Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,216
- 1
- 61
Meh...
I liked the tax cuts. I'm one of the peope who actaully saw a difference in his paycheck for it.
But spending is out of control and he cowboy'd us into a war before we had a real plan. "They will greet us as liberators" is not a plan. We had a chance to turn 9/11 around into a huge foreign policy win for us. For the only time I can recall in my lifetime the rest of the world was on our side and willing to help. But he managed to eff that up.
The first time around there was no way I wanted Gore in office over him. To those who say that we wouldn't be where we are are now if Gore was in office... bah. Who knows. It's all a bunch of what-if talk. You can speculate all you want but it's impossible to say for sure. 9/11 would most likely have still happened. The US would have had a military response of some kind. Would we have gone into Iraq? Who knows. It's easy to say no but there's no way to know for sure. Gore's predacessor wasn't shy about lobbing missle or two in there when needed. But like I said, who knows.
The second time around... with Kerry. Sorry, but I wasn't voting for that arrogant, elitist ass either. It wasn't that I was thrilled with Bush, it was more a hold your nose and pick the best smelling turd situation. My vote was more about the tax cuts and judges than anything else. Iraq hadn't yet melted into the cesspool it is today and many people still held out hope for a positive end. Whoops
Bush is no conservative. Neither was his dad but compared to Dubbya, H looks like the second coming of Ronald Reagan. All I have to say is I am very much looking forward to this election cycle. The whole thing is wide open and should be a total shoot out. It's going to be a lot of fun. And the best part... When it's over, Dubbya will be gone.
I liked the tax cuts. I'm one of the peope who actaully saw a difference in his paycheck for it.
But spending is out of control and he cowboy'd us into a war before we had a real plan. "They will greet us as liberators" is not a plan. We had a chance to turn 9/11 around into a huge foreign policy win for us. For the only time I can recall in my lifetime the rest of the world was on our side and willing to help. But he managed to eff that up.
The first time around there was no way I wanted Gore in office over him. To those who say that we wouldn't be where we are are now if Gore was in office... bah. Who knows. It's all a bunch of what-if talk. You can speculate all you want but it's impossible to say for sure. 9/11 would most likely have still happened. The US would have had a military response of some kind. Would we have gone into Iraq? Who knows. It's easy to say no but there's no way to know for sure. Gore's predacessor wasn't shy about lobbing missle or two in there when needed. But like I said, who knows.
The second time around... with Kerry. Sorry, but I wasn't voting for that arrogant, elitist ass either. It wasn't that I was thrilled with Bush, it was more a hold your nose and pick the best smelling turd situation. My vote was more about the tax cuts and judges than anything else. Iraq hadn't yet melted into the cesspool it is today and many people still held out hope for a positive end. Whoops
Bush is no conservative. Neither was his dad but compared to Dubbya, H looks like the second coming of Ronald Reagan. All I have to say is I am very much looking forward to this election cycle. The whole thing is wide open and should be a total shoot out. It's going to be a lot of fun. And the best part... When it's over, Dubbya will be gone.
The moment he'd have tried that all the Republicans would have cried "impeachment!"...
But to get back to the original question: They do not want to admit they were wrong to start with. So instead of having to admit that they will defend him even if he'd hand over the US to Bin Laden.
Why are you contrasting the two when the invasion was ran by military men while the occupation is the job of politicians? Bush didn't do sh!t well as far as Iraq is concerned. It was the military that did their best, NOT BUSH.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,035
- 32,521
- 146
That alone, is one of the biggest FUBARs by any Pres. in our history. The promotion of those who are loyal over those with the credentials to actually be effective in the appointed positions, is another royal F up. The list goes on and on.
All you fortune tellers, with your proclamations about what Gore would have done, or even Kerry for that matter, are rationalizing to yourselves. You have no F'in clue what they would have done, it is purely conjecture, unless you have traveled to the alternate timeline and returned. And no, you can't extrapolate based upon previous voting records and such, as there was a republican majority legislature to balance out the equation. Something partisan hacks seem incapable of grasping. Instead we got a one party goverment, that excersized zero checks and balances to executive power. It is a safe bet, with a dem Pres. and republican majority congress, there would have been some of the C&B we so sorely lacked when needed most.
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,035
- 32,521
- 146
BTW, has anyone created a internets law ala Godwin's? addressing the fact that- As an online political discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison or reference involving Clinton approaches one.
If not, I propose it now. :light:
If not, I propose it now. :light:
- Aug 22, 2001
- 32,035
- 32,521
- 146
Well regarding Kerry, I don't think he was up to the task of fixing the harm the Dub and his Administration has done to us.[/quote]
I can't argue that point, I have low confidence in his abilities as well. I do think, that the return to a system of C&B alone, would have fostered an atmosphere where both parties could have proposed and debated solutions on a more even footing. Instead we got more "stay the course" from the Decider. So while Kerry probably wasn't up to the task, he also wouldn't have had the virtual carte blanche W enjoyed, making him a less significant factor than W, despite being POTUS.
I will throw a shot across the dems bow too; they have basically rolled over and played dead since the elections, and not tried to force any of the issues. Seemingly willing to just sit back and continue to let the republicans hang themselves with the rope they have been given. A sh!ty stratagem, IMO, so they can use all the "bad news" against the GOP during the next election.
The 2 headed monster has grown tiresome to me, we need a valid 3rd party in this country. That won't happen until most put down the proverbial pom poms, and start using their critical thinking skills more when making choices when they vote. A vote for Bush last time, was a vote for maintaining zero C&B between exec and Legis. bodies, and that was the greater of the 2 evils, IMO of course.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,795
- 8,375
- 136
the difference being the generals were in charge of executing the invasion. the administration was in charge of everything else.
the only right thing the bush administration did was to not micromanage the generals who were in charge of defeating the standing iraqi armed forces that opposed them. everything before and after that was FUBAR as bush&co. had no pacification plan and just stood around watching everything fall apart because of it.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
For a lot of you, supporting Bush seems like an all-or-nothing scenario, with no room for anyone in the middle.
In other words, why do most of you squeeze everyone into two categories: Bush Lovers vs. Bush Haters??
I consider myself in the middle of both of those groups - supporting some of his actions while disagreeing with other actions - while I do maintain the utmost personal respect for the Presidency and whoever holds that office.
In other words, why do most of you squeeze everyone into two categories: Bush Lovers vs. Bush Haters??
I consider myself in the middle of both of those groups - supporting some of his actions while disagreeing with other actions - while I do maintain the utmost personal respect for the Presidency and whoever holds that office.
:laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Yeah right, thanks for the laugh, I needed that :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Being a Conservative, or even a Republican does not mean a peson is Pro-Bush. Often people vote for what they consider to be a lesser of two evils.
That doesn't hold water after the Nov 2004 election.
The Country saw what Bush and your heroes have done to the U.S. ant that point already and decided to go for continued destruction of the U.S.
That doesn't sound like a "lesser of two evils", that's more like a death wish.
If Gore had been elected, Cheney would not have been sitting in a fox hole on 911 telling the Air Force to stand down.
Please don't confuse what has turned into an occupation force with was supposedly a liberation of Iraq.
OutHouse
Lifer
- Jun 5, 2000
- 36,410
- 616
- 126
in the beginning i was all behind bush especially the invasion of afghanistan that had to be done. i was skeptical of the invasion of Iraq but when i heard General Powell say there were WMD's in Iraq i decided to stand behind the administration and support their decision. I have a whole lot of respect for General Powell he is a standup guy and leader. but 4 years of this Iraq mess is too much, and i no longer suppor our political decision to be in Iraq.
oh and were is Powell? i think he ran far away from Bush.
oh and were is Powell? i think he ran far away from Bush.
Gore never would have went in. He was against Iraq to begin with. At most, you'd see another Operation Desert Fox.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 393
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter