melancholygirl
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Posts
- 231
What do you think?
Ever Notice How Much John Kerry Looks Like....
- Thread starter melancholygirl
- Start date
Saint inda City
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Posts
- 107
he looks like a cross between that pic, a french guy, a corpse, and one of those wrinkly dogs..... what are they called? Sharpe's or somethin?
overthebow
Laugh-a while-a you can-a
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Posts
- 11,166
Ever notice how much Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman?
thickspear
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2003
- Posts
- 250
oh huh...
you're just saying those things because you hate freedom and those little bugs that crawl away when a old rug is moved from the back porch...you know which ones i mean ?...the little black ones...
but i would rather vote for a deranged ape than to see the neonitwits get another 4 years
i kinda thought bush looks like that freddy kruger guy...except without the good sense and kindness
you're just saying those things because you hate freedom and those little bugs that crawl away when a old rug is moved from the back porch...you know which ones i mean ?...the little black ones...
but i would rather vote for a deranged ape than to see the neonitwits get another 4 years
i kinda thought bush looks like that freddy kruger guy...except without the good sense and kindness
Mr.G
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 9, 2001
- Posts
- 1,292
BS
If Kerry was Republican all the media cartoonists would portray him with lug bolts in his neck. He looks like Lurch!
Hey thick, ask yourself where the world would be right now if the Bushes (1&2) hadn't gone into Afgahistan and Iraq when they did. Saddam would be in complete control of Middle East oil. HE would dictate what a Bbl of oil costs and it would probably be $60 or $80 ++ and not $42. He would have his nukes already so we wouldn't dare touch him for fear he'd sabotage the Saudi oil fields with nukes. North Korea, Syria and Saddam would be in an alliance with Bin Laden and we''d have no hope of any significant damage on the terrorist networks - too dispersed & too well funded. The networks would be attacking Western Europe and the US on a daily basis - something they were prepared to do if the US did what BinLaden thought would happen after 9/11 - that the US would collapse like the USSR did after their stint in Afghanistan!
The Muslims have been trying to kill off the Western / Christian world for 1400 +years now. Nothing new there. The only difference is that Bush had the guts to go after them. The Dems? What did they do after repeated bombings of US embassies all over the world. He kyboshed all attempts to kill Bin Laden and instead bombed Christians trying to push the Muslims back where they belonged in Kosovo. Nobody was attacking the US from there. Nobody was attempting to build nukes or take over strategic world energy resources. Nobody was even invading another sovereign state. What they were doing wasn't pleasant but talk about underreacting to the real global danger and over-reacting to a local conflict! Clinton and the Dems don't have the guts or the brains/foresight to stand up to the real enemies - never have - but have persuaded all the useful idiots (like all the bright lights in Hollywood) that they're going to "save" America. What a joke.
If we hadn't taken the war to "them" the west would be in the biggest Depression ever due to oil prices, we'd be losing malls and schools to suicide bombers and you'd still be bitchin at Bush for not doing anything.
If Kerry was Republican all the media cartoonists would portray him with lug bolts in his neck. He looks like Lurch!
Hey thick, ask yourself where the world would be right now if the Bushes (1&2) hadn't gone into Afgahistan and Iraq when they did. Saddam would be in complete control of Middle East oil. HE would dictate what a Bbl of oil costs and it would probably be $60 or $80 ++ and not $42. He would have his nukes already so we wouldn't dare touch him for fear he'd sabotage the Saudi oil fields with nukes. North Korea, Syria and Saddam would be in an alliance with Bin Laden and we''d have no hope of any significant damage on the terrorist networks - too dispersed & too well funded. The networks would be attacking Western Europe and the US on a daily basis - something they were prepared to do if the US did what BinLaden thought would happen after 9/11 - that the US would collapse like the USSR did after their stint in Afghanistan!
The Muslims have been trying to kill off the Western / Christian world for 1400 +years now. Nothing new there. The only difference is that Bush had the guts to go after them. The Dems? What did they do after repeated bombings of US embassies all over the world. He kyboshed all attempts to kill Bin Laden and instead bombed Christians trying to push the Muslims back where they belonged in Kosovo. Nobody was attacking the US from there. Nobody was attempting to build nukes or take over strategic world energy resources. Nobody was even invading another sovereign state. What they were doing wasn't pleasant but talk about underreacting to the real global danger and over-reacting to a local conflict! Clinton and the Dems don't have the guts or the brains/foresight to stand up to the real enemies - never have - but have persuaded all the useful idiots (like all the bright lights in Hollywood) that they're going to "save" America. What a joke.
If we hadn't taken the war to "them" the west would be in the biggest Depression ever due to oil prices, we'd be losing malls and schools to suicide bombers and you'd still be bitchin at Bush for not doing anything.
Re: BS
Originally posted by Mr.G :
Hey thick, ask yourself where the world would be right now if the Bushes (1&2) hadn't gone into Afgahistan and Iraq when they did. Saddam would be in complete control of Middle East oil. HE would dictate what a Bbl of oil costs and it would probably be $60 or $80 ++ and not $42.
I'm not going to disagree that tackling Iraq when they invaded Kuwait was a morally justifiable and prudent move.
However, lets remember the position of America's government (and that of the UK, I'm certainly not going to pretend my country was any less digraced by our past actions) when Saddam was using mustard gas on thousands of civilians.
What did we do then? Stand up for our moral values? Seek to disarm him? Even just express our discontent?
No, 'we' accepted it, and extended his credit line to sell him even more such weapons.
It'd be nice to think Bush Snr, and all our previous leaders, were good guys standing by a moral position, but history shows that it's just not the case.
He would have his nukes already so we wouldn't dare touch him for fear he'd sabotage the Saudi oil fields with nukes. North Korea, Syria and Saddam would be in an alliance with Bin Laden and we''d have no hope of any significant damage on the terrorist networks - too dispersed & too well funded.
I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand, we're told our governments believed he had significant WMDs anyway, but on the other hand, we treat North Korea, who do have nukes, far more.. carefully.
However, would these states have joined together? I doubt it, not all of them.
Bin Laden and Hussein are theologically opposed almost as much as Bush and Bin Laden. Interestingly, both parties overcame such differences to accept weapons and funding from the west back when they were our 'friends'. But I think this is because at that time they didn't need to compromise with 'us', just accept our hand-outs. And of course they'll both be aware that each side will be seeking to manipulate the other.
Lets remember that there is no evidence at all to link Saddam and Bin Laden.
The closest anyone has offered is an AQ training camp in Iraq. But there's no evidence of knowledge or support from Iraq, and AQ members have lived and trained in America and Europe too. There's more evidence of 'us' supporting AQ than of Saddam doing it!
I think the willingness to lump all the Arab world together into one 'enemy' is misguided, and lacks understanding of the real political and theological landscape of the region.
The networks would be attacking Western Europe and the US on a daily basis - something they were prepared to do if the US did what BinLaden thought would happen after 9/11 - that the US would collapse like the USSR did after their stint in Afghanistan!
I'm very sceptical of this. Not only because AQ have been largely unaffected by wars with Iraq, save for the coalition's misconduct inciting a generation of hatred towards us.
But also, how do you figure Bin Laden expected the US to collapse?
In Bin Laden's eyes, the targets were of only symbolic importance.
He couldn't expect the twin towers to cause the total collapse of the stock market - it's much more than 2 buildings in NY. It was, to him at least, a symbolic strike against the west's capitalist system.
And he couldn't have expected to deliver a fatal blow to the pentagon with a plane either, it's well known that the important workings take place far underground. Again, he saw it as a symbolic strike.
These attacks, horrific as they were, would never cause the US to collapse, and would never be expected to.
The Muslims have been trying to kill off the Western / Christian world for 1400 +years now...
Jeez, I don't even know how to begin to address something so like this.
Do you really mean to make such a prejudiced, generalistic statement as this, or were you getting carried away with yourself?
The only threat from the Muslim world is from a minority of fundamentalists. That and a dictator who became severely screwed up in the head, acting for greed, not religious principles
There are fundamentalist Christians who brutally kill people too. And there are a vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful, respectful and tolerant.
An 'Us and them' attitude seems grossly misguided.
Mr G, I hope this doesn't come across too.. well, I hope it's received in the spirit of open, friendly debate. I've seen discussions like this turn sour in the past, which is why I usually steer clear of them. But I get the impression this fourm is a bit more tolerant of everyones' different viewpoints.
Also, I love your 'try this and report back' thread, you're kind of a hero of mine
So any bad feeling would be grossly unwanted.
