graupel Posted October 31, 2004 Share Posted October 31, 2004 377 tons small part of absent Iraq explosives Missing prewar stockpiles may total 250,000 tons http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6376212/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 LOL : As far as Bush I am a one issue supporter: WOT. do you expect anyone to believe this? come on, apart from a few social issues, you have supported bush in everything he has done. as if picking the sole issue of wot to hang your hat onto should legitimize the "strong leader" bs, whereas, in fact, if there is someone not fit to handle questions of national security it is certainly the bungler. I think that our choices are pathetic and have been for some time. The state of political debate is so poor right now that it is truly amazing - my take is that these guys are chosen specifically to keep the debate at a low level. as if the level of debate was any better when your hero, reagan, displayed his acting "talent" in the whitehouse. are you trying to conveniently bundle kerry with bush because you know you have no chance of convincing any thinking person of bush's intellectual fitness for the job? your not-so-subbtle attempts at encouraging 3rd party voting are duly noted. As usual J_B you rants seem as logical as one of Larouches serious speeches. The third parties are basically wannabes and assorted nuts. My problem with the two main parties is that they have chosen a policy of "detente" - think Nixon and Carter. I prefer Ronnie and his "tell it like it is," believe in your policies and press for them style. (eg "evil empire" "tear down that wall") Long Live the Revolution! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 BTW: Bush was chosen in 2000 by the electoral college. Many subsequent recounts, even those done by left-leaning papers, demonstrate this to be so. It is likely time for you to grow up and accept our constitutional system of government and elections. This election holds the potential for Bush to win the popular vote, yet lose the election in the electoral. This is our way. I will accept it if it comes to pass. (however unlikely) I will not carry on like a whiney little bitch for 4 years about our "unelected" leader. Grow some hair. I love it - when faced with a statement that our current president is an "unelected moron," the best that bushies can do is say "he was too elected…" It must be hard work supporting that guy. "whiny little bitch?" You've really become quite the big tough guy on the internet, haven't you FistWedger? Why so quick with the personal attacks lately? Maybe it's related to your candidate's consistent inability to poll higher than 48 percent in any swing state? Because my time is too valuable to be wasted on a vitriolic windbag like yourself, I'll refrain from addressing in detail the substantive portion of your characteristically pompous post, except to say that I am very familiar with our system of government, thanks, and I recognize the legitimacy of the electoral college. However, shrub's "victory" in his brother's state was anything but legitimate. It was the result of the kind of reprehensible republican tactics we are currently seeing in Ohio, where the GOP is doing everything it can to prevent people from voting. No matter, because the shrubster is very clearly going down tomorrow, with Kerry winning 300+ electoral votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 As usual J_B you rants seem as logical as one of Larouches serious speeches. ouch! pretty low blow but i am not surprised. it would suffice to notice your lack of argumentation to dismiss your comment but i'll reiterate to drive the point home. 1) you claim that you support bush only for his stance on wot. i replied i don't believe it one bit because you have supported most of his disastrous socio-economic policies and b) because bush is probably the worst choice one can think of for the security of the u.s. (posturing, unilateralism and arrogance that lead to the isolation of the u.s. in world politics). You are basically hanging your hat onto the only category bush is wrongly perceived to have an advantage over kerry (i.e. as a good neo-con you are playing on people's fear). The third parties are basically wannabes and assorted nuts. My problem with the two main parties is that they have chosen a policy of "detente" - think Nixon and Carter. I prefer Ronnie and his "tell it like it is," believe in your policies and press for them style. (eg "evil empire" "tear down that wall") boy that surely raises the level of the debate i never said you would personally vote for a 3rd party, i said that you were trying to encourage 3rd party voting (consciously or not) on this bulletin board by attempting to lump kerry and bush in the intellectual department. Long Live the Revolution! that's more like it. you do perceive the present admin as the ideal tool to push for unabated neo-liberalism (unregulated free markets for those not familiar) onto everybody else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Actually Bush has been pretty protectionist of late witness tarrifs on Cdn lumber, foreign steel etc. The Economist said that even with Kerry's protectionist rhetoric they didn't think he'd be any worse in practice on free trade than Bush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 yes, the usual pork barrel to cater to one's "base" always applies, otherwise from the environment to social security to labor laws his overarching policy is to demolish 100 years of regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Puget Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 here you go J_B - read this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 here you go J_B - read this So we have a pop-novelist's rantings to a journalist. And this is profound because...? 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.