Bush is back!

Troll?I really think you are trolling. You have not addressed anyones points and choose to only rant.I would suggest you stop that behavior and actually try to engage the conversation or suffer the wrath of the administrators.BTW, your posts are very amusing. Almost as amusing as the fool you put in office This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 03:23 PM

That would make sense if Kerry had policies that were inline with Osamas desires. Unfortunetly (for your point, fortenetly for us ) Kerry dosn't.Kerry dosn't want to pull out of the middle east, he wants a UN effort, Osama wouldn't want that.Kerry wants to continue the war on terror, but focus on Osama and AQ, not Iraq. Im sure Osama wouldnt want that.Just because Osama dosn't like bush, dosn't mean he likes Kerry either. It may just be that the man dosn't like America in general.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 03:46 PM

I don't think JF is serious. He has so far responded to everyone with inflamatory Ranting. I havent heard anything like it from even the most right wing.This thread was shapping up to be a decent, well thought out, debate. Then JF joins in with nothing but tripe. Even the Moose noted its absurd, illogical nature.I asked JF previously if his intent was to Troll, and sugested he actually engage in the conversation. He hasn't really, just calld us names, and reiterated his silly "points" if you can call them that.So I thought Id post something funny This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 03:53 PM

I think that goes both ways actually. Just look at the Clinton years and how the right reacted then. Thats usualy the story with politics. Unfortunetly we ususaly don't know the results of our choices till history gives us the clarity of hindsight.Unfortunetly, for both sides of party lines, there is alot more at stake than usual with our choice of administration. I don't like Bush, but now that he's in, I can only hope that he does a better job than he has done the last four years. Only because the future track of this country will be heavely impacted by the aftermath of this administration.We are building a very interesting legacy with this man.

Just a note, I think you mean mujahadim. That's freedom fighter. Jihadi is a Holy Warrior.I think wars are fought on idiological grounds in the general sense. Weather religion or otherwise. Just look at comunist revolutions, or even Fundamentalist revolutions where the regime change was actualy supported by the people.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 04:32 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that Osama has that much of a grasp of american politics?I don't think Osama fears bush at all, bush has done exactly what he expected. With violence against a middleast nation in a unilateral manouver.What better proof to irattional fundamentalists that america is out of control and is going to destroy their culture?Finaly, if you look at Kerrys record he voted for many things republicans did as well. Inteligence, Millitary cutbacks, etc. All bills suported by republicans also. So if anything he was on a republican agenda.What about Bushes record? Does he get a clean slate?You do realize the man lied to the entire country at one point. Not only that, but he has consistently worked against just about any social initiative he claimed to support. He has slashed education, slashed military salaries, written a blank check to corporations, and once again screwd the working class.Yet Bush is the good guy?If Kerry was elected AQ would hate him just as bad as Mr. Bush. They wouldn't fear him anymore or less. Unfortunetly they don't fear very much. They are fanatics steeped in an ideology that tells them death is an honor. They don't fear us, they want our blood.If anything bush is fuleing their fire.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-04-2004 04:51 PM

*dupe*This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-05-2004 09:15 AM

I have to agree with Hangdawg, I don't agree with his viewpoint, but I can understand his arguments. In any case, he hasn't been insulting to anyone so far, yet the oposing side has been very...ummm... 'pissy' Lets argue the issues, not the person.

Look everyone another short sighted right-winger!I really don't understand why you feel you have so much to gloat about in your political victory. After all, it was hardly a landslide. It was about 1% difference in the election and record numbers voted AGAINST the president.IMHO I think it could have gone either way. Had not the highly uneducated, white, lower-middle class, Christian fundamentalist vote, not turned out you may have been singing a different tune.Perhaps it was Kerry's miscalculation not to pander to the easily lead , self-righteous, dogmatists. Or maybe... he just had more class.
Sorry guy, but pork rinds and a "don't mess with Texas attitude does not a leader make.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-05-2004 11:42 PM

No way, is that where "Don't mess with texas" came from?Go figure. Outside of the lonstar state it has become a sterotype of redneck texans.

Crap...You just ruind my night Not to say that you aren't 100% correct

Just thought Id add an interesting link:http://slate.msn.com/id/2108083/

quote:

---

In the Oct. 8 debate, President Bush baffled some people by saying he wouldn't appoint anyone to the Supreme Court who would condone the Dred Scott decision. Dred Scott was, of course, the famous 1857 Supreme Court decision that affirmed slaves remained the property of their owners even when taken to free territories and that prohibited even free African-Americans from becoming U.S. citizens. Since the Civil War and the subsequent passage of the 13th and 14th amendments, Dred Scott v. Sandford has been a dead letter in American jurisprudence. Yet Bush felt compelled to reassure TV viewers that he wanted no truck with its legal reasoning...

​

...What was the meaning of this borderline-incoherent ramble? Apparently, it was an invisible high-five to the Christian right. "Google Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade," various readers instructed me, and damned if they weren't on to something. To the Christian right, "Dred Scott" turns out to be a code word for "Roe v. Wade." Even while stating as plain as day that he would apply "no litmus test," Bush was semaphoring to hard-core abortion opponents that he would indeed apply one crucial litmus test: He would never, ever, appoint a Supreme Court justice who condoned Roe.

---

I can't belive this man is in office. The world is laughing