Originally posted by Mr.G :
Hey thick, ask yourself where the world would be right now if the Bushes (1&2) hadn't gone into Afgahistan and Iraq when they did. Saddam would be in complete control of Middle East oil. HE would dictate what a Bbl of oil costs and it would probably be $60 or $80 ++ and not $42.
I'm not going to disagree that tackling Iraq when they invaded Kuwait was a morally justifiable and prudent move.
However, lets remember the position of America's government (and that of the UK, I'm certainly not going to pretend my country was any less digraced by our past actions) when Saddam was using mustard gas on thousands of civilians.
What did we do then? Stand up for our moral values? Seek to disarm him? Even just express our discontent?
No, 'we' accepted it, and extended his credit line to sell him even more such weapons.
It'd be nice to think Bush Snr, and all our previous leaders, were good guys standing by a moral position, but history shows that it's just not the case.
He would have his nukes already so we wouldn't dare touch him for fear he'd sabotage the Saudi oil fields with nukes. North Korea, Syria and Saddam would be in an alliance with Bin Laden and we''d have no hope of any significant damage on the terrorist networks - too dispersed & too well funded.
I'm in two minds about this.
On the one hand, we're told our governments believed he had significant WMDs anyway, but on the other hand, we treat North Korea, who do have nukes, far more.. carefully.
However, would these states have joined together? I doubt it, not all of them.
Bin Laden and Hussein are theologically opposed almost as much as Bush and Bin Laden. Interestingly, both parties overcame such differences to accept weapons and funding from the west back when they were our 'friends'. But I think this is because at that time they didn't need to compromise with 'us', just accept our hand-outs. And of course they'll both be aware that each side will be seeking to manipulate the other.
Lets remember that there is no evidence at all to link Saddam and Bin Laden.
The closest anyone has offered is an AQ training camp in Iraq. But there's no evidence of knowledge or support from Iraq, and AQ members have lived and trained in America and Europe too. There's more evidence of 'us' supporting AQ than of Saddam doing it!
I think the willingness to lump all the Arab world together into one 'enemy' is misguided, and lacks understanding of the real political and theological landscape of the region.
The networks would be attacking Western Europe and the US on a daily basis - something they were prepared to do if the US did what BinLaden thought would happen after 9/11 - that the US would collapse like the USSR did after their stint in Afghanistan!
I'm very sceptical of this. Not only because AQ have been largely unaffected by wars with Iraq, save for the coalition's misconduct inciting a generation of hatred towards us.
But also, how do you figure Bin Laden expected the US to collapse?
In Bin Laden's eyes, the targets were of only symbolic importance.
He couldn't expect the twin towers to cause the total collapse of the stock market - it's much more than 2 buildings in NY. It was, to him at least, a symbolic strike against the west's capitalist system.
And he couldn't have expected to deliver a fatal blow to the pentagon with a plane either, it's well known that the important workings take place far underground. Again, he saw it as a symbolic strike.
These attacks, horrific as they were, would never cause the US to collapse, and would never be expected to.
The Muslims have been trying to kill off the Western / Christian world for 1400 +years now...
Jeez, I don't even know how to begin to address something so like this.
Do you really mean to make such a prejudiced, generalistic statement as this, or were you getting carried away with yourself?
The only threat from the Muslim world is from a minority of fundamentalists. That and a dictator who became severely screwed up in the head, acting for greed, not religious principles
There are fundamentalist Christians who brutally kill people too. And there are a vast majority of Muslims who are peaceful, respectful and tolerant.
An 'Us and them' attitude seems grossly misguided.
Mr G, I hope this doesn't come across too.. well, I hope it's received in the spirit of open, friendly debate. I've seen discussions like this turn sour in the past, which is why I usually steer clear of them. But I get the impression this fourm is a bit more tolerant of everyones' different viewpoints.
Also, I love your 'try this and report back' thread, you're kind of a hero of mine
So any bad feeling would be grossly unwanted.
Last edited:
ABN_Ranger
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Posts
- 572
Ok... here goes,
#1)Speaking as a regular on this board;
Ya know... I've go SEVERAL opinions abou both Bush and Kerry... but, I'm sure they're all wrong, so I won't go into them because I like the majority of the people that post on this board, so why piss them off with my political views.
