[sweet politics] i was wrong on iraq, and wrong on john kerry - bush

No, I define rational as having a certain amount of awareness that who our president is; matters.

Vlasic says I bring up liberal talking points, that sure is funny as I was just representing my personal observations as opinion. Maybe what he meant to say is that "Anyone who does not support Bush is a bleeding liberal and deserves to be shot". Well guess what, if Bush is elected again I may be drafted and you can have your fucking wish.


Kerry is a flipflopper!
-being able to recognize past errors and change positions on issues is a lesson that GW needs to learn
-Kerry as a senator was always a Jr to Kennedy, if you people don't think that as a JUNIOR SENATOR one has to bolster the SENIOR SENATOR of a state, then obviously you no real hold on American politics.
-Having opinion set in stone is a horrible thing for someone who is supposed to set policy of any kind because the world is ALWAYS changing

Do Dems do anything but attack?
-Are you fucking serious? I know that you are posting specifically to be responded to, but still, that is a seriously messed up statement. Remember when Bill Clinton WAS IMPEACHED FOR BLOWING HIS LOAD ON A DRESS? Bush has commited far worse crimes as the leader of this country.

Bush has
1) Fucked up teh economy
2) fucked up my friends lives by sending them and keeping them in iraq
3) destablized the middle east
4) lost all respect (what little there was) for America abroad
5) Politicized his war on terror
6) emulated Big Brother in so many ways that it makes me sick

and finally
7) has been unapologetic for any of his mistakes.

For these reasons alone any rational person would vote against bush. So why wont many? Because they believe in the idea of the Republican party way more then they believe in the reality of the republican party.

A hearty Fuck You to all the haters, btw.

Gallium
 
sweet. I disagree so I'm a hater.

:rofl:

So you're saying the middle east was stable before Bush took office.

You're also saying the economy wasn't already on its way out before Bush took office.

You're also saying only Bush has politicized the current conditions.

Are you fucking insane?
 
and you're completely brainwashed by something. You can't see both sides exploiting everything that's going on?
 
Vlasic are you trying to put spin on this in a way that pleases you?

1. The middle east was not a warzone circa year 2000 (besides Israel)
2. We had a big ol' surplus that was spent on a war. If clinton had been in office after 9/11 I would have expected Osama dead (instead of a case being built against Saddam) and all that money would have been re-invested in the economy
3. Bush raises the alert every time his ratings dip. That is politicizing the war on terror. Search for giga's thread for your own evidence.

But good try, fuck off now im going to learn.

Gallium
 
Gallium said:
Vlasic are you trying to put spin on this in a way that pleases you?

1. The middle east was not a warzone circa year 2000 (besides Israel)
2. We had a big ol' surplus that was spent on a war. If clinton had been in office after 9/11 I would have expected Osama dead (instead of a case being built against Saddam) and all that money would have been re-invested in the economy
3. Bush raises the alert every time his ratings dip. That is politicizing the war on terror. Search for giga's thread for your own evidence.

But good try, fuck off now im going to learn.

Gallium
Click to expand...
did you forget Sudan offered bin Laden to Clinton? Saying he would have finished the job is WAY the hell out there.

Did you forget Iraq was shooting at our planes throughout the 90's? What about Lybia? Are you saying the bombing in Yemen never happened?

SAying Bush is the only one using the war on terror for political gains is insanity as well. OOh. Terror level. Yippee!
 
No it isnt

Clinton couldnt fucking get off without someone writing a book about it. Him going after bin laden with little more then "One man has declared war against america and our shitty intel says that he was involved in some seriously bad stuff" would not have given him the approval to have osama taken out.

I am sure that AFTER THE FACT it would have been a good idea. But hell, bush was on vacation 60% of his time before 9/11, and that seems to me to be way more criminal and stupid...after the fact.

All those minor bullshit events you are talking about are not even in the same scale as wars. People have died in the 10's of thousands due to the direct actions of bush and his administration. They attacked when they said they KNEW there were WOMD's, there were not and the tune has changed.

If this shit went on with a Democrat in office he would have already been kicked out of office through the republican controlled congress. But because of the political climate things are not so.

LOOK AT GIGAS THREAD YOU FAGGOT TO SEE THAT BUSH ACTUALLY DOES THAT.


10 minutes to ochem, ill check this bullshit out later to see how Vlasic has further pulled the blinders down.

Gallium
 
nile.gif
 
blinders? What the hell are you talking about?

