Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sevfiv

Bush Takes Full Responsiblity

Recommended Posts

Our incompetent and inept president is a day late and a dollar short. Pathetic per usual.

Ignorance flows free! It's the mayor and governor who are to blame for not having a GET THE HELL OUT OF NEW ORLEANS plan. They know the situation of their below level city better than anyone.

This was posted August 27th on the Mayor's website:

City of New Orleans

Mayor Nagin is working with Gov. Kathleen Blanco and other City, local and State officials are watching the storm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

N8TIV:

This thread is about President Bush and his role in allowing what happened to happen. Perhaps your unsuccessful attemp to deflect from Bush would be better placed in a thread on Blanco and Nagin.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N8TIV:

This thread is about President Bush and his role in allowing what happened to happen. Perhaps your unsuccessful attemp to deflect from Bush would be better placed in a thread on Blanco and Nagin.

B)

The top guy should ultimately be responsible for national affairs...It's the price you pay for sitting in the big chair. He's to blame for many things: The CIA's misinformation on WMD's in Iraq, letting Casey Sheehan die 'needlessly' in Baghdad, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (the failure to set an example for Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin) You'd think he must hate black people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems our lame duck here is trying to be the scapegoat. Even if he is/is not responsible for all of the failures, might as well take all of the blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems our lame duck here is trying to be the scapegoat.  Even if he is/is not responsible for all of the failures, might as well take all of the blame.

No, he's not trying to be the scapegoat. He finally stopped listening to his advisors for a couple of minutes, and said what he should have said a week ago...that the buck stops here. The president sets the tone and the policy. The policy of FEMA was shifted 4 years ago away from natural disasters and toward terrorist attacks. FEMA's feeble response to this natural disaster is a direct result of that change in policy.

This is the first time in his presidency that he has accepted responsibility for his actions or his policies. While it may not reverse his record low popularity, and it is way late, it was the right thing for him to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew all along that when and if Bush did accept responsibility, liberals would find a way to blame him for that too.

that's not blame, it's just a qualifier...liberal or not...ugh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The top guy should ultimately be responsible for national affairs...It's the price you pay for sitting in the big chair.  He's to blame for many things:  The CIA's misinformation on WMD's in Iraq, letting Casey Sheehan die 'needlessly' in Baghdad, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (the failure to set an example for Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin)  You'd think he must hate black people.

I don't think he hates black people. He clearly likes Condi. I just think he's a clueless incompetent. I hope this will finally wake people out of their stupor and realize what an inept administration this has been. The bungled war. Irresponsible tax cuts resulting in mind boggling debt. And now death and destruction in NO. It is absolutly indefensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he hates black people. He clearly likes Condi. I just think he's a clueless incompetent. I hope this will finally wake people out of their stupor and realize what an inept administration this has been. The bungled war. Irresponsible tax cuts resulting in mind boggling debt. And now death and destruction in NO. It is absolutly indefensible.

all the experiences i have had with busher's lead to the generalized conclusion that they stick with him through thick or thin, stupid or more stupid(er)...heh

maybe it's a betting pool... :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I knew all along that when and if Bush did accept responsibility, liberals would find a way to blame him for that too.

An inept deflection. The old "but they're LIBERAL!!!!" attacks have worn thin. If you're so big on Bush-defend his actions.

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
all the experiences i have had with busher's lead to the generalized conclusion that they stick with him through thick or thin, stupid or more stupid(er)...heh

maybe it's a betting pool... :blink:

:lol:

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...... And now death and destruction in NO. It is absolutly indefensible.

The ignorance is gushing with this one... You're inept ability to find another word besides inept is funny and you continue to put blame on the federal government for the death and destruction, when in reality...it's a natural disaster and those people should have been evacuated beforehand. Shame on those state and local leaders for not having a plan...It's their responsibility for knowing what to do in an emergency...Not this inept administration. Next time you run out of money at the casino's...why don't you blame BUSH or any republican administration for the insufficient welfare check. Handouts for the poor.

Libs should stop relying on the federal government to save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the spirit of admitting mistakes, I must admit one of mine. I have been informed that this is NOT the first mistake Bush has admitted in public...he admitted he never should have traded Sammt Sosa.

I apologize for the misstatement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The ignorance is gushing with this one... You're inept ability to find another word besides inept is funny and you continue to put blame on the federal government for the death and destruction, when in reality...it's a natural disaster and those people should have been evacuated beforehand. Shame on those state and local leaders for not having a plan...It's their responsibility for knowing what to do in an emergency...Not this inept administration.  Next time you run out of money at the casino's...why don't you blame BUSH or any republican administration for the insufficient welfare check.  Handouts for the poor.

Libs should stop relying on the federal government to save them.

I agree. But unlike other members on this thread, I'm not going to abuse my post by filling it with needless smiley faces & exclamation points.

I will editorialize for just one moment however: Liberals, if left soley in charge of this country, would eventually give away everything Christian conservatives have fought to create & preserve over the last 300 years to those who don't deserve it.

Welfare & NAFTA are just two examples that more than prove my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will editorialize for just one moment however: Liberals, if left soley in charge of this country, would eventually give away everything Christian conservatives have fought to create & preserve over the last 300 years to those who don't deserve it.

Welfare & NAFTA are just two examples that more than prove my point.

Oh, f*cking brother!

BTW, Jeebus, please explain the Medicare Prescription Benefit to me, including who pushed it through Congress.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/12/08/elec04.medicare/

Also, could you explain CAFTA to me, as well?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4739803.stm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I know.. I know.. I voted for him - so its just as much my fault. We're just going to have to wait for '08 and see what changes we can make.

That's why I'm mildly conservative..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yaa Screw the librals!!! If it weren't for good Christian Republicans we wouldn't be taking it to those "terrorists" in Iraq that attacked us in 9/11. Shame on the "libs" for needless idiotic anti-American "Bush bashing". And now these "hate America firsters" are at their Bush bashing once again, why? Just because he was speaking at a fundraiser in California a day after one of the most catastrophic natural disasters in US history occured and couldn't provide adequate asisstance until 4 days after the levees broke. The nerve of these viscous libs! Now when those moronic liberal democrats in New Orleans and Louisiana who didn't drag the remaining 20% of New Orleans out before the storm needed federal assistance desperately, why rush it to them? After all Karl Rove, Limbaugh and Hannity will be right there to point the blame right where it should be....on all the incompetant democrats in Louisiana.

Now if Bush were getting BJs from his mistress on his frequent but ohh so necessary "working" vacations in Crawford..now that would be a worthy reason for criticism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I know.. I know.. I voted for him - so its just as much my fault. We're just going to have to wait for '08 and see what changes we can make.

That's why I'm mildly conservative..

Well, this has just turned completely bizarre.

Jeebus is "mildly conservative"?

N8TIV is still deflecting-grousing over my description of the Bush Administration as "inept"-I can't find a better description. Maybe incompetent?

Neither one of them can defend Bush.

So it's blame the "libs". It's blame the cigarette smokers.

Again, why don't you defend Bush instead of deflecting. This thread is about Bush.

Stand up for your guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yaa Screw the librals!!! If it weren't for good Christian Republicans we wouldn't be taking it to those "terrorists" in Iraq that attacked us in 9/11. Shame on the "libs" for needless idiotic anti-American "Bush bashing". And now these "hate America firsters" are at their Bush bashing once again, why? Just because he was speaking at a fundraiser in California a day after one of the most catastrophic natural disasters in US history occured and couldn't provide adequate asisstance until 4 days after the levees broke.  The nerve of these viscous libs! Now when those moronic liberal democrats in New Orleans and Louisiana who didn't drag the remaining 20% of New Orleans out before the storm needed federal assistance desperately, why rush it to them? After all Karl Rove, Limbaugh and Hannity will be right there to point the blame right where it should be....on all the incompetant democrats in Louisiana. 

Now if Bush were getting BJs from his mistress on his frequent but ohh so necessary "working" vacations in Crawford..now that would be a worthy reason for criticism!

Well........you are just a trouble maker!!!!! ;)

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, this has just turned completely bizarre.

Jeebus is "mildly conservative"?

N8TIV is still deflecting-grousing over my description of the Bush Administration as "inept"-I can't find a better description. Maybe incompetent?

Neither one of them can defend Bush.

So it's blame the "libs". It's blame the cigarette smokers.

Again, why don't you defend Bush instead of deflecting. This thread is about Bush.

Stand up for your guy.

The only thing bizarre here is your complete inability to grasp reality. Blame the cigarette smokers? Blame them for what? How about blame those who buy cigarettes with money given to them to buy necessities - not luxuries. Again, you're attempting to drag a simple converstation across threads in an effort to insult me. You're transparent and its evident by your replies to my posts.

I have never claimed to be a proponent for Bush. I voted for him for two reasons:

1. Every vote counts - Every election.

2. He wasn't Kerry.

So based on those two reasons, why are you expectant upon my defense of him? I've been the first to put him down. Bush is an idiot. If you would grasp reality, and listen (or in this case read) - then these misunderstandings would be non-existant. Of course your need to post would then be non-existant as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i can proudly say i've never voted for anyone that i thought to be an idiot

there are *usually* other alternatives to the two idiots in the two most prominent parties... :rolleyes:

(especially in texas, where the biggest idiot would win no matter what... :lol: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're referring to the Independent Party, then yes, I agree completely. Unfortunately, with war looming, I had to pick not only a president - but an administration.

I'll be the first to admit that I might be wrong. But his administration isn't over yet. So I'll just have to wait. As for the other alternative of "not voting" - well, that's just Un-American! Besides, if you don't vote, how can you have the right to gripe later??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing bizarre here is your complete inability to grasp reality. Blame the cigarette smokers? Blame them for what? How about blame those who buy cigarettes with money given to them to buy necessities - not luxuries. Again, you're attempting to drag a simple converstation across threads in an effort to insult me. You're transparent and its evident by your replies to my posts.

I have never claimed to be a proponent for Bush. I voted for him for two reasons:

1. Every vote counts - Every election.

2. He wasn't Kerry.

So based on those two reasons, why are you expectant upon my defense of him? I've been the first to put him down. Bush is an idiot. If you would grasp reality, and listen (or in this case read) - then these misunderstandings would be non-existant. Of course your need to post would then be non-existant as well.

You voted for an idiot? Because he was not Kerry?

You defend Nagin because of this quote from you?:

..."be cause Bobby Jindal is a 1. a minority 2. a man 3. NOT BLANK-O. Surely you cn see now why he supported Jindal after watching Blank-O make her mess."

Do you see why you aren't taken seriously? You support draft dodging idiots because they aren't veterans like Kerry and candidates based on their genitalia and skin color. Now if that isn't bizarre, I don't know what is.

You are all over the page, man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush takes full responsibility?

'Responsibility' includes accepting the consequences for his actions. Impeachment is called for. His ability to lead our country is legitimately under question.

Regardless of a person's political leanings, President Bush has shown the glaring errors in judgement and bizarre behavior that are characteristic of people who suffer from long-term alcohol and drug abuse. He cannot grasp questions, nor can he formulate answers. If he were black, in rags, and on Main Street, you'd immediately peg him as a burned-out old wino. Bear in mind that he once had the intellegence to graduate from Yale - not brilliant, but certainly not the shell of a man we see today.

We test our atheletes for drugs, and drivers for alcohol consumption. Why shouldn't the leader of the free world be held to the same standards? We cannot - must not - take the word of a confirmed alcoholic that he's been 'clean' since he was 40. There's too much at stake.

No. This is in the same category as the drunken wife-beater who bursts into tears and tells her how sorry he is when he knows she might leave him. "I'm sorry, baby! I'll never do it again! I take full responsibility!" He is neither mentally nor emotionally equipped to continue being President.

So, this liberal has stopped hating Bush. He's not just mean and stupid - he's sick and brain-damaged because of a disease he cannot control. I pity his children, because these things run in families, and they seem to be off to a rip-roarin' start.

Our country comes first. Let's not let one man's personal failings bring it down.

Be a man, Bush. Resign. Don't put us through another impeachment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush takes full responsibility?

'Responsibility' includes accepting the consequences for his actions. Impeachment is called for. His ability to lead our country is legitimately under question.

Regardless of a person's political leanings, President Bush has shown the glaring errors in judgement and bizarre behavior that are characteristic of people who suffer from long-term alcohol and drug abuse. He cannot grasp questions, nor can he formulate answers. If he were black, in rags, and on Main Street, you'd immediately peg him as a burned-out old wino. Bear in mind that he once had the intellegence to graduate from Yale - not brilliant, but certainly not the shell of a man we see today.

We test our atheletes for drugs, and drivers for alcohol consumption. Why shouldn't the leader of the free world be held to the same standards? We cannot - must not - take the word of a confirmed alcoholic that he's been 'clean' since he was 40. There's too much at stake.

