another expanding wiretaps. The latter being something even the Democrats themselves had issues with, not to mention a large number of civil rights groups including the ACLU.

You also fail to mention that Congress did indeed pass that bill soon afterwards giving Clinton nearly everything he wanted.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/WH_fact_sheet_10_96.html

[bradclark1]

tried blocking
I did say tried.

Edit: Thats a good link. Thanks August.