#2)Speaking as an active duty service member;
I will follow the orders of my Commander in Chief, whoever he/she/they/it shall be. I raised my hand and swore that oath over 9 years ago. I may not like the aforementioned CinC but never the less... I LOVE my country, nd am willing to exchange my life to ensure your freedom and my own.
#3)Speaking as a combat veteran;
Any of you who know me, also know what I've sacrificed for my country. Is Kerry a war hero? If the definition of war hero is one who has been decorated for valor and for being wounded in combat... then sure he is, but going by that definition... that makes me TWICE the war hero Kerry is. So why not vote for me as President if the American people want a war hero for President. Again, any of you who know me... also know how much I HATE being refered to as such. I have severe reservations about Kerry... everyone I know who has served in combat shares my reservations, I won't go into them here... this is not the place for it.
and lastly,
#4)Speaking as an American;
I love this country... I love my way of life... I wouldn't exchange it for anything in the world. So refer to numbers 1 thru 3.
J
#1)Speaking as a regular on this board;
Ya know... I've go SEVERAL opinions abou both Bush and Kerry... but, I'm sure they're all wrong, so I won't go into them because I like the majority of the people that post on this board, so why piss them off with my political views.
#2)Speaking as an active duty service member;
I will follow the orders of my Commander in Chief, whoever he/she/they/it shall be. I raised my hand and swore that oath over 9 years ago. I may not like the aforementioned CinC but never the less... I LOVE my country, nd am willing to exchange my life to ensure your freedom and my own.
#3)Speaking as a combat veteran;
Any of you who know me, also know what I've sacrificed for my country. Is Kerry a war hero? If the definition of war hero is one who has been decorated for valor and for being wounded in combat... then sure he is, but going by that definition... that makes me TWICE the war hero Kerry is. So why not vote for me as President if the American people want a war hero for President. Again, any of you who know me... also know how much I HATE being refered to as such. I have severe reservations about Kerry... everyone I know who has served in combat shares my reservations, I won't go into them here... this is not the place for it.
and lastly,
#4)Speaking as an American;
I love this country... I love my way of life... I wouldn't exchange it for anything in the world. So refer to numbers 1 thru 3.
J
melancholygirl
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Posts
- 231
You know, I meant to put this thread on the GB, but messed up, and NOW, with all this conversation, it REALLY needs to be moved to the GB. LOL
TNRkitect2b
Sir Brian
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
- Posts
- 4,028
ABN_Ranger said:
Bravo! Always Forward!
Roll On ABN_Ranger! Infantry Leads the Way! May not be an 11-Bravo or in the Army anymore but Still love my brothers out there in harms way.
John_Mira
List of Kerry Supporters:
American Communist Party
Democratic Socalist Caucus
Nicuraguan Communist Party
Al Jazera--Television Network
American Trial Lawyers
Jaques Chirac-- President of France
Kim Jong Il--"President" of North Korea
Ted Kennedy--Unconvicted Murderer
Bill Clinton--Unconvicted Rapist and Purgerer
John_Mira
List of Kerry Supporters:
American Communist Party
Democratic Socalist Caucus
Nicuraguan Communist Party
Al Jazera--Television Network
American Trial Lawyers
Jaques Chirac-- President of France
Kim Jong Il--"President" of North Korea
Ted Kennedy--Unconvicted Murderer
Bill Clinton--Unconvicted Rapist and Purgerer
Big Bair
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2003
- Posts
- 176
phoenix1224
Sexy Beast
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2004
- Posts
- 5,471
Personally, I think he looks like Droopy Dog...
*raises little flag in the air... and in a dull voice*... Hoo---ray...
*raises little flag in the air... and in a dull voice*... Hoo---ray...
Bizkit_Writer
Constant Thinker
- Joined
- May 31, 2002
- Posts
- 1,052
melancholygirl said:
LOL! I agree!!!
Course Bush looks more normal THANK GOD!!
Mr.G
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- May 9, 2001
- Posts
- 1,292
In the spirit of debate ...
I'd hate to think that my Gspot thread and this could get confused but you're right. Sex, politics and religion! DYNOmite.
Mostly to Felt Tip and Ranger
A couple of points.
From a military standpoint you're correct. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden or any of the other groups think that a single attack or even series of attacks would destroy the US . HOWEVER...Bin Laden does, apparently, believe that he and a small band of Mujahadeen were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between them and Allah they defeated a vastly superior enemy.
