DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: domer on December 03, 2006, 01:29:41 AM
-
Of all the politicians who have run for or occupied the American presidency in my lifetime (I was born in 1948), who would be the one best suited to lead us out of this desperate time for world peace: a quagmire in Iraq, now in civil war; the tenuousness of the Lebanon US-supported government; the never-ending strife in Israel-Palestine; the surge of Iran to leadership of the Muslim world; the potential for a Sunni-Shi'ite violent schism; and the general backdrop of proliferation and aggression against which all this plays out. Personally, my preliminary inclination is to choose Eisenhower. He knew war, but more importantly was deft at the kind of diplomacy that is needed both to bring it off successfully but also to keep it from spreading.
-
That's who I choose.
-
This isn't an idle or trivial exercise, as I'm sure you recognize, Lanya. It provides benchmarks against which our incumbent can be tested, and it points the way to traits and policies that apparently don't come to him naturally. But that is too bad: Bush must do what is right for our country and our world.
-
You ask the wrong question.
The right question is in January when your team takes the spotlight, which of them will display the right stuff.
Leaders aren't found by looking backwards, they are forged by the fire of the moment.
-
Of all the politicians who have run for or occupied the American presidency in my lifetime (I was born in 1948), who would be the one best suited to lead us out of this desperate time for world peace: a quagmire in Iraq, now in civil war; the tenuousness of the Lebanon US-supported government; the never-ending strife in Israel-Palestine; the surge of Iran to leadership of the Muslim world; the potential for a Sunni-Shi'ite violent schism; and the general backdrop of proliferation and aggression against which all this plays out. Personally, my preliminary inclination is to choose Eisenhower. He knew war, but more importantly was deft at the kind of diplomacy that is needed both to bring it off successfully but also to keep it from spreading.
I dont think that Eisenhour would really suit , he would probably try to win the war.
We want To win?
No ,we want Nixon ,Peace with Honor Nixon.
Nixon would not only get us out of Iraq with a convinceing loss , he would then recognise Iran and get trade going without demanding anything like human rights from them.
-
We study history for a reason, BT.
-
I dont think that Eisenhour would really suit , he would probably try to win the war.
We want To win?
No ,we want Nixon ,Peace with Honor Nixon.
Nixon would not only get us out of Iraq with a convinceing loss , he would then recognise Iran and get trade going without demanding anything like human rights from them.
=======================================================
Your knowledge of history might just be a tad flawed.
Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and by 1953, the Korean War cease-fire was established and the fighting and dying stopped.
Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected in 1972. Thousands of US troops died until the war finally drug to a humiliating close, after Nixon was impeached and Ford was installed. It was not so much peace with honor as it was a huge lie about Nixon's secret plan to end the war, which no one has still heard explained, 30 years later, followed by the most humiliating scenes in US history, with people clinging to the skids of helicopters, helicopters costing millions being pushed into the sea, an airplane load of Vietnamese babies crashing on take-off, ande South Vietnamese President and Satrap Thieu barely getting his plane into the air, so loaded it was with the gold reserves of his puppet regime, as he flew into exquisite exile in Hong Kong.
The War in Vietnam outlasted Nixon, a lying thief who was impeached for trying to subvert democracy.
Not that it matters, because neither Eisenhower nor Nixon can be resurrected.
Some ratwing weenies would probably reelect Nixon, so it is a blessing that he is permanently deceased.
-
We study history for a reason, BT.
Of course we do.
Following that line of thought, who in the present line up most closely resembles Eisenhower?
-
Following that line of thought, who in the present line up most closely resembles Eisenhower?
Colin Powell.
Possibly Norman Schwartzkopf. That other general who was supposed to run off with the Democratic nomination, but fizzled.
Rudy Giulani is similar to Ike in his moderation and absence of hair. McCain seems to have also lost some hair and was in the military.
Powell and Schwartzkopf won't be running.
So the best answer is "no one, really"
-
Of all the politicians who have run for or occupied the American presidency in my lifetime (I was born in 1948), who would be the one best suited to lead us?
To lead a prolonged war on terror, despite pressure in the opinion polls, the current president.
-
I dont think that Eisenhour would really suit , he would probably try to win the war.
We want To win?
No ,we want Nixon ,Peace with Honor Nixon.
Nixon would not only get us out of Iraq with a convinceing loss , he would then recognise Iran and get trade going without demanding anything like human rights from them.
=======================================================
Your knowledge of history might just be a tad flawed.
Eisenhower was elected in 1952 and by 1953, the Korean War cease-fire was established and the fighting and dying stopped.
