KaskadskyjKozak

How did I prove your point? "Hate filled?" I strongly disapprove of Bush's policies, attitude, and style of governance, and I feel his manner of operation has caused damage to this country. I can't wait for someone else- R or D, or better yet, I- to lead this country into a new era. I am far from alone in this thinking. Why is that "hate"? Your reactionary response to my post in fact is reinforcing exactly what I'm saying. You can't even articulate your point in a better manner than STFU. HOw bout trying again only counter my points about Bush's damage to the social fabric of the country and world with evidence proving me wrong. I haven't told you to STFU. I reserve that response for Kevboner and V7.

Schools in this day and age do not tolerate "ass whoopings" one bit. Any game or play which similates or looks violent or aggressive in any way is shut down immediately, and fights are treated very strictly. At least that's my experience two school districts (Everett and Bellevue)

Shades of gray huh? I guess you know me better than I know myself! I'll be voting for the Revolutionary Communist Party candidate, actually. So the assertion here is that Clinton and Bush are equally mediocre, but since you are a "conservative", how dare I or anyone suggest that Bush is worse lest I be a commie sympathizer who wants to take your guns, turn you gay, and have the terrorists win. If Bush is so 'mediocre' why are you so reactionary to any criticism by anyone other than fellow conservatives as "whining" and fishing for nothing? Clinton made plenty of mistakes and was mediocre for sure, and while I could list many reasons I think Bush is infinitely worse, one single reason suffices: his go-it-alone attitude and refusal to compromise (ironically, that same "decisiveness" that some use to qualify his character) or listen to anyone has perhaps irreversibly destroyed the social fabric of not only this country but has alienated this country from the rest of the world. He's employed a PR apparatus that has driven a wedge right down the middle of this country and brainwashed both left and right into thinking we're red and blue, a convenient tactic to quietly forge ahead with his own agenda while the citizenry fights among itself. His ardent supporters would have you believe that those who dislike Bush, which at last count numbers about 70% in the US and probably 90%+ in the remainder of the world- those people changed, they changed for the worse, they're the ones who don't get it, and Bush and his miniscule group of supporters are the ones who've stayed pure. That sort of arrogance is so blatant I don't know how anyone can't see it. At least Reagan spoke to the country as a whole, and people listened. Same with Clinton, and Bush Sr. This president is without equal in my lifetime for his divisiveness and hypocracy. He's not even a conservative- look at his budgets. We're in debt up to our ass. Do you deny what he is- an opportunistic egomaniac surrounded by elitist interests? Do you think this man is making this a better country? You've only succeeded in proving my point. Enjoy your hate-filled myopia.

So, the answer to violence is violence and that would somehow turn those kids around?

There you go again. And just a few minutes after *I'm* accused of doing this (you must be 100% pro-Republican/Bush/et al. because you criticized Clinton/Dems). As for you examples, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not a Republican, I'm a moderate Libertartian, so I oppose all that shit. Get that through your skull already. And BTW, Democrat social engineering is not about making society better, it's about buying votes, making people feel like they are doing good (feelings matter more than outcomes after all), solidifying power, and making the plebes dependent. And Republican programs are about the same things, sorry to burst your class-warfare bubble.

What is it about conservatives with this "if you criticize Bush then you must LOVE Clinton!" Everything works in opposites with you guys. If you disagree with the war then you must love terrorists and hate America. On and on. There's just no other possible views but a) your own, and b) the extreme, extreme opposite. Pot, kettle, black. Yeah, right. As the election day looms near, and you have a choice between the "R" and the "D", you'll pick the "D", and rationalize why you are doing it. As for the "black-white" issue, I call bullshit. I see everything in shades of gray. Bush is not the worst president, nor the best - he's mediocre. So was Clinton. And that's where historians will put them. Both did some good things, and both did some not so good things. If you can't see that for the guy you oppose, well, then it's YOU who are seeing the world in black and white.

Oh, there you go with your knee jerk responses again. Are those programs or are they not called "Entitlement Programs"? Nothing knee-jerk there buddy.

I definitely wasn't talking about you. I remember being single and thinking how everyone else's kid was a damn brat, what was the world coming to, and couldn't people raise their kids properly. Easy to judge when you haven't walked in someone else's shoes. Of course people are bringing up some egregious examples here - tantrums in the middle of a store or other public place...

Entitlements - isn't that what every Federal DemoLibSocialEngineering program is all about?

I don't think Clinton is two-faced. But you and your ilk certainly are. I don't like Bush and never had. Never liked his father either. But Clinton was a special piece of work - our first white trash president. So we've gone from that idiot to a guy with, how did Richards put it - "a silver foot in his mouth"? Of course you think Bubba is so great and wonderful and spethal, I'm sure.

you're such a clown

Just becuase your a fanatic suck my own cock dem, give it up. Struck some nerves yesterday, got all the freaks riled. Indeed. Gotta love how the DemoLibs can spew vitriol about Bush, the "Bushies", BushCo, und so weiter ad nauseaum, but immediately go into knee-jerk attack mode at one mention of anything negative about Clinton. You can't expect more from ass clowns.

well, i think perhaps you're a tad bit on the lucky side too. my kid has thrown more than his share of tantrums, publicly embarrassed me and annoyed other people. h/e that doesn't mean that i hadn't drawn the line. he was just more stubborn about accepting his inability to get what he wants. i think the key is that he doesn't win them. now that he's older, he's a great kid that behaves himself, mostly does what he's asked with a normal amount of pre-teen grousing, still hugs his mom, opens doors for strangers and says thank you. i think it's a gross oversimplification to say that tantrums in younger children is a reflection of an unhealthy sense of entitlement. I'm glad someone posted something like this. Armchair quarterbacks abound (and often have never played the game).

are you talking (metaphorically) about men again?

Are they hard to get this year? What's the penalty for climbing without one?

Bush uptight? If anything, he's way too laid back...

how apropos... V7 lives amongst rot, decay, corruption and vermin

fucking mental midgets can't even light a fire properly

You first. Gibberish doesn't count.

the boy, trips while fucking up, then poses, then postures.and now will attack with a noodle..... wtf . is this humanly possible? i give the fuck up. you give the fuck up? try shutting the fuck up

The Dems ran on the premise that they would get us out of Iraq. Now that they are in power, they are more interested in not losing their new-found power than the slogans they harped on for the last 5 years, and those campaign promises are fading quickly. We'll be in Iraq through the end of Bush's term, and probably quite a bit into the next term - no matter which party is in power.

That people take politics far too seriously! What do I know though, I'm just a communist lefty! I agree that people take politics far too seriously, and it gets old real fast. My ideal world is one where politicians are irrelevant, or at least effectively spayed/neutered.

Don't start that thread again. Dru will jump in with the revisionist history line du jour.

The dog beheader just needs to have some concerned citizens kick the shit out of him. But of course, then they'd go to jail. Can't have vigilantism.

Those are just synonyms for Republican and Conservative anyways. Hilarious dude. You only illustrate the point. If "Republicans" were "nazis", there would be no opposition today (the "opposition" would be scattered in pits with bullets in the back of their collective heads), and there would have been no Democratic victory in congress in 2006, and probably no elections at all - ever. If you misuse terms with a concrete meaning to manipulate the masses or make jokes, the result is to water them down and render them meaningless. Calling everything "terrorism" is equally idiotic, exemplified by the moronic "War IS Terrorism" bumper stickers, or the article that prompted this thread.