No. This is in the same category as the drunken wife-beater who bursts into tears and tells her how sorry he is when he knows she might leave him. "I'm sorry, baby! I'll never do it again! I take full responsibility!" He is neither mentally nor emotionally equipped to continue being President.

So, this liberal has stopped hating Bush. He's not just mean and stupid - he's sick and brain-damaged because of a disease he cannot control. I pity his children, because these things run in families, and they seem to be off to a rip-roarin' start.

Our country comes first. Let's not let one man's personal failings bring it down.

Be a man, Bush. Resign. Don't put us through another impeachment.

Good post. It brings to mind the "pretzel" episode. If I were in a room choking on a pretzel and knew there were SS agents right outside the door, I think I would have run to the door and made some sort of signal that, "HEY! I'm choking here!"

I seriously don't think I would just collapse to the carpet hitting my head on the coffee table on the way down. It seems he clearly has unresolved issues.

One correction to your post, however: he has never admitted to being an alcoholic.

That denial is what keeps him from being a whole individual again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You voted for an idiot? Because he was not Kerry?

You defend Nagin because of this quote from you?:

..."be cause Bobby Jindal is a 1. a minority 2. a man 3. NOT BLANK-O. Surely you cn see now why he supported Jindal after watching Blank-O make her mess."

Do you see why you aren't taken seriously? You support draft dodging idiots because they aren't veterans like Kerry and candidates based on their genitalia and skin color. Now if that isn't bizarre, I don't know what is.

You are all over the page, man.

No.. As usual, your attempt to insult & smear me is what is all over the page.

Let me clean up your mess - as usual (I'll even spare the red ink this time as not to confuse you):

1. Who is the draft-dodging idiot I support? ummm.. Surely you didn't mean Bush because the last time I checked, he volunteered to serve. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I stand by them. I voted for him to keep Kerry out of office.

2. As for Kerry, his time in Vietnam was a joke. Ask any veteran that was there more than 4 months - wait, that would be all of them unless they were killed, or seriously wounded 3 times. Right, right.. "but Kerry's got 3 purple hearts". Well, I've got guys in my old Guard unit that had a chest full of medals I watched them pencil whip their way into getting. So spare me the 3 purple heart story. His own crews have not supported him. So all he has is his paperwork that other officers wrote on his behalf. Officers by the way, that were not there when he allegedly was wounded 3 times.

3. I didn't support Jindal because the color of his skin or his "genitalia" as you so vividly keep referring to. I supported Jindal because he was an Oxford grad who had a plan for Louisisana. As usual you failed to listen (or in this case "read") what was said by myself. I said that people voted for Blank-O because she was white.

4. I've never defended Nagin. What planet are you on?

You are the one that is in left field, but please - for all of our sakes, stay there. As for you not taking me seriously - who really cares? :huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No.. As usual, your attempt to insult & smear me is what is all over the page.

Let me clean up your mess - as usual (I'll even spare the red ink this time as not to confuse you):

1. Who is the draft-dodging idiot I support? ummm.. Surely you didn't mean Bush because the last time I checked, he volunteered to serve. Just because I voted for someone doesn't mean I stand by them. I voted for him to keep Kerry out of office.

2. As for Kerry, his time in Vietnam was a joke. Ask any veteran that was there more than 4 months - wait, that would be all of them unless they were killed, or seriously wounded 3 times. Right, right.. "but Kerry's got 3 purple hearts". Well, I've got guys in my old Guard unit that had a chest full of medals I watched them pencil whip their way into getting. So spare me the 3 purple heart story. His own crews have not supported him. So all he has is his paperwork that other officers wrote on his behalf. Officers by the way, that were not there when he allegedly was wounded 3 times.

3. I didn't support Jindal because the color of his skin or his "genitalia" as you so vividly keep referring to. I supported Jindal because he was an Oxford grad who had a plan for Louisisana. As usual you failed to listen (or in this case "read") what was said by myself. I said that people voted for Blank-O because she was white.

4. I've never defended Nagin. What planet are you on?

You are the one that is in left field, but please - for all of our sakes, stay there. As for you not taking me seriously - who really cares?  :huh:

I nor anyone else needs to smear you. All we have to do is use your own words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't remember? Bill Clinton.. Janet Reno.. The FBI.. the dead children burned to a crisp? Is it coming back to you yet?

At least Katrina was a natural distaster..

Edit: Oh yeah.. ATF. I forgot to add the ATF.

Edited by Jeebus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think he hates black people. He clearly likes Condi. I just think he's a clueless incompetent. I hope this will finally wake people out of their stupor and realize what an inept administration this has been. The bungled war. Irresponsible tax cuts resulting in mind boggling debt. And now death and destruction in NO. It is absolutly indefensible.

There was a time when people in this country with different political parties did not hate each other. Before the late sixties, the different political parties usually just agreed to disagree - your political stance didn't make you "stupid" or "crazy." People who were around back then can tell you about it. Reading these posts, the hatred is maniacal. You folks should step back and see how you sound. In this one, George Bush - not Hurricane Katrina - is blamed for the death and destruction of New Orleans. One of our moderators thinks he should be impeached for it. As though if we just had a Democrat in office, all those roads going in would have magically been fixed so buses could get in, all those people would have stopped firing guns at rescue helicopters, and all the different levels of bureacracy involved would have functioned perfectly.

In my opinion, what George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both had in common is that they were, at bottom, human beings who tried to do what they thought best for the country. I never understood the hatred that was foistered upon them, in that administration or in this one. Most Democrats today would rather see Bush get ruined by the war than see Iraq come out okay. That's sad. I'm hoping it does come out okay. If it does - and if Iraq becomes a successful democracy in the center of the Middle East - Bush will be seen by future generations as a hero. Why? Because he stuck to what he thought was right, even when it wasn't popular. Lincoln was the same way - the Civil War almost cost him reelection. People back then up North said he was stupid for getting into it, just as people now say Bush is stupid. Well, I guess you can't change the way people will be. As for myself, I will continue hoping for what's best for the country and the world, and not get pulled down into hateful debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post H-Town Man. Don't forget about Roosevelt's secret deals with England before WW2 also.

We also have to remember that Liberals didn't really exist as a mass until the mid-sixties. Before then, Democrats were not really that different from Republicans. You're right however, that there were no maniacal issues to eitherside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a time when people in this country with different political parties did not hate each other.  Before the late sixties, the different political parties usually just agreed to disagree - your political stance didn't make you "stupid" or "crazy."  People who were around back then can tell you about it.  Reading these posts, the hatred is maniacal.  You folks should step back and see how you sound.  In this one, George Bush - not Hurricane Katrina - is blamed for the death and destruction of New Orleans.  One of our moderators thinks he should be impeached for it.  As though if we just had a Democrat in office, all those roads going in would have magically been fixed so buses could get in, all those people would have stopped firing guns at rescue helicopters, and all the different levels of bureacracy involved would have functioned perfectly.

In my opinion, what George W. Bush and Bill Clinton both had in common is that they were, at bottom, human beings who tried to do what they thought best for the country.  I never understood the hatred that was foistered upon them, in that administration or in this one.  Most Democrats today would rather see Bush get ruined by the war than see Iraq come out okay.  That's sad.  I'm hoping it does come out okay.  If it does - and if Iraq becomes a successful democracy in the center of the Middle East - Bush will be seen by future generations as a hero.  Why?  Because he stuck to what he thought was right, even when it wasn't popular.  Lincoln was the same way - the Civil War almost cost him reelection.  People back then up North said he was stupid for getting into it, just as people now say Bush is stupid.  Well, I guess you can't change the way people will be.  As for myself, I will continue hoping for what's best for the country and the world, and not get pulled down into hateful debate.

I don't understand where hate of the individual comes into the political debate in this country. I have always been of the opinion that I can't hate someone I don't know. However I can-and do-reserve the right to dislike the policies. I don't care about Bush's fate regarding anything he has or hasn't done. What I do care about is the glaring deception [intended or not], incompetence and ineptness consistantly displayed by this administration resulting in untold lives being forever altered in the most negative way.

It is a disgrace on our nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In this one, George Bush - not Hurricane Katrina - is blamed for the death and destruction of New Orleans.

i believe most people were blaming bush for the lack of response to the hurricane, not the hurricane itself...

and from the article:

"To the extent the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility," Bush said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggesting that we should play nice instead of fervently arguing what we believe is right smacks of someone who doesn't want his favorite guy demonized for his policies. Sorry, but that kind of behavior is what allowed slavery to exist for 100 years, allowed women not to vote for 150 years, and allowed blacks to be treated as less than equals for almost 200 years.

