I'd like to thank Bush for bringing Socialism to the EUFollow

DDP

Edited, Mon Mar 15 15:39:18 2004 by MoebiusLord

MORON When in history has that ever been proven to be the case, exactly? Who committed troops in World War 2? Who committed troops in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and so on and so on.

Oh wait, I see the diffrence. Those weren't situations where we committed troops solely to protect the financial intrests of freinds of the ruling party. Who pulled troops out of Korea? Repulicans. Who pulled troops out of Vietnam? Republicans.

WHO ALLOWED THE GREATEST SINGLE TERROR ATTACK ON US SOIL DURING THEIR WATCH?

REPUBLICANS.

If you're going to spout random ******** at least get it right. Republicans are theparty who have allways been soft pussies on defense unwilling to use force for any other reason than to generate income for their freinds and families.



You mean would have gained jobs? Ulike loosing massive amounts of them during this administration?



Right, I understand. The way it works is, Repulicans get into office, and ALLWAYS inherit a bad economy that doesn't actually show up untill they cut taxes on the ultra rich, then the country spirals into massive debt and the dolllar comes close to collapsing and Democrats get elected and reap the benefits of the brilliant Republican policies by ballancing the budget, creating massive amounts of jobs and presiding over the greatest economic boom in history.

Riiiiight.

I think you need to check you math, there, Stephen Hawking. The only place where the economy is recovering is in the pockets of oil companies who are seeing their last cnahce to gouge prices now that their whiney little ***** is on the way out of the white house. Stay tuned for $3 a gallon gas prices before the end of the year. They need to make thier money now before the looting is over.

Let’s keep it in my lifetime. Bosnia was a UN Peacekeeping mission. The only action that took any stones whatsoever was the bombing, and he ****** those up. The only reason we pulled troops out of Vietnam was the volume of the pissing, whining, complaining liberals. We pulled out basically to shut them up. You seem pissed because you didn’t get a chance to get in on the action. Now, when all we are doing is pre-emptily protecting ourselves, you seem to think it’s ok to strike up the old band line and go again. Nice liberal reaction, ******.



You are pinker than a tar tar steak, Smash. Who allowed him to fester like a boil waiting to explode on their watch? Who passed the buck on to someone else because he knew he was an ineffective twit? Who was too busy getting his apple polished and redefining simple English language words to do something about the man responsible for those attacks?



They may not be astronomical, but the jobs are coming back. With your boy, we’d be too busy worried about trying not to offend militant tree huggers and anti-globalization twats to make any significant or effective efforts at halting the recession. Your previous boy left us this mess, don’t forget that.

And yes, with the exception of George Bush, Sr. Republican presidents have been inheriting Democratic ****-ups for the last quarter of a century. Debt finances growth, genius.

As for gas prices, if you can’t afford to drive your car, take the damn bus. It won’t be a problem for me. Gas prices are do for an adjustment to 50 years of inflation anyway. If the liberals in America can’t get that through their thick skulls then tough ****** We still win. Spend the next 4 years ******** about it.

Pre-emptively protecting ourselves from what exactly? Was Spain preemtively protecting themselves from terror attack too?

See? We need more wars on terror. ***** the restraint you people call for. Lets go out and play whack-a-mole with the entire third world, because you know once we get the muslim extremists in line, Those little despotic regimes in Asia and Africa will have to go next.

Aside from your blatant bashing of one of the greatest American leaders in history, training the afghans served a purpose. And it worked, too. Then your guy Bill stepped in and pissed em off something fierce. Thanks for that. Thanks to all the “lets play nice” retards in this country who kept slick willie in office for 8 years. He still failed to act on the threat, and let it fester out there in the stone age.

Surely you’re not stupid enough to fail to recognize that Clinton didn’t create a damn thing. Clinton got to sign our bills for 8 years after inheriting a wonderfully placed economy from the 12 year pax republicanus. The only people who benefit from Democrats in power are people too lazy to get off their asses and get a job or too lazy to get a job that doesn’t require a union. Oh, and I suppose the single mom who was too stupid to make him wear a condom, or to keep her legs closed in the first place, who is too lazy to do the work necessary to get through her own situation. So yeah, basically lazy people love democrats. Which one are you? Oh yeah, I forgot. You’re the other group of people who loves democrats. You’re a new england liberal. /mourn. Why couldn’t there be an unstable fault in both havens of the left wing wackos?

Kerry will not win. You’re right, if he did, we’d be ******* The empire would truly speed its decline. However, we stole the last election to save the country from dull Al, we can steal this one to save it from dull John.

Muslim extremists like the Saudis who bankroll the Repblican Party?

Yeah I agree, let's go get them. Once we get a party in power that isn't in the pocket of muslim extremists we'll have a chance to do that. Once we have a party that isn't so scared ******** of North Korea that they don't dare do anything but give them money and move troops away from them in cowering fear we migh have a chance to really make the world a safer place.

I can't wait.


Yeah, it got three thousand American's killed.

You're essentially pissing on their corpses now. I wish you people would learn a little Patriotism and respect those who died on 9-11 instead of using them for political gain and to invade countries who weren't involved in the slightest. It borders on treason the way Republicans happily embrace the nation that spawned such terror. Saudi Arabia.



What are you talking about? Did you just make that up on the spot, because it's clear you haven't a clue what you're talking about.


Right. Twelve years of Republicans leading to...

Massive ressesion, RAISING TAXES and huge national debt.



Just people who make less than $200,000 a year. If that makes people lazy, great. I'm not lazy then. Are you?


That's right. I'm a New England Liberal. You know, like the majority of the Founding Fathers were.


Of course he will.


Nah. Bush is so bad at lying that it's far too late for him to repair the damage. If he had the skill of a Regan, or even the raw intelect of his father (who I like alot actually) he'd have a shot. Considering he's a confused frat boy with almost apparent strings being pulled by Big Oil he doesn't lie nearly effectively enough to win. He's done. His poll numbers will only go down from here. This election isn't going to be nearly as close as everyone thinks it will.

I think giving in to terrorism and letting it affect elections and national policy is a good thing. After all, if you just leave the bad guys alone, the bad guys will leave you alone.

Sincerely,
Neville Chamberlain

Hmm... last I checked our founding fathers believed in no income tax and a very limited federal government. So limited in fact that they stated that anything not explicitly stated in the constitution as a power of the federal government would be reserved for the states and the people. That is nothing even close to what the Liberals of today believe. It also isn't close to what the Conservatives stand for. Either side claiming that they are the party of the founding fathers is total hogwash!

It is a matter of historical fact that the Bush family has had a relationship with the Saudi monarchy since at least Prescott Bush. Also, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 while all the planes in the nation were grounded, there were a few flying around and picking up bin Ladens family for safe passage back to Saudi Arabia.

Both Bush and Kerry's families can be traced to very powerful families at the birth of the nation. Both families are direct decendants of English Monarchy. They became very rich by illegaly smuggling opium into China as agents for the Brittish. They were also Torries. No bs, look it up.

WW2 was a mess? I guess you're right, considering your sensibilities lean far more towards the Axis powers than with the Allies in that conflict. I mean, I'm not implying you're a fasicst, but clearly you'd prefer an expantionist strong military leader than quasi socialist egalitarians.


BASED ON WHAT, EXACTLY?

Did the monkies that flew out of your *** during your mescaline trip tell you that was true? The Republican party was dominated by ISOLATIONISTS during WW2. The Democrats had to drag the Repulicans kicking and screaming into the war and without Pearl Harbor they probably wouldn't have been able to do so. Lend/Lease ring a bell?

IF YOU'RE GOING TO REFERANCE HISTORY TAKE THE TEN SECONDS REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY SEE WHAT THE SITUATION WAS AT THE TIME YOU'RE REFRENCING

Moron.



Which party gave up and allowed the United States to fail to achieve an attainable victory for the first time in it's history?

The Republicans.


Hang on just a minute. We had no buisness in Vietnam? If you believe that to be true, please explain the diffrences in regards to Iraq.

Thanks.



Of course. Republicans allways run when the poll numbers turn. They're not intrested in fighting the good fight, just in political expedience. Typical Republican Cowardice.


How'd that war turn out, by the way? Oh yes, that's right, the dictators were removed from power, are being tried for war crimes all without hundreds of US troops dying and thosands being maimed.

What a horrible model. Much better to send hundreds to die and thousands to be crippled for life to accomplish something less effective.


Yeah, gingerly. Dropping Atomic Bombs was acting very gingerly. Johnson's alocation of troops in Vietnam was acting very gingerly. I think what you're trying to say is sending troops without utter disregard to the lives of american soldiers


To what effect is the question. We toppled a brutal dictator who no will argue, was an insane murderous lunatic. Not that things like that ussualy stop us from supporting a leader, but that's another issue. The thing is he was the leader of a Secular muslim state. There is at the very least a 50/50 chance that the government of Iraq will end up being a fundementalist islamic religous puppet of Syria and Iran. If that happens, are we really better off?



Republicans turned tail and ran like the cowards they allways are.


Republicans turned tail and ran like the cowards they allways are.



I'm amazed we're even talking about Somalia. If you're going to bring Somalia up as a failure you might as well bring Grenada up as a ringing success.