Just as using Stingers to bring down Hind attack choppers couldn't possibly destroy the Soviet it did contribute in a small way to the loss of focus of the Soviets. That and the fact they had been bankrupted by a corrupt and inept infrastructure responding to the Reagan build-up.
I do believe that Bin Laden especially but the Muslim fundamentalists in general think that their destiny is to destroy America. They perceive America as the biggest holdout and opposition to Islam in the world today.
To the people who have no idea of the historical significance of all this my statement may sound generalized and racist but it's not. It's certainly not PC but when it comes to being exterminated I'd rather be accurate than PC! I really don't see a statement of truth as being prejudiced and generalistic. Have the Islamic armies tried to over run Europe for the 1400 years? YES. Does the fundamentalist element see this as a continuation of this fight? YES. Are we scared to call it what it is, based on historic FACT? Absolutely.
The FACT is that when one religion has been trying to kill off another religion for 1400++ years it shouldn't come as a surprise that they still are. The terrorists are the worst but if you delve down into the international Islamic community - those living here in the west - as a whole you will find massive support for the radicals. You will find massive ideological indoctrination in their school systems and you will find that if push comes to shove between our system and their religion they are ISLAMISTS first -110% - and westerners a distanst second. I think the average American or Canadian would be appalled at the number of Islamic students, brought up inj OUR system, enjoying our lifestyle - would step forward to shihad themsleves for Islam....blow the schnot out of themselves if it meant taking a bunch of us with them.
My only other objection to your argument is the constant self-loathing that we in the West do whenever the geopolitical landscape changes. WE supported Bin Laden AGAINST the Soviets. We supported Saddam AGAINST the Iranian fundamentalist wave that we saw washing over the whole Middle East at the time. The time being 20 years ago. Things change. All these twits who castigate the west for backing some of these factions simply do not account for what was happening AT THE TIME. No doubt some of our strategic allies NOW will be our enemies in 30 years or so. That's history. Shit changes EVERY day. There are new whackos and sometimes it helps to side with one whacko against another. To step back and look at all our government's decisions and alliances in TODAYS context of geopolitics is - dumb!
Ranger. What scares me is that only 2 of the 20+ FastBoat captains now back Kerry. The majority say he was a loose canon, enjoyed shooting too many unarmed civvies and had to be "leashed" by his superiors constantly. Medical records on his Purples show SCRATCHES which to my way of thinking significantly insults those of you who were wounded legitimately - in hostile action. He also came back and sided with the likes of Hanoi Jane and a group of anti-war activists who operated well inside the grey area called TREASON when it came to objecting to what your government is up to. When you have serious discussions about assassinating Senators then I question whether you want that kind of guy - even this many years later - running things. Personally I believe the guy is a man burning with the ambition to be the President. He has married TWO BILLIONAIRES in his life. Pure luck? You figure it out. My spidey sense is tingling tho ....
You're right. This discussion in GB would be inundated with nasty comments and the whole idea of dialogue and an honest exchange of opinons would be lost in the rat fight that would ensue.
So make this a HOW TO pick the right man for president ... not that I think Bush is doing such a great job but that's for another thread.
OK back to GSPOTS where I'm more comfortable and I don't have to worry about the PC police.
I'd hate to think that my Gspot thread and this could get confused but you're right. Sex, politics and religion! DYNOmite.
Mostly to Felt Tip and Ranger
A couple of points.
From a military standpoint you're correct. There is nothing to suggest that bin Laden or any of the other groups think that a single attack or even series of attacks would destroy the US . HOWEVER...Bin Laden does, apparently, believe that he and a small band of Mujahadeen were responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between them and Allah they defeated a vastly superior enemy.
Just as using Stingers to bring down Hind attack choppers couldn't possibly destroy the Soviet it did contribute in a small way to the loss of focus of the Soviets. That and the fact they had been bankrupted by a corrupt and inept infrastructure responding to the Reagan build-up.
I do believe that Bin Laden especially but the Muslim fundamentalists in general think that their destiny is to destroy America. They perceive America as the biggest holdout and opposition to Islam in the world today.
To the people who have no idea of the historical significance of all this my statement may sound generalized and racist but it's not. It's certainly not PC but when it comes to being exterminated I'd rather be accurate than PC! I really don't see a statement of truth as being prejudiced and generalistic. Have the Islamic armies tried to over run Europe for the 1400 years? YES. Does the fundamentalist element see this as a continuation of this fight? YES. Are we scared to call it what it is, based on historic FACT? Absolutely.
The FACT is that when one religion has been trying to kill off another religion for 1400++ years it shouldn't come as a surprise that they still are. The terrorists are the worst but if you delve down into the international Islamic community - those living here in the west - as a whole you will find massive support for the radicals. You will find massive ideological indoctrination in their school systems and you will find that if push comes to shove between our system and their religion they are ISLAMISTS first -110% - and westerners a distanst second. I think the average American or Canadian would be appalled at the number of Islamic students, brought up inj OUR system, enjoying our lifestyle - would step forward to shihad themsleves for Islam....blow the schnot out of themselves if it meant taking a bunch of us with them.
My only other objection to your argument is the constant self-loathing that we in the West do whenever the geopolitical landscape changes. WE supported Bin Laden AGAINST the Soviets. We supported Saddam AGAINST the Iranian fundamentalist wave that we saw washing over the whole Middle East at the time. The time being 20 years ago. Things change. All these twits who castigate the west for backing some of these factions simply do not account for what was happening AT THE TIME. No doubt some of our strategic allies NOW will be our enemies in 30 years or so. That's history. Shit changes EVERY day. There are new whackos and sometimes it helps to side with one whacko against another. To step back and look at all our government's decisions and alliances in TODAYS context of geopolitics is - dumb!
Ranger. What scares me is that only 2 of the 20+ FastBoat captains now back Kerry. The majority say he was a loose canon, enjoyed shooting too many unarmed civvies and had to be "leashed" by his superiors constantly. Medical records on his Purples show SCRATCHES which to my way of thinking significantly insults those of you who were wounded legitimately - in hostile action. He also came back and sided with the likes of Hanoi Jane and a group of anti-war activists who operated well inside the grey area called TREASON when it came to objecting to what your government is up to. When you have serious discussions about assassinating Senators then I question whether you want that kind of guy - even this many years later - running things. Personally I believe the guy is a man burning with the ambition to be the President. He has married TWO BILLIONAIRES in his life. Pure luck? You figure it out. My spidey sense is tingling tho ....
You're right. This discussion in GB would be inundated with nasty comments and the whole idea of dialogue and an honest exchange of opinons would be lost in the rat fight that would ensue.
So make this a HOW TO pick the right man for president ... not that I think Bush is doing such a great job but that's for another thread.
OK back to GSPOTS where I'm more comfortable and I don't have to worry about the PC police.
overthebow
Laugh-a while-a you can-a
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Posts
- 11,166
ABN_Ranger said:
The Bush team has done so much damage to the fabric of American life. They have gutted the military. When I was a soldier, I was always willing to step up and do as much as I could. The soldiers who currently serve are like that also. This is good. But this war in Iraq has cost us a division's worth of soldiers in killed and wounded. We don't have that many divisions in the volunteer army. We are going to lose at least another division of soldiers to ETS. The back door draft of using the Reserves is going to get tapped out. This is insanity.
Bush exposed the limits of American power.
The loss of Iranian sig int is huge. Iran is the rogue state in that region. We were reading their most secure traffic and it is gone now.
What neither party is willing to talk about is the fact that the expanding economy of the last decade was due to a influx of speculative capital to the markets. People felt secure enough to invest. This is what caused the dot com boom. It was clear that there was going to be some retraction. But Bush pushed through a huge tax cut anyway to try to forestall that retraction. It didn't happen. The rich people didn't invest in the US economy because there was more money to be made elsewhere. The result was a loss of revenue and a huge budget deficit.
Bush has pursued a partisan political agenda. Being president means being president of all Americans. He did not have a strong mandate for his policies. He even lost the popular vote. But his partisan political agenda took up more of his time than learning about America's enemies. His first address to the nation was about stem cell research.
This election shouldn't be about the actions of Bush and Kerry when they were young men. This election should be about Bush's handling of the ship of state. If the Bush team wants to make it about the actions of these men while they were young men, all I can say is that Kerry knows what it is like to carry a locked and loaded M-16, Bush knows what it is like to carry a locked and loaded 6 pack.
When I look at the Bush record, I don't see anything that he has done right.
overthebow
Laugh-a while-a you can-a
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2004
- Posts
- 11,166
Re: Re: Ever Notice How Much John Kerry Looks Like....
No, Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman.
Bizkit_Writer said:
No, Bush looks like Alfred E. Newman.
ABN_Ranger
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2003
- Posts
- 572
As the count goes... I have lost about three dozen people I felt honored enough to call friend and brother due to U.S. involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq. That's the biggest gripe I have about the war so far.
When I seperated from the Army 3 years ago, I came into the Air Force because my time in Bosnia, Kosovo and Drug Interdiction in Central and South America left me extremely traumatized. I have shed more blood for this country than any of the guys I went through high school with. I did it for my country and those who live here... not the men and women who run it. I will continue to do it and if need be... die for my country, because that is what I swore to do. I don't care it the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge. Just as long as I get to do my job. I've had the opportunity to do my job under both Republican and Democrat Presidents. Granted... I've lost more friends due to a Republican, but at least it was for something we had reason to be in another country killing people for, not being UN Peace Keepers and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Getting back to Kerry... I have zero respect for the man... but if he is elected President... I will follow his orders. You respect the rank... doesn't mean you have to respect the man. If he want's to be President so bad... let him have his shot... but you all know, the second he screws up, all these supporters he has, will turn on him faster than sharks in a feeding frenzy.
I like Bush... he's given me a few pay raises, and he's good for job security. Call me bloodthirst and a warmonger... but I LOVE seeing those kill marks on the side of our jets, knowing that that's one less enemy my son will have to face in his adulthood, because if my son is anything like me... and he is so far... in 16 to 17 years he'll be telling his Drill Sergeant that he joined the Army to jump out of airplanes and kill people. That's what I told mine... and if he wants that.. by god I won't tell him no.
Like I said... I don't mean to piss anyone off.. but if I did... oh well... we're adults, deal with it. My therapist says I'm not supposed to hold anything in anymore, so I don't, and I've got just about the thickest skin a 30 year old that's seen combat in multiple countries can have. So there ya have it... just a few of my views.
I still say elect me for President... I'm all for low taxes and bombing the shit outta anyone who pisses me off. Hell I don't think I'd screw shit up anymore than both Republicans and Democrats have, or will do in the next 4 years.
J
When I seperated from the Army 3 years ago, I came into the Air Force because my time in Bosnia, Kosovo and Drug Interdiction in Central and South America left me extremely traumatized. I have shed more blood for this country than any of the guys I went through high school with. I did it for my country and those who live here... not the men and women who run it. I will continue to do it and if need be... die for my country, because that is what I swore to do. I don't care it the Republicans or the Democrats are in charge. Just as long as I get to do my job. I've had the opportunity to do my job under both Republican and Democrat Presidents. Granted... I've lost more friends due to a Republican, but at least it was for something we had reason to be in another country killing people for, not being UN Peace Keepers and being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Getting back to Kerry... I have zero respect for the man... but if he is elected President... I will follow his orders. You respect the rank... doesn't mean you have to respect the man. If he want's to be President so bad... let him have his shot... but you all know, the second he screws up, all these supporters he has, will turn on him faster than sharks in a feeding frenzy.
I like Bush... he's given me a few pay raises, and he's good for job security. Call me bloodthirst and a warmonger... but I LOVE seeing those kill marks on the side of our jets, knowing that that's one less enemy my son will have to face in his adulthood, because if my son is anything like me... and he is so far... in 16 to 17 years he'll be telling his Drill Sergeant that he joined the Army to jump out of airplanes and kill people. That's what I told mine... and if he wants that.. by god I won't tell him no.
Like I said... I don't mean to piss anyone off.. but if I did... oh well... we're adults, deal with it. My therapist says I'm not supposed to hold anything in anymore, so I don't, and I've got just about the thickest skin a 30 year old that's seen combat in multiple countries can have. So there ya have it... just a few of my views.
I still say elect me for President... I'm all for low taxes and bombing the shit outta anyone who pisses me off. Hell I don't think I'd screw shit up anymore than both Republicans and Democrats have, or will do in the next 4 years.
J
TNRkitect2b
Sir Brian
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2003
- Posts
- 4,028
A quote that I have heard seems very appropriate right now.
"Anyone who is willing to do what it takes to become the president, Is not worthy of being the president."
Unfortunately, that is the nature of our political system.
"Anyone who is willing to do what it takes to become the president, Is not worthy of being the president."
Unfortunately, that is the nature of our political system.
Similar threads