Nixon was elected in 1968, and re-elected in 1972. Thousands of US troops died until the war finally drug to a humiliating close, after Nixon was impeached and Ford was installed. It was not so much peace with honor as it was a huge lie about Nixon's secret plan to end the war, which no one has still heard explained, 30 years later, followed by the most humiliating scenes in US history, with people clinging to the skids of helicopters, helicopters costing millions being pushed into the sea, an airplane load of Vietnamese babies crashing on take-off, ande South Vietnamese President and Satrap Thieu barely getting his plane into the air, so loaded it was with the gold reserves of his puppet regime, as he flew into exquisite exile in Hong Kong.
The War in Vietnam outlasted Nixon, a lying thief who was impeached for trying to subvert democracy.
Not that it matters, because neither Eisenhower nor Nixon can be resurrected.
Some ratwing weenies would probably reelect Nixon, so it is a blessing that he is permanently deceased.
You think a long lasting truce and a DMZ are possible ing Iraq?
-
Comparing the present crop of hopefuls to who's like Ike may prove fruitful. Off the top of my head, I would choose, subject to revision, Gen. Wesley Clark, for these reasons: he's a bright military mind with meaningful experience in the diplomatic skills needed to keep a coalition together. And, like Eisenhower, certainly smart enough to figure out what is an optimal course given the reality of a situation, and a man wwith broad enough shoulders to bear the burden of the path he leads the country into. That said, deferring, largely, to his foreign policy and military thinkers, Bill Clinton has both the drive and the talent to lead with a "charm offensive" in the Muslim world, packaged irrevocably with substantive and possibly synthesizing the best of the opposing cultures. The point is -- and I'm fully open to discussion on any legitimate "candidate" (read "set of skills") -- that both military acumen and the highest degree of statesmanship are now required. Given this proposed listing of historical figures, it is obvious to me at least that the present incumbent wouldn't even make it onto "the extreme 'long list.'" His failure at military planning is painfully obvious for all to see in Iraq right now. His diplomatic botching is evident in Iran's surge, with really no stopping point immediately visible short of a nuclear-armed Muslim power poised to be our opponents in a new Cold War. The Israel-Palestine problem has exacerbated under his "hands off" ("laissez faire") policies, a may be at a new, critical phase with a Hamas-run or -influenced government squaring off against a right-wing (but less so than Likud) Israeli government. Further, Iran's and Syria's sphere of influence (can you "domino" anyone) seems on the brink of reestablishing itself in Lebanon, where the US-backed government is under siege and perhaps poised to fall. In my opinion, one of the great gifts of a democracy is that we get to speak the truth as we see it, and then have it seasoned by opposing views. While we are not going to replace Bush in the next two years, we can, perhaps, have a voice in events by setting a standard for him to live up to and a set of historically-derived traits for him to emulate so that he can begin to fulfill the awesome responsibility that rests on his shoulders. I am reminded, again, of the old Sixties protect song written by Pete Seeger called about a military commander who made his troops wade inexorably through a swelling river to the point where they began to drown. The refrain was, "And the big fool said to push on." Bush has the obligation to get this right, aided by whatever help and resources he can muster from this resourceful nation, regardless of personal embarrassment and the abandonment of "cherished" but inappropriate notions. In my view, it's a moral imperative ... if only Bush saw morality that way.
-
Given this proposed listing of historical figures, it is obvious to me at least that the present incumbent wouldn't even make it onto "the extreme 'long list.'"
Then why waste our time with these mental gymnastics.
Why not just be honest and post Bush sucks and Kerry sucks even worse for losing the last election.
BTW If Clark ran his presidency like he ran his candidacy we would be in a world of hurt.
-
... because there's no intellectual, heuristic value in your approach, BT, as usual.
-
I would prefer Bush to westly Clark just on the basis of sencertity.
Clark seems to be eagerly telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
-
... because there's no intellectual, heuristic value in your approach, BT, as usual.
Perhaps
But in your approach there is always the abundance of verbiage much like a puff pastry, pretty, pleasantly packaged .......but when you bite down you find little substance.
-
Goopers' worst fear in the world is that not only will the newly minted Democratically controlled House and Senate find a way out of Iraq but will go on to prosecute real investigations into how we GOT THERE.
If I had to pick someone who was president whilst I was alive to get us out of these criminally stupid situations that our country has become entangled in, I'd pick Carter, of course.
