Cpt.Caveman Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 (edited) I dont really care but- It seems more folks are ready to attack Shrubya without a reply to put forth their support to someone else. I'm all for it. Whine all you want but make a statement for your candidates I say. Otherwise you might as well join them in their spineless approach to politics. Oh and BTW canadians get zero fucking vote here so just keep the whining up cuz nobody gives a fuck what you think. For those thin skinned in CAN I do not say sorry just the truth. Edited January 13, 2004 by Cpt.Caveman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackY Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Cluck, I'll be voting for Dean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 OK W haters..... curious to see which other Presidential candidate wanker you are supporting. I have to tell you that the entire group is so unimpressive that it feels like time for a "none of the above" vote to communicate utter void of confidence in the Washington beuacrapsy. I've always been weary of the power hungry, ego maniacs that seem to be attracted to national politics, but these days the job title "politician" = sewer rat to me. Clinton = suck. W = suck. Honest politician = Oxymoron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Cluck, I'll be voting for Dean. Hey, Does Dean have some kind of steel plate in his neck or something? The guy looks kind of rigid. (Not to mention, LOONEY) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Cluck, I'll be voting for Dean. Hey, Does Dean have some kind of steel plate in his neck or something? The guy looks kind of rigid. (Not to mention, LOONEY) It's really shocking that you would have something bad to say about a dem Fairweather. I'll probably vote for Dean, but I definitely vot for anyone who's running against Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b-rock Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I love all this yammering on a climbing BBS. What are you doing to help th situation? Are you as concerned as you say? It has been said that you can tell the true motivations of a person by their daytimer and their checkbook. What are you doing htat is pro-active for the causes you so vehemently speak for on this board? Are you donating your money to these grass-roots politicians? Are you donating your time for the humanitarian causes? Just a thought. YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 All true patriots are working to get this maniac out of office. This is your opinion, don't play it off as fact or common knowledge. I love how you anti-freedom , socialist, big government fucks all say, "All must do this and agree with me 'cause I think so." Fuck all you guys, make up your own political mind and act for yourself. You are funny...real funny...we are losing civil rights left and right (no pun intended) under this administration... You know, I hear that from all you limp-wristed lefties, but no one seems be able to give me more details. Make a list, bucko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Well there's a wasted vote, but suit yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 And, come on, has GWB done anything worse than any other president? Nixon? Kennedy? LBJ? FDR? (to name a few). I really don't think it's a logical argument to justify misdeeds by saying they're no worse than other misdeeds. I don't know what common thread you are thinking of for those other Presidents you mentioned, but I don't think any of them invaded another country with less reason than Bush did in Iraq. The fact that he obviously lied to the American people in order to justify the war is repugnant. You could probably make the case that some on your list up there lied to go to war. But if you did, it wouldn't justify Bush's misdeeds. The Vietnam War is probably the best comparison you could make. Do you think Bush is not so bad, because, "heck we attacked Vietnam!" Johnson decided not to run for a second term because of his misdeeds in SE Asia. Nixon was impeached. I'd settle for either of those solutions to the current problem. I would say, "I'd settle for the JFK solution" too, but, of course, I won't, because that would be stupid. By the way, though the Iraq war is my biggest beef with GWB, I also really do not like his economic (tax cuts in times of nearly unprecedented budget deficit) or environmental (speaks for itself) policies. ETA: Oh yeah, I forgot to add my dismay about the continuing erosion of civil liberty under the Bush administration Bush is selling our soldiers, our country's prestige in the world, and our children's and grandchildren's economic and environmental health to the most convenient bidders. He sucks. He should be impreached, but I'll settle for him getting voted out of office. Chuck; If I misrepresented what I was saying, then I'll back up. I'm not justifying anything Bush has done by trotting out other Presidents. It just strikes me as odd that so many people jump onto a moral outrage bandwagon against Bush like all the previous Presidents have done no wrong. Clinton, for one, sent soldiers into combat more often than any other President since FDR - why wasn't he "selling our soldiers"? Because he was on your side? And, honestly, do the liberals on the left really give a shit about our military? No. About this "erosion of civil liberties", last time I checked Congress made the laws, so we need to look to them if they are passing laws that are eroding civil liberties. Look at the system, it seems illogical to place all blame on Bush when 460+ men and women have to decide on a bill before it ever gets to the Prez. Why don't you look into how many times other Presidents have used "Executive Order" to accomplish things (such as garner more power for the Executive Branch) outside of the lawmaking process. What about cooking up a scheme with your Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to attempt to dismantle a LEGAL, GOVERNMENT REGULATED industry? What about the gutting of our intelligence services that compromised our ability to track our potential enemies? Everyone is crying so loudly about Bush because he's right in front of us, but they forget all the bad shit that happened under other Presidents. That's all I'm saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 You're probably right Trask, but I do think there's a chance for us patriots due to the relatively large numbers of us in the "strongly dislike" category. What I find interesting is that your definition of "patriot" may differ from someone elses, and this isn't directed at you chuck. Does one's definition of "patriotism" hinge on what they view as important, wonderful and unique about the U.S.A.? It is an interesting question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lummox Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 carol moseley braun http://www.carolforpresident.