Does high body count mean much if you aren't actually accomplishing anything? Because I haven't seen us accomplishing much yet in Iraq.


You know, I don't think they would. I think most US military personel would tell you that they'd prefer that no US soldiers die doing anything that isn't absolutely nessicary and couldn't possibly be resolved by other means.


[quote]
As to 9/11. Hmmm... The number of increasingly violent attacks by Al-queda in the Clinton years should have been a hint something was coming.
[/quote]
And...what exactly? What would have been the action that adminstration should have taken in your tiny little mind?

[quote]
The fact that it occured 9 months after Clinton left is not the issue.
[/quote]
The hell it isn't. If it had hapened during a Gore presidency can you seriously, with a straight face tell me your perople wouldn't be actively blaming the man for it? Of course they would. Just as they try to hang it on Clinton which is beyond ludicrous.


[quote]
Clearly, it was planned earlier then that. Bush being in office was irrelevant. Clinton's administration was so afraid to take any decisive action against Al-queda for fear of losing ground on his Isreal/palesinian peace deal that he ignored a threat that killled 3 thousand US civilians. That's the real story.
[/quote]

Thank God Bush took decisive action against them when he got into office then. Oh wait. That's right, he didn't. He ignored a threat that killed 3 thousand US civilians. THAT'S THE REAL STORY.

[quote]
What I see is a pattern of the Dems being handed something that is working, ******** it all to hell, then tossing it like a hot potato to the Reps screaming: "Fix it! Fix it...". If they had a clue how to handle foreign affairs, we likely wouldn't have had a 9/11 at all.
[/quote]
Right. If they had just trained terrorists how to use weapons, improvise munitions, organise, launder money, and pilot planes like the Republicans did there wouldn't have been a problem. The reality is Republicans are and allways have been a bunch of armchair Generals who love the idea of war but wet their pants when one actually occurs.

[quote]
Same with the economy. You would be hard pressed to find any economist who will say that we were not heading into a severe recession when Bush took office. Not "after he took office".
[/quote]
Really? Amazing. I find it rather startling that the VAST MAJORITY of econmists (including several Nobel Prize winners) say the exact opposite. In point of fact, pretty much only economists in the employ of the Administration or the Republican party even attempt to make the case that he inherited one.

[quote]
When he took office. That means if you're going to place blame on a president and his administration (which is questionable when talking about the economy anyway), you have to place that blame squarely on Bill Clinton's head. He took an economy that was running like a well oiled machine and just let it run until it crashed.
[/quote]
Yeah it was doing so well at the end of Bush Sr.'s term that there was massive debt to the point where he was forced to raise taxes fearing a collapse of the federal monetary system and Republican's in Congress shut the government down because there wasn't enough revenue in the economy to pay government workers. Well oiled machine. Right.


[quote]
His administration missed all the signs that we were heading towards a crash. They made no attempt to slow down the dot com boom. Instead, his administration just took advantage of a record growth (which they did *not* create), and increased taxes higher and higher. When the crash started, businesss did not have the leeway needed to ride it out, so they went bankrupt. 3 years of record high taxes meant that they were ok as long as the economy was booming, but at the first sign of downturn, they had no reserves to draw on.
[/quote]
Yeah, good logic. If only fiscially irresponsible companies who never once turned a proft had MORE cash to spend on Super Bowl ads they would have been fine!

[quote]
And that's why record numbers of businesses went belly up in 2001 and 2002. It had nothing to do with Bush or his administration. It had everything to do with events that occured during Clinton's administration. The sooner people realize this somewhat obvious truth, the sooner folks will realise the current Dem rhetoric for what it is.
[/quote]
Haha somewhat obvious. In the way that's it obvious to muslim's that America must be destroyed I guess. It's amazing how many things become obvious when you maipulate the facts to fit your idealogical view isn't it?

Hell, why am I telling you that, you can't even begin to examine a fact with any sort of intelectual rigor. In point of fact you randomly create falsehoods to fit your views. Like Republicans being in favor of the US going to war in WW2, when in reality they were as dead set against it as it was possible to be.

Don't you ever grow tired of being amazingly and so easily proven wrong? Apparently not. I suspect you're a ********* of some sort.

ROFL!!! I don't think me or my roommate have ever laughed so hard!

That would have been Reagan and Daddy Bush, as a matter of fact and record.

We're all doomed if Smash ever figures out he can bold things and change the color at the same time.

You mean the same president who threatened to stack the Supreme Court by adding more justices if they found his new programs to be unconstitutional? Then proceeded to get those laws and programs passed starting us down the road of reinterpreting the constitution anytime it didn't allow our government to do whatever it wanted? Yea right.