His appearance on MTP this morning was historic in its provocative truth exhibited. Only a man of his character and realism and love of peace can untie the knots that the delusion and inept current "administration" continues to fight to keep tied.
But then that's what happens when a "majority" climbs over each other to fight for the opportunity to vote for an alcoholic failed businessman who thinks that god is on his side.
-
But then that's what happens when a "majority" climbs over each other to fight for the opportunity to vote for an alcoholic failed businessman who thinks that god is on his side.
[][]][][][][][][][][][][][]
So Carter was and is not attempting to be on the side of God?
This is not good for a born again Sunday school teacher.
-
If I had to pick someone who was president whilst I was alive to get us out of these criminally stupid situations that our country has become entangled in, I'd pick Carter, of course.
He was my second choice; I do trust him and respect him immensely.
-
For BT: Sounds like your sacred cow has been gored.
-
For BT: Sounds like your sacred cow has been gored.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
-
I do understand something of BT's objection, it's a little like those fictitious boxing matches kids used to debate, could Muhammed Ali have beaten Jack Dempsey, would Joe Louis have beaten Rocky Marciano?
Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.
Best President to handle this "crisis" since I've been on this earth? FDR, hands down. Ike second. Best of the current crop to extricate us from Iraq Nam? Subject to any relatively recent idiocies they may have committed without my knowledge, Dean. Kucinich. In no particular order. Murtha. Keep in mind, "Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."
-
I do understand something of BT's objection, it's a little like those fictitious boxing matches kids used to debate, could Muhammed Ali have beaten Jack Dempsey, would Joe Louis have beaten Rocky Marciano?
Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.
Best President to handle this "crisis" since I've been on this earth? FDR, hands down. Ike second. Best of the current crop to extricate us from Iraq Nam? Subject to any relatively recent idiocies they may have committed without my knowledge, Dean. Kucinich. In no particular order. Murtha. Keep in mind, "Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."
I'd throw Gore in there as well.
-
"Redeploy" is not the same as "Bring 'em all home."
Is it diffrent from "reinvade"?
-
Lighten up, BT, gotta have a little fun sometimes.
Have fun with this.
Of the declared and semi declared dems i would trust with handling the Middle East to my satisfation. i would have to go with Hillary. She is the Bobby to Bill's Jack.
of the GOP i would go with Rudy and then relunctantly McCain.
-
I'd go with Hillary. For one thing, she'd freak them out...they would have no way of "reading" her as they do with a man. I think she would be able to do some very surprising (to our enemies) things, very surrepticiously.
Of course she'd also freak out our press corps and the haters in the Beltway crowd, who will never get over their feeling of being socially above the Clintons.
-
I would prefer Bush to westly Clark just on the basis of sencertity.
Clark seems to be eagerly telling people what he thinks they want to hear.
============================================================
Bush is hardly sincere. Mostly, he is just a major liar.
Cheney is also a bigtime liar, but he adds to this by being a major thief at the same time.
Clark did run a pretty poor campaign. I think that this is in part because he lacked the funding to get out his message. Powell seems to be more impressive as a military man turned politician, but his wife won't allow him to run.
Here's a thought, not that I expect it to happen:
What would happen if we had Powell/Giulani vs. Obama/Clinton?
What would the bigots do then? Run Lott/Tancredo on a third party ticket?
-
I'd go with Hillary. For one thing, she'd freak them out...they would have no way of "reading" her as they do with a man. I think she would be able to do some very surprising (to our enemies) things, very surrepticiously.
I think the best Democrat to deal with the middle east would have been Mark Warner. I actually think he could have been a good president. I'm not sure why he decided not to run. Maybe he could get coaxed to get back in the race.
I think Hillary Clinton is losing her luster with Democrat insiders and with Democrats altogether. She blew through $40 million in New York on a senate race she had no chance of losing. She hardly has any money left. And she had absolutely no coattails for fellow Democrats in New York this past November. I think there are two Dems who could beat her, Al Gore and Barack Obama. Obama is a little light on experience, but like Warner, he's somebody I really wouldn't mind being president. I think he could get things done.
As far as a woman president, Olympia Snowe would be far better than Hillary.
-
Since Domer has initated this as speculation, I'll go with Sir William Wallace 8)
-
Well, if you can show me the source for your claim about the $40 million that would be a start.
Clinton has raised a whopping $33m for her Senate re-election campaign in New York, which is likely to result in an emphatic victory for her in November. The leftover sums can be switched to a presidential bid. The size of her war chest is a sure sign that she intends to be ready to campaign at full tilt the moment she presses the “go†button.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2340352,00.html
-
As far as a woman president, Olympia Snowe would be far better than Hillary.
