Bush: Iraq Had Nothing To Do With 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Johan van Benderschlotten said:
Huh. So what you're saying, is that the neo-conservative idiot ****tards that YOU voted for TWICE ****ed things up. Well, then I suppose you support Rumsfeld giving his immediate resignation, no? Or is that this "blame game" we're not supposed to play? I'm confused.


i cant believe you both are braves fans. would you drink with siamese to celebrate a world series win?
 
evil solrac v3.0 said:
i cant believe you both are braves fans. would you drink with siamese to celebrate a world series win?
Of course! Then I would probably kiss a dude and get an abortion, just to make him uncomfortable.
 
siamesedreamer said:
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

IMO, it wasn't a terrible policy - it was just executed terribly by incompetent individuals.

If we had gone in there with 300K troops and not disbanded the Republican Guard at the outset, then I think we are looking at a completely different situation on the ground.

v-for-vendetta.jpg

I've not come for what you hoped to do. I've come for what you did.
 
Johan van Benderschlotten said:
Huh. So what you're saying, is that the neo-conservative idiot ****tards that YOU voted for TWICE ****ed things up. Well, then I suppose you support Rumsfeld giving his immediate resignation, no? Or is that this "blame game" we're not supposed to play? I'm confused.

Rumsfeld has been a disaster. He should have been fired two years ago.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Rumsfeld has been a disaster. He should have been fired two years ago.

*sigh* siamese, they all need to go. Every last sycophant, yes-man, delusioned higher-up. All of them. They do not have our best interests in their minds. The rabble mean less than nothing to them.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Perhaps........its just too bad the DEMs didn't give us another option in 2004.

How could you witness the debates netween Bush and Kerry and not see with the utmost clarity who would do the better job of running this country? Head to head, on various issues and questions, Bush was completely lost and overwhelmed and frustrated and was exposed so completely as to be stark naked behind the podium. Does this not matter to you? Does Kerry's ability to actually speak articulately and at length actually make you resentful towards him? All things being equal, anybody but Bush be damned, I'd rather go with the guy that may, perhaps, at some point, stab me in the back, then the dummy who's stabbing me repeatedly, right in full view of the world. How can you not see that? If we all agree it's ALL bullshit--how could you not vote for the guy that at least bullshits better?
 
Because Kerry is just another northeastern liberal, Bob. Republicans are deluding themselves with this "Maybe if the Dems didn't nominate blah blah blah" bullshit. It doesn't matter if John Kennedy rose from the dead to campaign for president, the GOP would still paint him as the sleasiest of dirty, double-talking, trained-to-take-both-sides-of-the issues, baby killing, tax hiking liberal since the last Democrat to run for president. I find it very hard to believe that people like siasme would even contemplate voting for a Democrat, ever. So this nonsense about Democrats nominating a better candidate so they can maybe spend 5 minutes instead of 3 determining who they should vote for is ridiculous garbage.
 
Incognito said:
Because Kerry is just another northeastern liberal, Bob.

I am too then, being from NYC. But what's really crazy is that the word "liberal" never even entered my vocabulary at all--I didn't know from right-wing, left-wing, neocon, none of that horseshit--until I started following politics (read: Bush Administration) after hearing Bush speak for the very first time after 9/11. Even when he "stole" the election I didn't give a rats ass. I long for those days of ignorant bliss sometimes to be honest.
 
:lol its hilarious how his facial expression changes from certain and confident to "WTF?!" the second the reporter asks "what did Iraq have to do with that?"
 
Incognito said:
Because Kerry is just another northeastern liberal, Bob. Republicans are deluding themselves with this "Maybe if the Dems didn't nominate blah blah blah" bullshit. It doesn't matter if John Kennedy rose from the dead to campaign for president, the GOP would still paint him as the sleasiest of dirty, double-talking, trained-to-take-both-sides-of-the issues, baby killing, tax hiking liberal since the last Democrat to run for president. I find it very hard to believe that people like siasme would even contemplate voting for a Democrat, ever. So this nonsense about Democrats nominating a better candidate so they can maybe spend 5 minutes instead of 3 determining who they should vote for is ridiculous garbage.

he probably would vote for Joe Lieberman. He's a democrat, right?
 
bob_arctor said:
How could you witness the debates netween Bush and Kerry and not see with the utmost clarity who would do the better job of running this country?
Kerry couldn't even run his own campaign.

I voted for him anyway 'cause I wanna marry terrene one day
 
Incognito said:
Because Kerry is just another northeastern liberal, Bob. Republicans are deluding themselves with this "Maybe if the Dems didn't nominate blah blah blah" bullshit. It doesn't matter if John Kennedy rose from the dead to campaign for president, the GOP would still paint him as the sleasiest of dirty, double-talking, trained-to-take-both-sides-of-the issues, baby killing, tax hiking liberal since the last Democrat to run for president. I find it very hard to believe that people like siasme would even contemplate voting for a Democrat, ever. So this nonsense about Democrats nominating a better candidate so they can maybe spend 5 minutes instead of 3 determining who they should vote for is ridiculous garbage.
It's so true. It doesn't matter who they run... how in touch or out of touch he/she really is with the American people. The GOP will find something to exaggerate and run with.
 
APF said:
I voted for him anyway 'cause I wanna marry terrene one day
Honey, I wouldn't **** some skank ho who spends hours and hours writing bad liberal impersonations and Bush-administration apologies on the internet if they threatened me with a Swift Boat smear campaign. You can't even touch this shit, bitch.

TWO SNAPS
 
terrene said:
Honey, I wouldn't **** some skank ho who spends hours and hours writing bad liberal impersonations and Bush-administration apologies on the internet if they threatened me with a Swift Boat smear campaign. You can't even touch this shit, bitch.

TWO SNAPS
Are you as turned on as I am??
 
bob_arctor said:
But who cares? The debates easily settled who was more fit to run this country. Easily. It's not even up for dispute.
On principle I have to disagree--debates in general don't show anything real in terms of leadership ability, and even if you believed they did, those debates are so bland and artificial they're barely even debates in the first place.
 
APF said:
On principle I have to disagree--debates in general don't show anything real in terms of leadership ability, and even if you believed they did, those debates are so bland and artificial they're barely even debates in the first place.

I'd have to agree on that last part. It was more a verbal asswhippin' administered by Kerry then anything else. A debate would take 2 people with at least a rudimentary grasp of the English language. And are you saying that Bush's complete befuddlement and worse, child-like pouting, isn't a window into his "leadership ability"?
 
bob_arctor said:
I'd have to agree on that last part. It was more a verbal asswhippin' administered by Kerry then anything else. A debate would take 2 people with at least a rudimentary grasp of the English language. And are you saying that Bush's complete befuddlement and worse, child-like pouting, isn't a window into his "leadership ability"?
His performance was embarrassing, but no.
 
APF said:
His performance was embarrassing, but no.

Baffling. You're quite the conundrum, Mr. Gay Subtext. A man who yearns to kiss Terrene but cannot for his mouth is too full of shit to do so. *shakes head*
 
bob_arctor said:
I'd have to agree on that last part. It was more a verbal asswhippin' administered by Kerry then anything else. A debate would take 2 people with at least a rudimentary grasp of the English language. And are you saying that Bush's complete befuddlement and worse, child-like pouting, isn't a window into his "leadership ability"?

Great. Let's elect the president that speaks better!

Bush lost the first debate by a landslide, but held his own in the second one. The reason why people voted for him is because, quite honestly, he's quite likeable. Kerry seemed too stuffy, too angry, and as the summer and early fall wore on his numbers dropped because people got tired of hearing him whine about the swift-boaters and the "assaults on his character" every.farking.chance.he.got

When it comes down to it, the american public doesn't really care. They forget all the stuff that happened before last week, and vote for the guy with more "charisma" or the guy that seems friendly and more likeable. Look at the winners of the past presidential races. Ronnie over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry.

Each time the more likeable, charismatic guy won. Bush I was no laugh-riot, but he had a heck of a lot more personality than Dukakis did.
 
