I indirectly took a jab at you when I replied to Royd.

Wow. So I actually attempted to explain myself in a fashion that showed someone who leans heavily to one political party is NOT a blind sheep *and* I said that I would not support a one-party system under any circumstances,

...and you "indirectly took a jab at me" when you replied to Royd.

That's awesome. I'm glad what I thought was a mature, rational explanation was met with the same sort of response.

So I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I said? Or you did, but you're so stubborn on the matter that you'll choose to ignore it. Cool.

Fine, you want me to respond to it, I will. I was just avoiding any confrontation. Figured that's what you would prefer. Women!

I'll reply.

You seem to have no objectivity when it comes to your party. It's like you turn a blind eye to the bad stuff, and spin, spin, spin. Not just you, everybody who staunchly supports either party like some fanboy, for lack of a better word. Joe Biden didn't "cream" Sara Palin in their debate, but spin, spin, spin. Both sides play this game, and why, because they aren't leaders, they are followers. It's a monkey see, monkey do type of thing. It's not shocking, it's sad. It's a big problem in this country, too. You also seem to believe everything your candidate promises, but the other guy is just a big fat liar!



Well, that's good, but it's also the first time I've ever heard you say anything remotely objective.



Doing things, or making promises? See, this is the lack of objectivity I spoke of. How's Clinton's healthcare reform working out? It's easy to make a promise, but it's not so easy to keep it, especially when politics in the House and Senate come into play.



Those 64 million people aren't ALL communist minded. Some are racist, some are stupid, some believe in the tooth fairy, and some believe Obama is going to make a difference. Variables apply.

I'm not an Obama hater. I'm indifferent. The President doesn't affect my life. That's on me. It's my responsibility. George W. Bush had about as shitty a second term as he probably could have, but I prospered more in the last 4 years than I did at any time in my life. No thanks to him. I would hate to be somebody who put themselves in the position where one man dictates their quality of life. It's a ridiculous notion.

Speaking of 2nd terms, isn't it about time that was done away with? When's the last time a President had a better 2nd term than first term?

Sure there are some people who prospered during Herbert Hoover, the question is what about society in General Maverick???

mccains folks are saying palin was unaware africa was a continent and not a country.

They need to take some responsibility for their own prosperity, and quit pointing fingers at one person for their own lack of drive and success. If I can do it, anybody can.

I do agree that because you have a 300k Mortgage and are a lower middle income person and your house defaulted, that is your fault not Bush's...


However, if a President creates a fiscal, social and economic situation where his citizens find it harder to prosper, why cannot one blame him then???

And I don't particularly care for Bush, and cared for his dad even less. 911 wasn't because of him, as that was planned for a good while. Clinton tried to get Osama long before 911 happened. He missed. After that happened, plenty of people were panicked, and one credit that I will give to George Bush, despite all the criticisms I have, I felt safe at home with him in charge, and nobody fucked with us here like they would have with a weaker person in charge.

A President doesn't have that kind of power. Lots of blame to go around.

It falls on Bush adminstration. We're seeing the effects of bushes administration having 6 years republican congress to work with.

- She didn't know the nations in NAFTA
- She couldn't name the countries in North America
- She didn't know Africa was a continent, not a country
- She asked staff if South Africa was really its own country or just a part of the country of Africa
- She didn't understand the idea of American Exceptionalism
- She refused interview prep for the Katie Couric interview and then blamed staff for it going bad
- Staff wouldn't allow her to interview without McCain sitting next to her
- A week ago Palin cracked
- She had tantrums, threw paperwork, made staff cry
- Staff says she's a shopaholic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/0 ... 41653.html

You mean OTHER than the domestic terrorist attack that killed nearly 3000 Americans and the following Anthrax attack that panicked Washington and NYC?

911 was planned long before he was elected. Facts are facts. Anthrax was the best they could do, and that lasted for about 6 minutes. Bush did a great job with homeland security, and it's ignorant to argue otherwise.

Well one can somewhat argue Bush did maker America safer on its home soil.


However his foreign policy has done more to increase the power of terrorists.

Sure Iraq is safer, but look at Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda rule there.


It is Barrack Obama who seems where the real war lies.

And happened on his watch, after he had been warned by outgoing president Clinton that Osama was planning on attacking and did nothing. Geez, if a democrat had been in office when it happened, you'd never let up on it.



That's never apparently stood in your way before...



But it was an attack on American soil, which you, one post ago, denied had happened. Thanks for admitting it.



Fuck you. I only see one ignorant person in this thread right now, one who thinks that giving away a contract to inspect our ports to Dubai was a "great job with homeland security", who seems to be so ignorant that he forgets that Bush stopped looking for bin Laden and even said he wasn't important.

In fact I personally have prevented tigers from attacking in downtown Philadelphia. My proof? Look, it hasn't happened, has it?!! You'd have to be ignorant not to acknowledge that!!!

Clinton did everything apart from invading Afganistan really.

Bush spend hist first 10 months doing nothing about Terrorism at all.

Assuming the zoo is a state operation and that you pay taxes, then you do prevent tigers from attacking. In fact, you helped bring the tigers to the zoo in the first place.

Why do you find it so hard to admit, that maybe, just maybe, and infinitesimally small maybe, that Bush's policies, be that you hate them or no, had an effect on there being no major attacks against us since 9/11?

Are you some hardcore David Hume type skeptic that sees no cause and effect anywhere, just events that happen after each other with no apparent connection?

Now wait a minute.

There is a huge difference between "maybe the policies might have had an effect" and "Bush saved us all" which is basically what the earlier post said.

If you believe his policies prevented another attack, tell me how. The burden is on you. What policies? What examples?



Besides, the zoo isn't actually in Philaldephia.

I happened 10 months into his administration, despite ample warnings by the outgoing administration and a FUCKING MEMO entitled BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHIN THE US. What did Osama have to do, paint a bullseye on the WTC? Bush probably would have simply thought a parade was coming through town.

Facts are facts indeed.



Well earlier you claimed it didn't happen at all, so I guess this progress. And the anthrax attack killed 5 people and injured 17. But hey, why get worked up over a little fatal domestic terrorism, especially when it completely invalidates your already moronic point.

You need a new avatar. Bring back Shrek.

BUSH IS HISTORY!!! (in 75 or so days)

I might use Rev's sig pic. Although I've grown rather attached to my current one. Not as attached as they are to each other, of course, but that's all over and done with now I suppose.

I liked your old Homer Simpson avatar.

I'm sorry Mike but thats one of the dumbest characterisations of Conservatisim I've ever read.

Do Tory supports think like that? Do Union for a Popular Movement supporters think like that? Do Union of Christian and Centre Democrats supporters think like that?

You are basically pigeon holing Conservatism in the a manner that would be similar to saying all Liberal's asscribe to the policies of the 1946 French Communist Party.