Clinton got approval to use force against bin Laden you numbskull. His idea of force was to launch a few missiles at an empty terror camp.

It doesn't make any sense for me to have a discussion with someone that seems to be so ignorant of the events and mistakes leading up to the current situation, current numbskull in office included.
 
Gallium said:
No it isnt

Clinton couldnt fucking get off without someone writing a book about it. Him going after bin laden with little more then "One man has declared war against america and our shitty intel says that he was involved in some seriously bad stuff" would not have given him the approval to have osama taken out.

I am sure that AFTER THE FACT it would have been a good idea. But hell, bush was on vacation 60% of his time before 9/11, and that seems to me to be way more criminal and stupid...after the fact.

All those minor bullshit events you are talking about are not even in the same scale as wars. People have died in the 10's of thousands due to the direct actions of bush and his administration. They attacked when they said they KNEW there were WOMD's, there were not and the tune has changed.

If this shit went on with a Democrat in office he would have already been kicked out of office through the republican controlled congress. But because of the political climate things are not so.

LOOK AT GIGAS THREAD YOU FAGGOT TO SEE THAT BUSH ACTUALLY DOES THAT.


10 minutes to ochem, ill check this bullshit out later to see how Vlasic has further pulled the blinders down.

Gallium
Click to expand...

enantionmers, what a fun class ;)
 
So what did vlasic come up with?
you are ignorant so I cant talk to you. :lol:

ok, well that was a good way for you to save face and leave the thread, especially when I said i was leaving as well. However you are not speaking from a position of authority at all, while I actually try my best to become informed. So let's take an article out of a nationally recognized journal, shall we?

http://www.cqpress.com/context/articles/contemp8.html

ill quote only what totally debunks your position, because that is more fun and you are so wrong in your position that I can more thouroughly enjoy MY post by trashing yours :)

from someone who is paid to think about this
Occasionally foreign policy making occurs in an environment involving a high degree of secrecy, in which the public, the media, and even most members of Congress are not privy to the decision-making process. One such case was when President Bill Clinton decided in August 1998 to launch missile strikes against the alleged terrorist facilities of Usama Bin Laden in Sudan and Afghanistan in response to the bombing of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, earlier that month. The choice to use force, however, came at a controversial time for Clinton. Only three days before the strikes, the president had admitted to misleading the public about an extramarital affair he had with a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky. Moreover, in the aftermath of the strikes investigative journalists uncovered information indicating that considerable disagreement had existed among Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and State Department officials over the intelligence gathered on Bin Laden and his supposed connections to the al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries plant, which the administration targeted on the grounds that it was involved in producing chemical weapons. Yet, with only a few exceptions, Clinton's decision to launch seventy-nine cruise missiles generated little controversy among members of Congress or opposition from other countries after the fact.
Click to expand...

random mislead idiot
blinders? What the hell are you talking about?
Click to expand...

well you dont look at things with an objective mind, you are trying to validate your own beliefs in everything you see/read/respond to. Hell you wont even read the facts, you will debunk them so that you dont have to change your positon (even when it is :lol: ridiculous)

Originally Posted By Someone Who Selectively Remembers
Clinton got approval to use force against bin Laden you numbskull. His idea of force was to launch a few missiles at an empty terror camp.
Click to expand...

In the quote above....heh you wont read that!

Check it

"The choice to use force, however, came at a controversial time for Clinton. Only three days before the strikes, the president had admitted to misleading the public about an extramarital affair he had with a White House intern".

Now I can see your response already "Clinton did that to himself!". The issue should have never left the bedroom, untold thousands of dollars were spent finding out if he put the cigar in her pussy, or up her ass. But yet while Clinton was having to deal with this shit, he managed to destroy a chemical factory that may or may not have been containing chemical weapons. The funny thing is those who were pressing clinton on lewinsky were also saying that he was 1) unfit to lead the country and 2)was using bin laden as a way to divert attention from him. hahahahahahahaha, man that cracks me up that you look back on that time and think that he had the ability to strike at bin laden with full support of the nation. In addition to the factory, he also hit bin laden's main camp and other support and training camps. He ATTACKED bin laden. WHAT THE FUCK DID BUSH TO BIN LADEN?

He fucking got the family out of the goddamn nation as fast as he could, without QUESTIONING even. Jesus fucking christ. You cant be serious about supporting this president. You are supporting the party line. I thought 1984 had already come and gone?

again from that excellent link
The Pentagon added that Bin Laden had excellent relations with the Sudanese military and that the plant was heavily guarded by Sudanese soldiers.

It doesn't make any sense for me to have a discussion with someone that seems to be so ignorant of the events and mistakes leading up to the current situation, current numbskull in office included.
Click to expand...

Vote for Kerry; he is a smart, reasonable person. He will make an excellent president, much better as a president then a senator for sure.


I could go on and on and on about Bush and how shady his administration is. I can go on about Clinton and how his shadiness was offset by the country improving by leaps and bounds. I want a chance to go forward with Kerry and talk about how he saved America from the specter of Fear and War.

That is what bush means in the end; Fear and War if elected.

Gallium

ps- you are a moron.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TonyElTigre

The middle east has always been a fucked up place.

America's involvement in the region is at a level it has never been at before. Iraq is on the brink of anarchy. Our popularity there is at an all time low.

I was down with going in for the oil so my gas prices would drop. That didnt happen.

Bush De-stabilized the region in a way that was not seen in the clinton administration.

It seems like, over the past 4 administration, whenever a Republican is in office the middle east is put under a microscope and gets much worse.

Iraq-Iran : Remember reagan fucking that up by getting involved with shady arms deals?

Iraq again: Bush invades and leaves without finishing the job

Iraq again: Bush invades and finishes getting saddam out, but he wont leave and the death toll keeps on rising.


Don't forget that Vietnam wasnt this bad in 1966 ;) YEARS after that "war" had been going on.

Gallium
 
Gallium said:
No, I define rational as having a certain amount of awareness that who our president is; matters.

Vlasic says I bring up liberal talking points, that sure is funny as I was just representing my personal observations as opinion. Maybe what he meant to say is that "Anyone who does not support Bush is a bleeding liberal and deserves to be shot". Well guess what, if Bush is elected again I may be drafted and you can have your fucking wish.


Kerry is a flipflopper!
-being able to recognize past errors and change positions on issues is a lesson that GW needs to learn
-Kerry as a senator was always a Jr to Kennedy, if you people don't think that as a JUNIOR SENATOR one has to bolster the SENIOR SENATOR of a state, then obviously you no real hold on American politics.
-Having opinion set in stone is a horrible thing for someone who is supposed to set policy of any kind because the world is ALWAYS changing

Do Dems do anything but attack?
-Are you fucking serious? I know that you are posting specifically to be responded to, but still, that is a seriously messed up statement. Remember when Bill Clinton WAS IMPEACHED FOR BLOWING HIS LOAD ON A DRESS? Bush has commited far worse crimes as the leader of this country.

Bush has
1) Fucked up teh economy
2) fucked up my friends lives by sending them and keeping them in iraq
3) destablized the middle east
4) lost all respect (what little there was) for America abroad
5) Politicized his war on terror
6) emulated Big Brother in so many ways that it makes me sick

and finally
7) has been unapologetic for any of his mistakes.

For these reasons alone any rational person would vote against bush. So why wont many? Because they believe in the idea of the Republican party way more then they believe in the reality of the republican party.

A hearty Fuck You to all the haters, btw.

Gallium
Click to expand...


Yes now I am a unrational, scared, war mongering gay hating sheep. Gee I wonder why I have trouble relating to liberals. I mean a rational person would not take into account things like 9/11 for hurting the economy, none of use have relatives or friends serving. Wow I am convinced now...
 
oh and to make clear

Clinton was no angel, kerry will be no angel if he gets elected; HOWEVER-

I am trying to show that it is all relative, and republican administrations have been much much worse for the country in the past 4 administrations.

"but clinton only did good cause of reagan+bush"

stfu idiot.

why did bush lose to clinton
"It's the economy, Stupid"

why will Bush lose to kerry
"it's the economy, Stupid"

Gallium
 
War, you just arent thinking the right questions:

Why did we go to iraq? Should we have gone to iraq? Is Iraq a better place now that we are there? Would Iraq be better if we left?

The surplus money + shit-tons more were wasted on iraq.

THE ENEMY IS THE TERRORISTS. Osama was ALLOWED to get away, don't fool yourself into actually believing that one man can evade the most powerful country in the world. We gave up in Afghanistan, we didnt involve enough troops in afghanistan, the administration shifted focus off bin laden.

Bin Laden is the person who orchastrated those attacks. We did what he wanted by attacking Iraq. Muslims hate us on a level now that was not there when we were in afghanistan.

I just ask that you consider that this administration has fucked up royally. consider it.

Gallium
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top