Olympia Snowe is a miserable c$nt. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338) At least Hillary is a real Democrat. Why elect a RINO when you can get the real deal?
-
Well, if you can show me the source for your claim about the $40 million that would be a start.
She had only token opposition, but Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) still spent more on her re-election -- upward of $30 million -- than any other candidate for Senate this year.
What had been one of the most formidable war chests in politics was depleted to a level that leaves Mrs. Clinton with little financial advantage over her potential rivals for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination -- and perhaps even trailing some of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/us/politics/21donate.html
-----------------------
Why did she need to burn $40 million to run for a safe seat?
If I were a Dem, I'd support Obama.
-
Olympia Snowe is a miserable c$nt. At least Hillary is a real Democrat. Why elect a RINO when you can get the real deal?
Snowe would beat any Democrat out there, in my opinion.
I'd like to see a qualifed woman run for president. If not Condi, why not Olympia Snowe?
-
Snowe would beat any Democrat out there, in my opinion.
I'd like to see a qualifed woman run for president. If not Condi, why not Olympia Snowe?
=============================================================
If not the most unsuccessful National Security head in US history, let's go with an unknown senator from a tiny state, hunh?
Giulani would be the best possible GOP candidate, but he has no change of getting the nomination.
Obama would either be successful or turn out like Ferraro: a noble try that queered the nomination of women for decades.
I am not saying that he would not be a competent president. I am wondering whether he could be elected.
There are thousands of people in this country that could be very good presidents: we do have 300,000,000 people, after all.
But we still ended up with disasters like Juniorbush and Dick "Elmerfudd" Cheney. The system is deeply flawed.
-
let's go with an unknown senator from a tiny state, hunh?
Sure. Snowe is very qualified to be president. She should throw her hat in the ring. She is very popular in her state, which is Democrat. She has a 79% approval rating, and won her last election with 74% of the vote in a bad Republican year.
Bill Clinton was an unknown governor from a tiny state.
Snowe is a consensus builder and a moderate. Hillary is a shrill partisan.
-
Snowe is a consensus builder and a moderate. Hillary is a shrill partisan.
Hillary has been a target of Limbaugh for a decade now. I don't find her shrill at all. I would prefer Kucinich and Al Gore to Hillary, personally, simply because of the high negatives the ratwing ranters have given Hillary, which would make it harder for her to win.
The main idea is for someone as un-Juniorbushy to triumph.
I recall Juniorbush saying "I am a uniter, not a divider", so pardon me while I doubt anyone who claims to be a consensus builder.
I am fine with Olympia entering the fray. I would not mind if Condi did as well. But I have this feeling that more of the really bad crap that Juniorbush did would continue to occur more of a Republican were elected than a Democrat.
-
If not Condi, why not Olympia Snowe?
Read the link that was attached to my post. I'd say that's a pretty damn good reason why not Olympia Snowe.
In case you missed it, here it is again: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
-
Hillary has been a target of Limbaugh for a decade now. I don't find her shrill at all. I would prefer Kucinich and Al Gore to Hillary, personally, simply because of the high negatives the ratwing ranters have given Hillary, which would make it harder for her to win.
She also has high negatives with independents, which would make it hard for her to win.
The main idea is for someone as un-Juniorbushy to triumph.
That would be Obama, who is smooth as silk.
I recall Juniorbush saying "I am a uniter, not a divider", so pardon me while I doubt anyone who claims to be a consensus builder.
Bush did have a 90% approval rating at one point, so he was successful in uniting the country to a degree. The Dems have to take responsibility for what they did to help create the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Calling him a liar and every other name is not helpful.
Snowe has been named one of the top ten senators by Time magazine for her consensus building. She has a good record. And a high approval rating in a state that leans Dem. She would give Hillary or whoever is the Dem candidate a run for the money in areas where they were traditionally strong. I think Snowe would be a quality candidate.
I am fine with Olympia entering the fray. I would not mind if Condi did as well. But I have this feeling that more of the really bad crap that Juniorbush did would continue to occur more of a Republican were elected than a Democrat.
You should look at each candidate on the merits, and not by party label. I'm going to look for the best candidate to lead the war on terror and continue Bush's legacy to shake up the middle east by promoting democracy. At the moment, it appears to be Rudy Giuliani. I know you think he can't win because he's bald and too ethnic. But that's why they have campaigns.
-
Read the link that was attached to my post. I'd say that's a pretty damn good reason why not Olympia Snowe.
