Originally Posted by moose135
Wait, didn't the New York Times go back after the election and pay a lot of money to have the ballots in Florida recounted and find that Bush had indeed won the popular vote, by a larger margin than what was originally thought?
Don't know if this is fact, but I recall hearing this from someone. Maybe someone here knows something about it...
What a reaction Hillary's name got.
Now I know to put Hillary's name on all my posts to get them read.
Let's see:
Yeltsin finally dead after he instituted democracy and robbed the Russians blind Hillary spotted at funeral
or
Floods in Florida and gaters eat 100 year old Hillary spotted single handedly saving dozens.
Hillary, She ain't so bad, you'll like her when you get to know her...oh wait!
That is what Papa Bush said about boy Bush in the Banana Republic election.
You get the idea.
Dude, Clinton is one of the most anti American people in the nation as far as I am concerned. You may not realize it but the research is out there.
Southwest Airlines-"Once it pop's it's time to stop" Southwest Airlines-"Our Shamu's are almost real" Southwest Airlines -"We blow our top real easy" Southwest Airlines- "You can't top us..... really"
Another powerful argument. Learn us more.
Email me anytime at [email protected].
But, better to do a recount of only the areas/counties likely to change the final tally to Gore? That would not be a bannana republic?
We had someone's son running against someone's wife in a country of 200million+. In that respect we were already in a sorry spot.
That's right - he won the electorial vote. It was decided in a state where his brother was governor, who set voter-registration rules designed to suppress turnout from likely-Democratic voting groups, and affirmed by the Supreme Court, 7 members of which were appointed while his father was either President or Vice President.
Face it folks, for one shining moment, we were a banana republic!
"Keep 'em Flying"
Greatsite, I'm a registered Republican here in Queens County, but I gotta say I agree with many of your points about Bush. I think he's an embarrassment and unfit to lead the country and I'm astounded how many people are so deluded into think that even his farts are a stroke of genius. Thankfully, lots of Republicans see him as a liability and aren't supporting him on a lot of issues anymore.
As for our standing in the world, I think it's very sad when most of the world's population actually think more positively of overtly racist and brutal dictatorships with nefarious intentions, like China and Iran, than they do about us. Bush isn't exactly projecting the best image. It's bad for our interests in the future.
I don't even know where to begin about the mess in Iraq. Whether or not it was right to go to war there is not the issue now, the place is a mess and there seems to have been zero strategy to keep the peace there. Totally disorganized.
As for Hillary, what the hell has she done for us here in NY as a Senator? Not much...
I don't know who I'd vote for. I'd probably vote for Guiliani if he gets on the GOP ticket, but I don't think he will be on. I'm not a huge fan of McCain because he seems too plastic. The other candidates, I don't like at all. And nobody from the Dems really interests me. I don't know why the media is so obsessed with Obama.
I like Hilary... Duff. :lol:
Haha same here.
I'm more of a Haylie fan myself. Vote for Summer!
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem.
All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them under control.
I trust you are not in too much distress. —Captain Eric Moody, British Airways Flight 9
Yeah, and 9/11 is a conspiracy. The research is out there. :roll:
Seriously....start bringing facts if you're going to open your mouth. I don't care either way about this argument and it's annoying to read.
<<Yeah, and 9/11 is a conspiracy. The research is out there. >>
We'll have to ask iMuS & rOsIe since they seem to make cryptic remarks on the subject...... Maybe they'll join up.
"Keep 'em Flying"
So, I am curious.
Why isn't it time for a smart, brilliant black man to lead this great country of ours?
"Keep 'em Flying"
It was just ask Rosie! Bush planted bombs so the buildings would come down after of course he stole all that oil from Iraq.Yeah, and 9/11 is a conspiracy
Show us one.Why isn't it time for a smart, brilliant black man to lead this great country of ours?
'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol
Does it really matter the race or gender? I think we get way to hung up on that.So, I am curious.
Why isn't it time for a smart, brilliant black man to lead this great country of ours?
Here's are excerpts from an article from Vanity Fair titled "Neo Culpa" dated January 2007 by David Rose.
The famous Neo Cons who advocated the war in Iraq talk about it as the mistake and disaster that it has become as a result of the Bush administration's incompetence.
Perle is unrecognizable as the confident hawk I once knew. "The levels of brutality that we've seen are truly horrifying, and I have to say, I underestimated the depravity," Perle says, adding that total defeat—an American withdrawal that leaves Iraq as an anarchic "failed state"—is not yet inevitable, but is becoming more likely. "And then," he says, "you'll get all the mayhem that the world is capable of creating."
According to Perle, who left the Defense Policy Board in 2004, this unfolding catastrophe has a central cause: devastating dysfunction within the Bush administration. The policy process has been nothing short of "disastrous," he says. "The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible.
Perle goes as far as to say that, if he had his time over, he would not advocate an invasion of Iraq: "I think if I had been delphic, and had seen where we are today, and people had said, 'Should we go into Iraq?,' I think now I probably would have said, 'No, let's consider other strategies for dealing with the thing that concerns us most, which is Saddam supplying weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.' … I don't say that because I no longer believe that Saddam had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction, or that he was not in contact with terrorists. I believe those two premises were both correct. Could we have managed that threat by means other than a direct military intervention? Well, maybe we could have."
Having spoken with Perle, I wonder: What do the rest of the war's neoconservative proponents think?
I expect to encounter disappointment. What I find instead is despair, and fury at the incompetence of the Bush administration many neocons once saw as their brightest hope.
David Frum, the former White House speechwriter who co-wrote Bush's 2002 State of the Union address, accusing Iraq of being part of an "axis of evil," says it now looks as if defeat may be inescapable, because "the insurgency has proven it can kill anyone who cooperates, and the United States and its friends have failed to prove that it can protect them. If you are your typical, human non-hero, then it's very hard at this point to justify to yourself and your family taking any risks at all on behalf of the coalition." This situation, he says, must ultimately be blamed on "failure at the center."
Kenneth Adelman, a longtime neocon activist and Pentagon insider who has served on the Defense Policy Board, wrote a famous op-ed article in The Washington Post in February 2002, arguing, "I believe that demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk." Now he says, "I am extremely disappointed by the outcome in Iraq, because I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional."
And if he, too, had his time over, Adelman says, "I would write an article that would be skeptical over whether there would be a performance that would be good enough to implement our policy. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless, just useless. I guess that's what I would have said: that Bush's arguments are absolutely right, but you know what? You just have to put them in the drawer marked CAN'T DO. And that's very different from LET'S GO."
The full article can be read at
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat ... cons200701
More to come...
If the eyeroll wasn't an indicator, I'd like to state for the record that I was joking about 9/11 being a conspiracy. Some people can't handle sarcasm.
Thanks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks