After last night's speech by Bush......

[maniactickler]

Context is everything. (Though that'd mean you would have to read maniac screeching, so I can see why you skipped that.)

Ordinarily I agree, and I normally don't comment on grammar or spelling. But if you post about the horrid state of education, you should try to avoid looking uneducated yourself.

This is the internet, not brain surgery. im not exactly applying for a job interview here. perfect punctuation is the last thing on my mind. hell, if i wanted, i could easily pick apart anyones grammar here. but im not an angry liberal. im a good hearted conservative. besides, my grammar should be an indication of the pathetic liberal education system in this country.

 

[maniactickler]

I never said the US is a bad country; I said Dubya's a sucky president!

If this country let people like me or some very talented people of different gender and skin color run things, maybe we'd get more than the same old tired rhetoric and crap that's been shoved down our throats since this country's inception. But I doubt if it'll ever happen in my lifetime because the old school of thought that this country should be run by white men is very much entrenched and I don't see it changing any time soon.

You're not getting the best and brightest, you're getting the richest and who can raise the most money and can sling the most mud during a campaign. Hell, he's the first president in my lifetime who was nearly taken to the Supreme Court because of the issues surrounding the votes in his brother's state. Give me a break, there's a lot of mud and blood on his hands.

As far as Johnson and Kennedy are concerned they have their share of blood too. You do remember how Kennedy died right? Those who live by the sword....

As an American citizen, I do have the right to free speech whether you like it or not. I am free to say that I didn't vote for him and that he's done nothing positive for this country. You have yet to answer my question; what has he done domestically for this country in six years? You know why you won't answer that? Because he's done NOTHING and you know it! Just because you voted for him and he's a total flop, don't get upset with me because I'm telling the truth about him. And yes, if I was old enough to vote for Carter, I would have and I would've been on the receiving end of some tough and sometimes undeserving criticism. So I guess I should understand why you and your Bush-ites defend him so.

I voted Clinton in office and talked about him like a junkyard dog when he messed up. But even he hasn't messed up to this extent and you know it.

Clinton was an egomaniac, who cared not about this country, but for himself. a classic poll president. afraid to make a stand on anything in fear of hurting his legacy. at least Bush has the balls to stand up for his beliefs. clinton will always be one of the saddest, self centered, do nothing, immoral presidents of our time.

 

[primetime]

Kis, you asked me what Bush has done domestically. not much, but i sure dont remember what Clinton did of major significance either. there was still poverty, homelessness, joblessness and gang violence like there is today.

who knows what Bush's domestic agenda would have been if 9/11 never happened. ever since that day, his focus has been on foreign policy. Clinton didnt have to worry about that. i wonder what Clinton would have done if he was in office when 9/11 happened.

you're right. you have every right to criticize the President, just as much as i do to refute your arguments. I am a Republican, but i will vote for whoever. in 1992, i voted for Bush Sr. in 1996, i voted for Clinton. in the last two elections, Bush Jr. i just find it amazing that no matter who's in office, people will say this President is the worst ever. Clinton was supposedly destroying the nation, just like people say Bush is destroying the country now. it is the same old crap every Presidential term.

you talk about Bush and his controversy with votes in his brother's state and having to go to the Supreme Court. uh, correct me if i am wrong, but didnt Clinton's wife have a little "legal" problem herself with Whitewater? didnt Clinton also nearly lie on the stand in regards to his "affair" with Monica Lewinsky? wasnt there talk about how people mysteriously disappeared or died when it came to investigating Clinton's dealings while he was governor of Arkansas? yeah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

George W. Bush will not go down in American history as the greatest. but what really determines if a President is a failure? let's be real. what does a President actually have to do to be considered a failure? when this country falls to another country and we surrender our soveriengty (sp), then that President should be considered a failure. until then, we need to hope together that the President, regardless of party, does a good job.