Enron said:
When it comes down to it, the american public doesn't really care. They forget all the stuff that happened before last week, and vote for the guy with more "charisma" or the guy that seems friendly and more likeable. Look at the winners of the past presidential races. Ronnie over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry.

Each time the more likeable, charismatic guy won. Bush I was no laugh-riot, but he had a heck of a lot more personality than Dukakis did.
Very true. I had so wished that Edwards had gotten the Dem nomination for that reason. People thought he was too junior, but I always said: America's voting public wouldn't give a **** about his credentials. They vote on identification with the man, their "gut feeling" that their values are being represented -- and in that respect likeability is the key. (Which is why I wish John "Windsurfin' USA" Kerry and for that matter Hillary would stay out of the 2008 race).
 
Enron said:
Great. Let's elect the president that speaks better!

Bush lost the first debate by a landslide, but held his own in the second one. The reason why people voted for him is because, quite honestly, he's quite likeable. Kerry seemed too stuffy, too angry, and as the summer and early fall wore on his numbers dropped because people got tired of hearing him whine about the swift-boaters and the "assaults on his character" every.farking.chance.he.got

When it comes down to it, the american public doesn't really care. They forget all the stuff that happened before last week, and vote for the guy with more "charisma" or the guy that seems friendly and more likeable. Look at the winners of the past presidential races. Ronnie over Mondale, Bush over Dukakis, Clinton over Bush, Clinton over Dole, Bush over Gore, Bush over Kerry.

Each time the more likeable, charismatic guy won. Bush I was no laugh-riot, but he had a heck of a lot more personality than Dukakis did.

No, I said let's elect the President that bullshits better. Speaking better just happens to lend itself to that. Kerry's no (insert whatever democrat you think is great) but he's obviously more informed about the issues and can actually provide answers to questions put to him. Imagine that! (and no, Bush didn't hold his own in the 2nd debate--he was less horrible maybe, but that's about it.)
 
APF said:
Kerry couldn't even run his own campaign.

I voted for him anyway 'cause I wanna marry terrene one day


you think THAT was a poorly run campaign? I had poli sci 101 in college during the midst of the 96 elections, and my paper for that class was a 40-page examination of the abortion that was Bob Dole's campaign, most of which was written citing AP newswire articles (it rocked having newswire access at the radio station i worked at)

That campaign took the cake.
 
bob_arctor said:
How could you witness the debates netween Bush and Kerry and not see with the utmost clarity who would do the better job of running this country? Head to head, on various issues and questions, Bush was completely lost and overwhelmed and frustrated and was exposed so completely as to be stark naked behind the podium. Does this not matter to you? Does Kerry's ability to actually speak articulately and at length actually make you resentful towards him? All things being equal, anybody but Bush be damned, I'd rather go with the guy that may, perhaps, at some point, stab me in the back, then the dummy who's stabbing me repeatedly, right in full view of the world. How can you not see that? If we all agree it's ALL bullshit--how could you not vote for the guy that at least bullshits better?

All of that is just fluff. Kerry's plan for Iraq wasn't anything hugely different than what Bush was already doing. My vote was based on two things:

1) Which guy was going to put up the best SC nominees
2) Which guy was going to reform Social Security and/or other entitlement programs

Since Kerry's idea of a SCJ is someone like Ginsburg and he wanted to bury his head in the sand regarding the impending SS/Medicare cluster****, I went with the other guy.

In my mind, Bush has done his job. He got two conservative judges on the court and the 2007 budget has room earmarked for some sort of SS privitization (although I'll have to brush up on exactly what it all entails).
 
siamesedreamer said:
All of that is just fluff. Kerry's plan for Iraq wasn't anything hugely different than what Bush was already doing. My vote was based on two things:

1) Which guy was going to put up the best SC nominees
2) Which guy was going to reform Social Security and/or other entitlement programs

Since Kerry's idea of a SCJ is someone like Ginsburg and he wanted to bury his head in the sand regarding the impending SS/Medicare cluster****, I went with the other guy.

