new major on the block Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I nor anyone else needs to smear you. All we have to do is use your own words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Huh?<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted September 14, 2005 Author Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>NAFTA and CAFTA were pushed just as hard by the Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does Clinton have to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pineda Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I had always thought that NAFTA was George Bush's (the former president) idea.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>It may have been his idea originally (unconfirmed), but it was passed by Clinton in 1994. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 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.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Fanatical people weren't the least bit organized the way they are today. That's what I meant by there were no liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Fanatical people weren't the least bit organized the way they are today. That's what I meant by there were no liberals.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Oh. People you do not agree with a fanatical. Glad you cleared that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Oh. People you do not agree with a fanatical. Glad you cleared that up.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Ooops, meant "are fanatical". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I never said that - you assumed that. Again, another token trait of a liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 It's called leadership. Take the blame and move on to other more pressing topics. I don't see anyone else stepping up and taking blame... and there are plenty of others who are more to blame on the local level. Anyone with half a brain knows that the local governments are responsible for their own evacuation and emergency management plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I never said that - you assumed that. Again, another token trait of a liberal.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Must you always generalize. I know it takes a little more thought to deal with people as individuals instead of grouping and categorizing them as "liberals" and assume they all think as one large monolithic being. Remember all liberals do not think alike any more than conservatives do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 I never said that - you assumed that. Again, another token trait of a liberal.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Your wildly sweeping statements are indicitive of your lack of intellectual reasoning. Is it possible for you to at least once post a coherent statement verified by facts instead of constantly attacking anyone you think is wrong as "Liberal"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Must you always generalize. I know it takes a little more thought to deal with people as individuals instead of grouping and categorizing them as "liberals" and assume they all think as one large monolithic being. Remember all liberals do not think alike any more than conservatives do.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>You're right. I stooped to nmainguy's level by making such a sweeping assumption. My apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Your wildly sweeping statements are indicitive of your lack of intellectual reasoning. Is it possible for you to at least once post a coherent statement verified by facts instead of constantly attacking anyone you think is wrong as "Liberal"? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I can easily say the same from this side of the fence about your lack of factual content in your posts. So pointing out your own faults in other people still does you no good. Sorry, try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Fanatical people weren't the least bit organized the way they are today. That's what I meant by there were no liberals.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>The Ku Klux Klan was very organized. I believe they qualify as fanatical (or fascist, if you prefer), more so than suffragettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 They were also racist extremists that weren't taken serious in any political arena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 They were also racist extremists that weren't taken serious in any political arena.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>In the early 1900's they were taken very seriously? Wrong again Jeebus. But do you see the flaw in your thinking when you generalize a group of people based on their extremists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 In the early 1900's they were taken very seriously? Wrong again Jeebus. But do you see the flaw in your thinking when you generalize a group of people based on their extremists? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You're right, I apologize. I meant to say that I would have never taken them serious in any political arena. You're right, I shouldn't generalize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted September 14, 2005 Share Posted September 14, 2005 Unfortunately, you, like everyone else would have HAD to take them seriously. The KKK often times WAS the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.