 

[kis123]

Kis, you asked me what Bush has done domestically. not much, but i sure dont remember what Clinton did of major significance either. there was still poverty, homelessness, joblessness and gang violence like there is today.

who knows what Bush's domestic agenda would have been if 9/11 never happened. ever since that day, his focus has been on foreign policy. Clinton didnt have to worry about that. i wonder what Clinton would have done if he was in office when 9/11 happened.

you're right. you have every right to criticize the President, just as much as i do to refute your arguments. I am a Republican, but i will vote for whoever. in 1992, i voted for Bush Sr. in 1996, i voted for Clinton. in the last two elections, Bush Jr. i just find it amazing that no matter who's in office, people will say this President is the worst ever. Clinton was supposedly destroying the nation, just like people say Bush is destroying the country now. it is the same old crap every Presidential term.

you talk about Bush and his controversy with votes in his brother's state and having to go to the Supreme Court. uh, correct me if i am wrong, but didnt Clinton's wife have a little "legal" problem herself with Whitewater? didnt Clinton also nearly lie on the stand in regards to his "affair" with Monica Lewinsky? wasnt there talk about how people mysteriously disappeared or died when it came to investigating Clinton's dealings while he was governor of Arkansas? yeah, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

George W. Bush will not go down in American history as the greatest. but what really determines if a President is a failure? let's be real. what does a President actually have to do to be considered a failure? when this country falls to another country and we surrender our soveriengty (sp), then that President should be considered a failure. until then, we need to hope together that the President, regardless of party, does a good job.

What on earth does Whitewater have to do with the American public? Absolutely nothing! What does Dubya's decision to send thousands of American troops to their deaths over a country that's going to fight and kill over some sick religious tradition? Everything!

As far as Whitewater is concerned; those who died either died or committed suicide. The religious right tried to turn it into some sort of conspiracy, but none was proven. Now if you have irrefutible proof tha the Clintons had people killed over Whitewater, let me have it! Otherwise it's no more than another Pat Robertson and his followers rant!

Do you know how much debt the US is in because of this war? Do you know how much of that is out there to be picked up by other cash rich countries? How would you like it if one day Old Glory was pulled down and some other's country flag was raised in its place? Guess what? That can very well happen in our lifetime; instead of being blown up, we'll be bought out. How would you feel about him then?

 

[kis123]

Clinton was an egomaniac, who cared not about this country, but for himself. a classic poll president. afraid to make a stand on anything in fear of hurting his legacy. at least Bush has the balls to stand up for his beliefs. clinton will always be one of the saddest, self centered, do nothing, immoral presidents of our time.

Clinton doesn't have 911 on his head does he?

Clinton didn't accuse Osama without irrefutable proof, does he?

Clinton didn't send 3000 troops to their deaths, thousands more wounded, thousands more than that mentally anguished, now did he?

Bush picked a cause because his daddy had a smidgen of success, now it's been five years later and he has tons of blood on his hands.

Oh, and btw, Clinton didn't use his brother to gain the presidency, now did he?

Say what you want, I can continue to break Dubya down to what he really is; a Yale C-student running our country in a pitiful fashion.

 

[maniactickler]

Clinton doesn't have 911 on his head does he?

Clinton didn't accuse Osama without irrefutable proof, does he?

Clinton didn't send 3000 troops to their deaths, thousands more wounded, thousands more than that mentally anguished, now did he?

Bush picked a cause because his daddy had a smidgen of success, now it's been five years later and he has tons of blood on his hands.

Oh, and btw, Clinton didn't use his brother to gain the presidency, now did he?

Say what you want, I can continue to break Dubya down to what he really is; a Yale C-student running our country in a pitiful fashion.

Blah blah blah. all the usual delusional, liberal, bullshit talking points. those are as old and stale as my underwear.

 

[kis123]

Blah blah blah. all the usual delusional, liberal, bullshit talking points. those are as old and stale as my underwear.

I'm not interested in your underwear. I'm interested in an intellegent dialogue that obviously I won't be having from you.

It's been real, but if this is your best, then I must move on.-maybe you should do the same since you obviously are unable to prove a point Your "I hate liberals" rant has gotten old and tired and it's about time you gave some sound information to back your rants up.

I won't hold my breath. I'll just wait for the next Tourette's outbreak.

 

[maniactickler]

I'm not interested in your underwear. I'm interested in an intellegent dialogue that obviously I won't be having from you.

It's been real, but if this is your best, then I must move on.-maybe you should do the same since you obviously are unable to prove a point Your "I hate liberals" rant has gotten old and tired and it's about time you gave some sound information to back your rants up.

I won't hold my breath. I'll just wait for the next Tourette's outbreak.

Well far be it from letting you down. heres a quickie for you. liberalism sucks. 😎

 

[maniactickler]

I'm not interested in your underwear. I'm interested in an intellegent dialogue that obviously I won't be having from you.

It's been real, but if this is your best, then I must move on.-maybe you should do the same since you obviously are unable to prove a point Your "I hate liberals" rant has gotten old and tired and it's about time you gave some sound information to back your rants up.

I won't hold my breath. I'll just wait for the next Tourette's outbreak.

Ok, heres a couple more tidbits for you. Clinton in my mind was a big part of causing 911 for his do nothing approach to terrorism. because of course he cares only about himself. and of clinton didnt send 3000 troops to fight for the safety of this country. hes a pussy who has no backbone. again, doing something like that might make him look bad. and the laughable excuse of how Jeb helped his brother get the presidency. thats so pathetic. its just sour grapes from the whiney ass libs. and my continuous rant about liberalism will never get old because the truth never gets old.

 

[primetime]

Kis, are you paying attention to your own words? it's funny how you talk about Bush doing something with the votes in Folrida, but Whitewater doesnt mean anything. please, that is pretty bad. can you show me irrefutable proof that Bush "cheated" with the votes in Florida? touche...

you keep harping on Bush sending troops to their deaths. uh, then can i please see you bash a particular Democrat by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson who sent a LOT MORE troops to their deaths in Vietnam? c'mon, it's the same thing. Vietnam was a nothing war, just like this Iraq war. be fair.

oh wait, you cant. i'm curious, what was your stance on "Daddy" Bush and his predecessor Ronald Reagan? i'm guessing the same type of bashing you are doing now.

for all the "wrongs" Bush has done in your eyes, people can point out to you the "wrongs" of Bill Clinton or any other Democratic President. bottom line is this. no matter who the President is, there will ALWAYS be a set of people upset at the President. problem is, too many are so hate filled to see Bush is not doing a terrible job. if he did, how on Earth did he get elected a second time? his "Daddy" didnt even do that....

 

[Goodieluver]

i can name three.....Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy

Kennedy ordered illigal flyovers of cuba, lincoln ignored habias corpus so maryland would not seceed, the concept of revolution is wrong in some eyes, so those 3 presidents have a "issue" with their past and legalness

 

[Goodieluver]

His daddy started the obsession with Saddam and sent thousands to a failed war. His son took over when he went into office; nearly five years later we're again fighting a failed war costing us billions.

He used his political pull to keep his son out of the savings and loan scandal in the 90s. As far as I'm concerned it should've been the Keating 6 instead of 5. Neil Bush went through his daddy's trap door.

All of them are nothing but a bunch of liars, thieves, alcoholics, and drug addicts. The only good news I see is that it's highly unilikely that there'll be a second generation of them; at the rate their kids are going, none of them will live long enough to take office.

You know, we were involved with the middle east during carter\ford\nixon

 

[Goodieluver]

Id like to mimic what the President was quoited as saying, its easy to say a plan is bad or wrong, yet they dont offer a viable solution to the problem, only that the current solution is wrong. Well if u think more troops to iraq is wrong, then present an idea that preserves american and iraqi life in iraq and keeps iraq as a soverign democracy.

 

[lespieds]

It is discusting that this GWB has no problems with sending a bunch of 18-whatever age young folks to Iraq to possibly die.

Why are we over there? Is it because it is good for business?
So the Americans who support this war in iraq, would they want to go over and fight? Would they want their own kids over there?
I sure as god damned hell would not want my son over there.

Sooner or later the rest of the world is going to get tired of our shit then what is going to happen?

 

[tickledgirl]

Kennedy ordered illigal flyovers of cuba, lincoln ignored habias corpus so maryland would not seceed, the concept of revolution is wrong in some eyes, so those 3 presidents have a "issue" with their past and legalness

What illegal flyovers are you referring to, goodie? What do you mean by "illegal"? Were any of them in violation of US laws? I wasn't aware of that.

Re Lincoln, I think the differences between Lincoln and Bush are instructive. Faced with secession that posed an immediate threat to the existence of the United States, with an enemy army on US soil, Lincoln publicly announced the suspension of Habeus Corpus for a circumscribed time.

Faced with the existence of a cabal of evil men trying to sneak into the United States from caves thousands of miles away, Bush secretly suspended Habeus Corpus for the indefinite future.

To say that Bush compares Lincoln is laughable. Maybe that's appropriate for TMF, but still...

 

[tickledgirl]

Id like to mimic what the President was quoited as saying, its easy to say a plan is bad or wrong, yet they dont offer a viable solution to the problem, only that the current solution is wrong. Well if u think more troops to iraq is wrong, then present an idea that preserves american and iraqi life in iraq and keeps iraq as a soverign democracy.

A plan that preserves Iraqi and American life and keeps Iraq as a sovereign democracy? Why not wish for a pony from Santa while you're at it?

We're in an airplane that's gone out of control over a large. A wing's fallen off, the engines are dead, and we're going to crash. Bush is advocating pushing the throttle a little harder. And when we say that won't work and we need to bail out, you refuse to budge unless we come up with a plan that would get the plane safely landed at the airport with the missing wing reattached.

It'd be wonderful if there was a good solution available. I truly wish there was one. But sometimes there just isn't. We're stuck looking for the least-bad solution. Bush's plan isn't it.

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Either the man is completely delusional, or he's too stubborn about forcing his rectitude down our throats at the risk of everything we hold dear.

After last night's interview on '60 Minutes', I vote for completely delusional. He actually said that he's flexible and open minded. Yeah. Right.

 

[tickledgirl]

Kis, are you paying attention to your own words? it's funny how you talk about Bush doing something with the votes in Folrida, but Whitewater doesnt mean anything. please, that is pretty bad. can you show me irrefutable proof that Bush "cheated" with the votes in Florida? touche...

Or not. Whitewater was extensively investigated over years at the cost of millions of dollars. And they found...nothing wrong.

In Florida the Supremes stepped in to stop any worthwhile investigation. Followup counts by various new organizations showed that Gore would've won a full recount.

Finally, the accusations levelled in Whitewater were that the president's spouse had made money unethically a dozen years earlier. The accusation levelled in Florida were that a Presidential election was stolen. Implying a similarity between the two is pretty sad.

can i please see you bash a particular Democrat by the name of Lyndon B. Johnson who sent a LOT MORE troops to their deaths in Vietnam? c'mon, it's the same thing. Vietnam was a nothing war, just like this Iraq war.

Hey, something we agree on! Iraq is just like Vietnam. (Okay, maybe not just like, but the similarities are depressing. One big difference is that LBJ didn't have Vietnam to look back at. Bush did, he just refused to look.

 

[tickledgirl]

my continuous rant about liberalism will never get old.

Do you keep saying that about your underwear too, hon? Just a friendly note, you should really think about changing both of them.

 

[Goodieluver]

What illegal flyovers are you referring to, goodie? What do you mean by "illegal"? Were any of them in violation of US laws? I wasn't aware of that.

Re Lincoln, I think the differences between Lincoln and Bush are instructive. Faced with secession that posed an immediate threat to the existence of the United States, with an enemy army on US soil, Lincoln publicly announced the suspension of Habeus Corpus for a circumscribed time.

Faced with the existence of a cabal of evil men trying to sneak into the United States from caves thousands of miles away, Bush secretly suspended Habeus Corpus for the indefinite future.

To say that Bush compares Lincoln is laughable. Maybe that's appropriate for TMF, but still...

If the US was allowed to commence flyovers, why were they so secretive on them?(kennedy\cuba)

As for lincoln, the "enemy on US soil" didnt even present themselevs till way into the war and after the North had "invaded" virginia, Lincoln suspended the right as the secession began and ANYONE who said anything favorable to the south was Jailed. The US supreme court even ruled it unconstitutional but lincoln and the military ignored the ruling of the court. Lincoln stated, "all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law." This all applied to the rest of the Union and not Maryland and anyone who was critical of the war were imprisoned by the military. People can be critical of the iraq war and they get front page columns of some papers

 

[maniactickler]

Do you keep saying that about your underwear too, hon? Just a friendly note, you should really think about changing both of them.

Im too cheap to buy new ones.

 

[tickledgirl]

If the US was allowed to commence flyovers, why were they so secretive on them?(kennedy\cuba)

Goodie, is that a trick question? Are you really asking why they conducted espionage/surveillance missions in secret? And as a supporter of one of the most secretive presidents in history, do you really want to use the argument that anything kept secret is illegal??

As for lincoln, the "enemy on US soil" didnt even present themselevs till way into the war and after the North had "invaded" virginia

Virginia was part of the United States. That's what the whole civil war thing was about.

Lincoln suspended the right as the secession began and ANYONE who said anything favorable to the south was Jailed. The US supreme court even ruled it unconstitutional but lincoln and the military ignored the ruling of the court. Lincoln stated, "all persons who discouraged enlistments or engaged in disloyal practices would come under Martial Law." This all applied to the rest of the Union and not Maryland and anyone who was critical of the war were imprisoned by the military. People can be critical of the iraq war and they get front page columns of some papers

Sorry, but "anyone critical of the war were imprisoned by the military" simply isn't true. Lincoln took a heck of a lot of flack over his conduct of the war.

But you're ignoring my larger points. First, that Lincoln was open and honest about what he did. Bush has acted in secret, even to the point of lying about what rights he abridging. Secondly, the situation Lincoln faced was much more dire than what Bush faces. Neither Osama nor Saddam ever were in position to capture the Capitol.

 

[Lionhart]

Lionhart wants me to run for president in 08,would you care to be my V.P.? 😀

Only for you bugmeister.. Of course knowing todays standards we'd both be impeached once we cut the rope that has bound our military for too long and found some real Patton/Macarther/Eisenhower type hot blooded General's to claim victory and nothing less. Wage a war to win a war? Oh no, those days are gone..

 

[Bugman]

Maybe we should call Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf out of retirement and let him finish what he started.😉

 

[tickledgirl]

Maybe we should call Stormin Norman Schwartzkopf out of retirement and let him finish what he started.😉

Nope, he's too smart for that:

Had the United States and the United Kingdom gone on alone to capture Baghdad, under the provisions of the Geneva and Hague conventions we would have been considered occupying powers and therefore would have been responsible for all the costs of maintaining or restoring government, education, and other services for the people of Iraq. From the brief time we did spend occupying Iraq territory after the war, I am certain that had we taken all of Iraq, we would have been like the dinosaur in the tar pit—we would still be there…For once we were strategically smart enough to win the war and the peace." (It Doesn’t Take a Hero, p. 498)

If only bush 43 had listened to guys that smart.