Bush Campaign Website Revamped to Include Reagan Prominently

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it puts the focus directly on politics!

www.georgebush.com is a political site! It's the home page for Bush's campaign.

??

Im pretty sure both Bush and Reagan were both republicans. Its the republicans right to use Reagans death for political purposes. What was that absolutely vulgar tasteless trashy democrat funeral I heard of a while back? If it gets GW a million more votes good for him and good for you.

Youll have something to obsess and cry over for another 4 years.

I agree, Bush is a follower of Reagan and a great admirer. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history of America and these left wingers cant stand that, it irritates them.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it puts the focus directly on politics!

www.georgebush.com is a political site! It's the home page for Bush's campaign.

??

Im pretty sure both Bush and Reagan were both republicans. Its the republicans right to use Reagans death for political purposes. What was that absolutely vulgar tasteless trashy democrat funeral I heard of a while back? If it gets GW a million more votes good for him and good for you.

Youll have something to obsess and cry over for another 4 years.

I agree, Bush is a follower of Reagan and a great admirer. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history of America and these left wingers cant stand that, it irritates them.

Thye are just pissed that they wont let Klinton or Kerry speak. They cant stand the fact that Clinton is to selfish to die and give them some air time

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it puts the focus directly on politics!

www.georgebush.com is a political site! It's the home page for Bush's campaign.

??

Im pretty sure both Bush and Reagan were both republicans. Its the republicans right to use Reagans death for political purposes. What was that absolutely vulgar tasteless trashy democrat funeral I heard of a while back? If it gets GW a million more votes good for him and good for you.

Youll have something to obsess and cry over for another 4 years.

I agree, Bush is a follower of Reagan and a great admirer. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history of America and these left wingers cant stand that, it irritates them.

What left-wingers? I'm a Republican. I've voted Republican since 1984 (save Clinton in '92).

I think it's a disgusting move by a candidate weak on issues and struggling to maintain an identity with its base in face of criticism from its base.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it puts the focus directly on politics!

www.georgebush.com is a political site! It's the home page for Bush's campaign.

??

Im pretty sure both Bush and Reagan were both republicans. Its the republicans right to use Reagans death for political purposes. What was that absolutely vulgar tasteless trashy democrat funeral I heard of a while back? If it gets GW a million more votes good for him and good for you.

Youll have something to obsess and cry over for another 4 years.

I agree, Bush is a follower of Reagan and a great admirer. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history of America and these left wingers cant stand that, it irritates them.

What left-wingers? I'm a Republican. I've voted Republican since 1984 (save Clinton in '92).

I think it's a disgusting move by a candidate weak on issues and struggling to maintain an identity with its base in face of criticism from its base.

I've seen you take a conservative side of one single issue in the last year maybe, maybe less. Abortion I think. Every other issue you've taken a left wing stance. I honestly fail to see how a person can lose their whole political ideology over dislike for one administration. ( Ill admit they arent exactly my favorite admin!) I did look up some of your very old posts and did see you once supported Bush though.

So, That all being said. Do you think they should let the democrats speak? Do you honestly think they would want Bush to speak at say, Clintons funeral?

 

[conjur]

I don't think Clinton should ask to speak, he should be invited to speak. Otherwise, he should just attend and shut his mouth and stop his tantrums and act like an adult.


BTW, I don't see how much of my view could be considered leftist, unless someone wedded to the far-right was reading my posts.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: nutxo

Originally posted by: conjur
No, it puts the focus directly on politics!

www.georgebush.com is a political site! It's the home page for Bush's campaign.

??

Im pretty sure both Bush and Reagan were both republicans. Its the republicans right to use Reagans death for political purposes. What was that absolutely vulgar tasteless trashy democrat funeral I heard of a while back? If it gets GW a million more votes good for him and good for you.

Youll have something to obsess and cry over for another 4 years.

I agree, Bush is a follower of Reagan and a great admirer. Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in history of America and these left wingers cant stand that, it irritates them.

What left-wingers? I'm a Republican. I've voted Republican since 1984 (save Clinton in '92).

I think it's a disgusting move by a candidate weak on issues and struggling to maintain an identity with its base in face of criticism from its base.

If your a republican and not a liberal then why do you always bash Bush ?(not trying to be funny). Almost all your posts here are anti Bush and you sound more like a Deaniac than anything else.

 

[conjur]

Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

face it, you neocons fscked up hardcore. Your not gonna have power in office for a long time, you let the American public down and ruined whatever reputation this country had left. Get the fsck out of here with your pseudo patriotic agenda.

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

Ok so you want to sit down at the table with Saddam and talk to him? Hes the man that had a plan to assasinate George Bush sr.

Hes also the man that gave each suicide bombers family in the Palestinian areas 25K to commit suicide attacks against the innocent people of Israel.

Is that the diplomacy your talking about?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

Ok so you want to sit down at the table with Saddam and talk to him? Hes [sic] the man that had a plan to assasinate [sic] George Bush sr.[sic]

Hes [sic] also the man that gave each suicide bombers [sic] family in the Palestinian areas 25K to commit suicide attacks against the innocent people of Israel.

Is that the diplomacy your talking about?

1) Saddam was contained.
2) Inspections were working.
3) The war on terror was supposed to be going on in Afghanistan before resources were pulled and put into Iraq. 2 1/2 years later and Afghanistan is still in shambles and Pres. Karzai is still pleading for aid and security help.
4) Iraq was not an urgent threat to the United States nor a direct threat to the United States.

The assertion Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers is not justification for invasion and was not justification per the UN Resolutions.

After the assassination plot was foiled during the Clinton presidency and was following by cruise missile attacks on portions of the Iraqi intelligence/military infrastructure, Saddam never threatened the U.S. directly again.


Yes, Saddam eventually had to go but the way to do that is either effective sanctions (which were being considered just prior to the invasion) or a true worldwide coalition, such as that build by Pres. George H. W. Bush and James Baker in 1990/1991.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

So why would you vote for Kerry then?

 

[Runner20]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

Ok so you want to sit down at the table with Saddam and talk to him? Hes [sic] the man that had a plan to assasinate [sic] George Bush sr.[sic]

Hes [sic] also the man that gave each suicide bombers [sic] family in the Palestinian areas 25K to commit suicide attacks against the innocent people of Israel.

Is that the diplomacy your talking about?

1) Saddam was contained.
2) Inspections were working.
3) The war on terror was supposed to be going on in Afghanistan before resources were pulled and put into Iraq. 2 1/2 years later and Afghanistan is still in shambles and Pres. Karzai is still pleading for aid and security help.
4) Iraq was not an urgent threat to the United States nor a direct threat to the United States.

The assertion Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers is not justification for invasion and was not justification per the UN Resolutions.

After the assassination plot was foiled during the Clinton presidency and was following by cruise missile attacks on portions of the Iraqi intelligence/military infrastructure, Saddam never threatened the U.S. directly again.


Yes, Saddam eventually had to go but the way to do that is either effective sanctions (which were being considered just prior to the invasion) or a true worldwide coalition, such as that build by Pres. George H. W. Bush and James Baker in 1990/1991.

Typical left wing propaganda.
Inspections were working? In 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of the country by Saddam, and this time the Iraqi's set a date when the inspectors could come to the country so they could hide the weapons before they came.

The UN Resolutions?? complete BS.
I don't trust the UN on anything after the "oil for food" scandal. 10 billion dollars suddenly disappeared and Kofi and his boys dont know where they are. Looks like the UN was a friend of the Saddam Hussein regime as they made billions off it, illegally of course.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

So why would you vote for Kerry then?

Here are some possibilities:
a) He doesn't think the GOP will return to true conservativism.
b) He is liberal (he said that he wants the GOP to be truly conservative, not that he would support them if he id)
c) I could let him speak for himself

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Runner20

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

Ok so you want to sit down at the table with Saddam and talk to him? Hes [sic] the man that had a plan to assasinate [sic] George Bush sr.[sic]

Hes [sic] also the man that gave each suicide bombers [sic] family in the Palestinian areas 25K to commit suicide attacks against the innocent people of Israel.

Is that the diplomacy your talking about?

1) Saddam was contained.
2) Inspections were working.
3) The war on terror was supposed to be going on in Afghanistan before resources were pulled and put into Iraq. 2 1/2 years later and Afghanistan is still in shambles and Pres. Karzai is still pleading for aid and security help.
4) Iraq was not an urgent threat to the United States nor a direct threat to the United States.

The assertion Saddam was paying Palestinian suicide bombers is not justification for invasion and was not justification per the UN Resolutions.

After the assassination plot was foiled during the Clinton presidency and was following by cruise missile attacks on portions of the Iraqi intelligence/military infrastructure, Saddam never threatened the U.S. directly again.


Yes, Saddam eventually had to go but the way to do that is either effective sanctions (which were being considered just prior to the invasion) or a true worldwide coalition, such as that build by Pres. George H. W. Bush and James Baker in 1990/1991.

Typical left wing propaganda.

Typical bonehead and ignorant response that adds nothing to the debate other than to show your own bias.

Here...educate yourself:
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=2208&from_page=../index.cfm

Inspections were working? In 1998 the inspectors were kicked out of the country by Saddam, and this time the Iraqi's set a date when the inspectors could come to the country so they could hide the weapons before they came.

BZZZT! Wrong!!

Clinton had the inspectors pulled out of the country before he launched cruise missile strikes.

In 2002/2003 inspections were working again. Perhaps you've forgotten history already. I recommend you read the reports and summaries from Hans Blix and David Kay. In them you'll find where the inspectors had access to any requested site, were finding proof of WMD destruction, found some Al Samoud II missiles that violated restrictions and had Iraq start to destroy the missiles. Also, you'll find David Kay stating the WMD programs were incoherent and Saddam was not capable of producing WMDs and that "we were all wrong." (His words.)

The UN Resolutions?? complete BS.
I don't trust the UN on anything after the "oil for food" scandal. 10 billion dollars suddenly disappeared and Kofi and his boys dont know where they are. Looks like the UN was a friend of the Saddam Hussein regime as they made billions off it, illegally of course.

More "BS" rhetoric from you that diverts from the debate.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: conjur
Because I'm sick of this feckless "leader" and the neocons running the show and the imperialism it fosters. I'm sick of the deception and the secrecy.

I want a return to true conservatives running the GOP. I want a return to debate and logical thought behind the policy-making process. I want a return to diplomacy and fiscal responsibility.

So why would you vote for Kerry then?

Several reasons:

1) Diplomacy - Kerry is more like Colin Powell and Jack Straw in this regard. Colin Powell would be an effective Sec. of State in a Kerry administration. Powell would be a positive force and would not be ignored as he was by Cheney and Rumsfeld. You should read Woodward's book, Plan of Attack, as well as Powell's My American Journey

2) Fiscal responsibility - Kerry has promised pay-as-you spending and reinstate certain tax rates that Bush cut illogically during a time of war (or, at least, planning for war.) Also, having a Republican-controlled Congress will temper social program spending. Read this:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,611869,00.html?cnn=yes

3) Environment - I'm, essentially, a Republican that supports strong environmental policies so seeing a Democratic administration back in the White House will correct the damaging changes the Bush administration has made to environmental regulations (weaking the Clear Air and Clean Water acts and flipping on campaign promises re:CO2)

Now, am I thrilled with Kerry as the candidate? No. Would I like a split ticket with Kerry/McCain? Sure. But, imo, a better split ticket would be McCain/Biden. They are two of the politicians I respect the most. Straight shooters that are pragmatic.

But, McCain won't run for President...not after the beating he took from Karl Rove in Bush's 2000 campaign.

I was hoping John Edwards would have gotten the nomination on the Democratic side.

But, as it is, Kerry is the better option for the next 4 years. He won't get re-elected, though. I've a gut feel we're going to see a strong candidate with more centrist views rise up in 2008.

 

[GrGr]

All you guys praising Reagan forget that it was he who promoted Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden into US allies. The misnamed War on Terror is to large extents the Reagan Legacy.

 

[conjur]

Reagan didn't directly support bin Laden from what I recall. It was more to do with our pulling out of Afghanistan. Actually, it was Prince Bandar that selected bin Laden to train the people coming in from Indonesia and Asia.