Because she wrote a letter? That's pretty silly. The fact is she is right on some issues, and there are others that I disagree with her. It's impossible to agree with a candidate on every issue. But she's intelligent, moderate, and somebody who can get a job done by working with the other side. No Dem offers what she does in terms of being able to put partisan bickering aside and working together for a common purpose.
-
My furnace guy, with the 3 kids, the mullet and the Nascar jacket, wants Hillary to run.
I tell him she's not far left enough for me. He doesn't hear me right and says, "She's smart. Women can be good presidents, you know. She's worked real hard for her state and she's getting re-elected, they like her."
So do people I talk to at the grocery store, Wal-Mart, gas station. People who want health care and can't afford it, people who used to have good jobs.
Amazing thing. I just shut up and listened.
-
He doesn't hear me right and says, "She's smart. Women can be good presidents, you know. She's worked real hard for her state and she's getting re-elected, they like her."
I would note that Olympia Snowe got a higher percentage of the vote in her state which leans Dem, than Hillary did.
But Hillary has some good points. I like her support for the Iraq war and her refusal to call her vote for that war a mistake. I like her support of the Patriot Act and other measures that have helped to keep this country safer, in my opinion. I like her idea to make illegal the burning of the American flag. The burning of the flag is just like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
But like Onassis said, Hillary's negatives are awfully high. And there are Dems out there who are just better candidates, like Al Gore and Obama.
But I agree, Republicans should address issues like healthcare and lower paying jobs, although the unemployment rate right now is pretty low. There are conservative solutions to these issues.
-
But Hillary has some good points. I like her support for the Iraq war and her refusal to call her vote for that war a mistake. I like her support of the Patriot Act and other measures that have helped to keep this country safer, in my opinion. I like her idea to make illegal the burning of the American flag. The burning of the flag is just like yelling fire in a crowded theater.
All these are negatives for me. Authorizing an ignorant banana like Juniorbush to start the disastrous and unnecessary Iraqwar was a collossal mistake, the Patriot Act sux donkeyhonks, and flags are symbols, and I have yet to hear of anyone even getting a serious hangnail because of the exceedingly infrequent flag burnings in the US.
But like Onassis said, Hillary's negatives are awfully high. And there are Dems out there who are just better candidates, like Al Gore and Obama.
But I agree, Republicans should address issues like healthcare and lower paying jobs, although the unemployment rate right now is pretty low.
Tha emp[loyment rate has zip to do with the healthcare problem. Lower paying jobs are held by people whose rent has doubled and tripled here in Miami, and the asshole RTepublicans have done NOTHING, proposed NOTHING, stonewalled EVERYTHING, and can be counted on to continue doing exactly as they have done in the past.
There are conservative solutions to these issues.
LIke what? Name one. Gimme a break. All the GOP can offer is gay-bashing, warmongering, corruption and influence-peddling. They are as useless as the t*ts on a bull.
-
I recall Juniorbush saying "I am a uniter, not a divider", so pardon me while I doubt anyone who claims to be a consensus builder.
Bush did have a 90% approval rating at one point, so he was successful in uniting the country to a degree. The Dems have to take responsibility for what they did to help create the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Calling him a liar and every other name is not helpful.
I disagree: there are those so stupid as not to realize what a liar and fool Juniorbush is. They need to be reminded. It's like a Coke commercial. Repetition is effective.
He never NEVER has had even a mote of support from me. When he was elected, he seemed to be an ignorant corporate dweeb, but after he began trying to destroy social security, mongered a useless war based on lies, and allowed the worst civilian attack in history to occur, he evolved into the ignorant, destructive, dangerous incompetent dweeb and the worst president since Jefferson Davis.
It is his lying, his warmongering and his incompetence that has caused the Democrats and the people to despise him.
He is the worst divider and the poorest uniter that this unfortunate country has ever had.
It is not me who decides whether Giulani gets the nomination. In 2000, McCain was clearly the better candidate, and they gave us Juniorbush. The GOP are an assortment of fools puppeteered by a few plutocrats who will not allow Giulani anywhere near the nomination. No one but they could have made a hateful evil genius like Cheney VP or allowed a foul manipulator like Karl Rove into the government of our country.
Wait and see: Giulani will fall by the wayside. I am hearing a vague rustling sound coming from Jebbiebush as he prepares to leave the governorship. Will Jebbie rise to the occasion?
Just when you thought we were out of Bushes, another is sure to arise, phalluslike from the swamp.
-
<<i would have to go with Hillary. She is the Bobby to Bill's Jack. >>
Funny, I would have pegged her as Kerry to McCain's Dubya.
-
Funny, I would have pegged her as Kerry to McCain's Dubya.
Feel free to do your own comparisons.
-
Clark did run a pretty poor campaign.
Clark ran a poor campaign because his only real reason for being in the race was to break down Dean's support. The Clintons actively co-erced him into the race knowing full well the effect it would have.
The Clintons (who I could easily be convinced are part of a larger power control group) needed to have a candidate that would attract votes but not be a movement or a phenomenon. Kerry or Gephardt would have sufficed nicely. Nothing exciting or new. Wonky and boring. White bread to carry votes; definitely not cinnamon toast or, god forbid, French toast or bread pudding to delight the taste buds of voters seeking change.
My hope is that they will die by the sword they have lived by.
-
Just when you thought we were out of Bushes,
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/first-president-bush-sobs-while-talking/20061204194509990018
He also talked about his recent closeness to former President Clinton and some of the work they've done to help Hurricane Katrina and tsunami victims.
"I apologized to him in Philadelphia the other day. I said, 'Bill, I take it back. My dog Millie did not know more about foreign policy than you do.' And he was very understanding," Bush said before turning serious. "It isn't about politics, it's about trying to do something bigger than ourselves, trying to help people who are devastated and need our support."
He then recalled a political cartoon showing his son the president opposing gay marriage and then walking into a room and finding his father on a sofa with Clinton's arm around him, prompting him to shout, "Dad! What are you doing?"
"(Clinton) cut it out of the paper and said, 'Don't you think we ought to cool it George?"' Bush said.
-
"He never NEVER has had even a mote of support from me. When he was elected, he seemed to be an ignorant corporate dweeb, but after he began trying to destroy social security, mongered a useless war based on lies, and allowed the worst civilian attack in history to occur, he evolved into the ignorant, destructive, dangerous incompetent dweeb and the worst president since Jefferson Davis. "
Is this you admitting that you were determined to never be uninted , reguardless of whatever Bush said or did?
This is not Bush being a divider but your perspective being stuck.
-
"He never NEVER has had even a mote of support from me. When he was elected, he seemed to be an ignorant corporate dweeb, but after he began trying to destroy social security, mongered a useless war based on lies, and allowed the worst civilian attack in history to occur, he evolved into the ignorant, destructive, dangerous incompetent dweeb and the worst president since Jefferson Davis. "
Is this you admitting that you were determined to never be uninted , reguardless of whatever Bush said or did? This is not Bush being a divider but your perspective being stuck.
I think it was determined when Bush ran for office and egregiously "stole the election". ;)
-
I think it was determined when Bush ran for office and egregiously "stole the election". ;)
Your "wink" belies the truth of your statement.
You might consider not using it anymore.
-
I think it was determined when Bush ran for office and egregiously "stole the election". ;)
Your "wink" belies the truth of your statement. You might consider not using it anymore.
Naaa, it's hides the hysterical laughter towards those who still believe the lie that he did. But let's make a deal. You cease the pathetic efforts at trying to convert Christians into non-Christians, and drop the lie about neo-cons were behind 911, and I'll not use a sarcastic wink with "stole the election" any longer. Deal?
-
Deal?
I'll pass. Thanks just the same.
By the by, did you see the new video of the Pentagon that was released yesterday? Yet another video that has no plane hitting the Pentagon.
I'll let it go when I see a pic of that plane hitting the building.
-
I'll pass. Thanks just the same.
Well then, don't expect me to quit laughing every time you folks start ranting about a "stolen election", and continue to reassert the facts of the matter.
-
<<Well then, don't expect me to quit laughing every time you folks start ranting about a "stolen election", and continue to reassert the facts of the matter.>>
The "facts of the matter" are set out most comprehensively in the Vanity Fair article, which is about the LAST thing I would expect you to reassert. Facts are to you what sunlight is to Dracula.
-
The "facts of the matter" are set out most comprehensively in the Vanity Fair article, which is about the LAST thing I would expect you to reassert.
Actually, the facts were spelled out in numerous News Articles, from a whole host of News organizations, both local and national, that both recounted & reexamined the Florida Election. Nearly very investigation that looked into it, came to the same conclusion......just a really tight election result, with Bush happening to have a few more votes than Gore, at the end. I realize the importance of finding 1 article that says otherwise, and latch onto it like a leech claiming "the most comprehensive" That again would be your OPINION, and hardly a "fact of the matter"