I realize that many do not think that this administrations policies are destroying the country and costing American lives. I realize that many in this country don't care what this president does as long as he worships Jesus. I realize that many people in this country actually agree with what I believe are ignorant policies and actions.

But, I am not one of those people. And his winning the election does not deprive me of my right to oppose him and his policies. You have the right to ignore me, or more importantly, to disagree with me. To ask me to shut up because my guy didn't win, is to say that this country does not represent what you claim it does.

And I will oppose that line of reasoning, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggesting that we should play nice instead of fervently arguing what we believe is right smacks of someone who doesn't want his favorite guy demonized for his policies.  Sorry, but that kind of behavior is what allowed slavery to exist for 100 years, allowed women not to vote for 150 years, and allowed blacks to be treated as less than equals for almost 200 years.

I realize that many do not think that this administrations policies are destroying the country and costing American lives.  I realize that many in this country don't care what this president does as long as he worships Jesus.  I realize that many people in this country actually agree with what I believe are ignorant policies and actions.

But, I am not one of those people.  And his winning the election does not deprive me of my right to oppose him and his policies.  You have the right to ignore me, or more importantly, to disagree with me.  To ask me to shut up because my guy didn't win, is to say that this country does not represent what you claim it does.

And I will oppose that line of reasoning, as well.

Several problems with this post (aside from being a tad overkill on the rhetoric):

1. When did I ask you to shut up?

2. When did I oppose anyone arguing fervently for what he or she believes is right?

3. Who is taking away your right to oppose Bush or his policies?

4. Who said Bush was my favorite guy?

You're right on one thing - I don't think Bush should be demonized for his policies. I don't think anyone should be demonized for his or her policies, except in maybe the most extreme cases. Bush is not a demon, he's a human being. One second you talk of being able to "oppose" him, the next you talk of "demonizing" him... I think the whole problem here is that you and people like you can't see the difference between opposing and demonizing. Everyone who disagrees with you has to be demonized. It's no different from Jerry Falwell.

My post was a plea against demonizing, not against having a position and arguing for it. Hopefully someone around here can still see the difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree. But unlike other members on this thread, I'm not going to abuse my post by filling it with needless smiley faces & exclamation points.

I will editorialize for just one moment however: Liberals, if left soley in charge of this country, would eventually give away everything Christian conservatives have fought to create & preserve over the last 300 years to those who don't deserve it.

Welfare & NAFTA are just two examples that more than prove my point.

NAFTA and CAFTA were pushed just as hard by the Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
President Bush did what you should do in that situation unlike his coward predecessor who still denies that he gave the order to engage in the waco incident. :angry:

What does Clinton have to do with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will editorialize for just one moment however: Liberals, if left soley in charge of this country, would eventually give away everything Christian conservatives have fought to create & preserve over the last 300 years to those who don't deserve it.

Welfare & NAFTA are just two examples that more than prove my point.

I had always thought that NAFTA was George Bush's (the former president) idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good post H-Town Man. Don't forget about Roosevelt's secret deals with England before WW2 also.

We also have to remember that Liberals didn't really exist as a mass until the mid-sixties. Before then, Democrats were not really that different from Republicans. You're right however, that there were no maniacal issues to eitherside.

Liberals didn't exist before the mid-sixties? Roosevelt wasn't liberal? The Suffergette movement wasn't liberal? The abolishionist movement wasn't liberal? How about the Quakers? I'd say they were liberal. Even the early Baptists in this country were considered liberal when compared to the Puritans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I had always thought that NAFTA was George Bush's (the former president) idea.

It may have been his idea originally (unconfirmed), but it was passed by Clinton in 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberals didn't exist before the mid-sixties? Roosevelt wasn't liberal? The Suffergette movement wasn't liberal? The abolishionist movement wasn't liberal? How about the Quakers? I'd say they were liberal. Even the early Baptists in this country were considered liberal when compared to the Puritans.

Fanatical people weren't the least bit organized the way they are today. That's what I meant by there were no liberals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fanatical people weren't the least bit organized the way they are today. That's what I meant by there were no liberals.

Oh. People you do not agree with a fanatical. Glad you cleared that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that - you assumed that. Again, another token trait of a liberal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...