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 she fucks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Patriot - a patriotic person; patriotic - supporting one's country. Last time I looked, more people in this country voted against shrub than voted for him. he won on a contested electoral vote. Same for clinton in 92' (with the exception of the contested electoral). Therefore, the will of the country seemed to be against shrub. So does that make those of us who don't like him unpatriotic? I think not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 p.s., either Dean or Clark. Frickin' Dems need to get their act together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 fucckin' Dems need to get their dumb-ass act together. yeah, right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Charles Krauthammer says that Dean is "smug". I guess there isn't anything that can be worse than being smug, not dismantling 40 years of environmental protections, not turning the rest of the world against the US, not threatening civil liberties, not creating the largest deficit this country has ever seen. There is no forgiving smug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRoark Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Charles Krauthammer says that Dean is "smug". I guess there isn't anything that can be worse than being smug, not dismantling 40 years of environmental protections, not turning the rest of the world against the US, not threatening civil liberties, not creating the largest deficit this country has ever seen. There is no forgiving smug. Wow, that was a succinct argument. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Everyone is crying so loudly about Bush because he's right in front of us, but they forget all the bad shit that happened under other Presidents. That's all I'm saying. Well doesn't it make more sense to cry about what is right in front of us? Doesn't it make more sense to agitate for some change that we actually can affect? I guess to make your point more logical and progressive I can assume that what you really mean, is that Bush is not going to be any worse than anybody else we could elect. As far as that point goes, I would heartily disagree with that. Like I wrote above, I think GWB is head and shoulders more dangerous to our country than any president I am familiar with. In 2000, I was not too worried about who was elected because I figured they were both so-so guys, but even if the anti-environmental guy got elected, we still wouldn't be screwed up too much. I can't believe how wrong I was. GWB is destroying this country and it's future. It is a tragedy. I'll bet if the supreme court had the benefit of hindsight, things would be a lot different right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 CHuck I wholeheartedly agree with you. However, I find this Dean guy a bit disturbing, and he really doesn't stand a chance against GWB. I hate to say it, but for the country's sake I think we all need to do some damage control at the polls, set aside the individual who is perfect (who cannot possibly win) and pick the lesser of two evils, and that would be Dean at this point. He HAS to be better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 GW is NOT destroying the country. That's the dumbest thing I've heard since the last time you opened your pie hole. Buy a clue, buttdouche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Of course not, why, just the other day I saw the "threat" thermometer graphic on fox news drop to the yellow color. Maybe in a few months we will see it dive into the bulb! Wouldn't that be great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I'm not justifying anything Bush has done by trotting out other Presidents. [...] About this "erosion of civil liberties", last time I checked Congress made the laws, so we need to look to them if they are passing laws that are eroding civil liberties. Look at the system, it seems illogical to place all blame on Bush when 460+ men and women have to decide on a bill before it ever gets to the Prez. OK, you're not justifying what Bush has been done by trotting out other presidents. Instead, you seem to be blaming it all on Congress? How lame an argument is that? Are you seriously saying that the Bush administration has just been sitting with their thumbs up their asses (well maybe Bush was) while the congress just developed and passed the various legislation of the past 3 years? I'll trot out a past president at this point(the one who probably has the most deaths on his head). "The Buck Stops Here". You certainly don't seem to be endorsing Bush with this kind of talk. You seem to be distancing him from what has happened on his watch. Does that mean you don't approve of the erosions of civil liberties? As far as I know, Ashcroft was appointed by Bush. Not by congress. I think congress needed to approve him, but they certainly didn't pick him to be in the position. Bush can fire him too. I think you will agree that Bush should be held responsible/get credit for all that Ashcroft has done and will do. Blaming what has happened on congress is disingenuous as well as patently ludicrous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 Well doesn't it make more sense to cry about what is right in front of us? Doesn't it make more sense to agitate for some change that we actually can affect? Yeah. So work on getting a president you can support rather than whining about a president who's term will end in months. What are you gonna do impeach him for his last 3 days in office? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 GW is NOT destroying the country. That's the dumbest thing I've heard since the last time you opened your pie hole. Buy a clue, buttdouche. Depends on what your definition of "destroy" is. What happens when your country stops producing job? How about when it has to print money because it doesn't collect enough taxes to pay for what it spends? When people lose confidence in the office of the president because of lies, what then. When 40 years of environmental protection begin dying the death of a thousand cuts, is that destroying the country? Maybe destroy is too strong a word. How about "savaged" or "battered"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 We're a country of thinkers, let's start thinking up some new shit to build. Like computers for instance...that technology stayed with us here in America for many years before the slopes started building parts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.