In my mind, Bush has done his job. He got two conservative judges on the court and the 2007 budget has room earmarked for some sort of SS privitization (although I'll have to brush up on exactly what it all entails).

Speaking of SS Privitization, before anyone starts railing on it, ask yourself this.

Would you rather have Social Security, which the government can raid any time it feels the need for more money or make disappear altogether, which you have zero control over....

OR

would you want your own account that the government has to pay into, that YOU manage and control where the money goes, money that is now in YOUR pocket instead of some government coffer?

To me that's a no brainer. I do admit, i am biased, as I work in the Retirement Savings sector.
 
Enron said:
Would you rather have Social Security, which the government can raid any time it feels the need for more money or make disappear altogether, which you have zero control over....

OR

would you want your own account that the government has to pay into, that YOU manage and control where the money goes, money that is now in YOUR pocket instead of some government coffer?


Hmm. Lemme ask some of the dirt poor. They know how to handle their own money, obviously. I'll get back to you...

Also: nice Bush impersonation! :D
 
Enron, having a serious discussion on GAF about entitlement reform is a waste of time.

Because we all know how much the dirt poor pay in FICA taxes every year.
 
siamesedreamer said:
Enron, having a serious discussion on GAF about entitlement reform is a waste of time.

Because we all know how much the dirt poor pay in FICA taxes every year.

:lol Go ahead, knock yourselves out. Tell us all how it's doomed. Provide statistics and cool graphs. All that jazz. And then cry cuz your boy ain't touching it. At all.
 
bob_arctor said:
And then cry cuz your boy ain't touching it. At all.

He already has:

Nevertheless, it's here. Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion.

In the first year of private accounts, people would be allowed to divert up to 4 percent of their wages covered by Social Security into what Bush called "voluntary private accounts." The maximum contribution to such accounts would start at $1,100 annually and rise by $100 a year through 2016.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/07/AR2006020701865.html?referrer=emailarticle


The ponzi scheme entitlement programs set up by the liberals over the last half century are on the verge of financially paralyzing the US for the next 50 years. Medicare is infinately more of a problem than SS, but combined they represent trillions in unaccounted liabilities.

SS is the most expensive entitlement program in the history of human civilization. It doesn't become a problem until the trust is exhausted sometime in the late 2030s. After that only ~70% of of the liabilities are funded. So, inevitably we'll see more FICA tax hikes, more benefit cuts, and more age eligibility raises. If that sounds like fair, then more power to you.

Medicare, on the other hand, becomes a serious problem sometime in the late teens. Fixing that problem is a lot more complex and will require a significant number of politicians to get their heads out of their asses in order to fix it.
 
siamesedreamer said:
The ponzi scheme entitlement programs set up by the liberals over the last half century are on the verge of financially paralyzing the US for the next 50 years. Medicare is infinately more of a problem than SS, but combined they represent trillions in unaccounted liabilities.

SS is the most expensive entitlement program in the history of human civilization. It doesn't become a problem until the trust is exhausted sometime in the late 2030s. After that only ~70% of of the liabilities are funded. So, inevitably we'll see more FICA tax hikes, more benefit cuts, and more age eligibility raises. If that sounds like fair, then more power to you.

Medicare, on the other hand, becomes a serious problem sometime in the late teens. Fixing that problem is a lot more complex and will require a significant number of politicians to get their heads out of their asses in order to fix it.

source???
 
Wow, wasn't one of the reason we went to Iraq was because they had something to do with 9/11? So he basically bullshitted us for the past 4 years then.
 
bob_arctor said:
Bush was completely lost and overwhelmed and frustrated and was exposed so completely as to be stark naked behind the podium.
And Kerry was a pusillanimous douchebag. The nation naturally, if not entirely wisely, chose the naked, angry chimp.
 
slidewinder said:
And Kerry was a pusillanimous douchebag. The nation naturally, if not entirely wisely, chose the naked, angry chimp.

There has to be something douchebaggish about calling somebody a douchebag while using the word "pusillanimous". Matter of fact, that's downright Kerry-ish of you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom