# Elder Bush would like son Jeb to run for president



## LAM (May 31, 2005)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050601/pl_nm/bush_father_dc

If that ever happened I would renounce my US citizenship and move to Canada !


----------



## Flex (May 31, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050601/pl_nm/bush_father_dc
> 
> If that ever happened I would renounce my US citizenship and move to Canada !



        

That'd be the beginning of the end of the U.S.



Of COURSE he wants his other son to run, you know how much fucking $ these asshole Bushes are making being in the presidency? Not to mention all the connex they get?

Lam, fuck Canada, let's go to Thailand where the juice flows freely


----------



## Flex (May 31, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> That'd be the beginning of the end of the U.S.



That's assuming the current cunt, i mean Bush, doesn't cause WW3 first.


----------



## cappo5150 (May 31, 2005)

I'll move to Cuba.


----------



## Flex (May 31, 2005)

where are all the people on IM who were so Pro Bush? I wonder what they think of him now...


----------



## min0 lee (May 31, 2005)

I am not familier with Jeb, is he that bad?


----------



## topolo (May 31, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> where are all the people on IM who were so Pro Bush? I wonder what they think of him now...




Right here, he is 100 times better than Slick Willie


----------



## gr81 (May 31, 2005)

oh yeah, thats obviously true..


----------



## Arnold (May 31, 2005)

I think Bush senior and Bush junior have done more than enough damage.


----------



## busyLivin (May 31, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> where are all the people on IM who were so Pro Bush? I wonder what they think of him now...


Right here!  Enjoy Canada   

I think it's funny how liberals threaten to leave the country.  I'd help them pack  

I do think Jeb will run. Probably get the party's nomination, too. Would he win?  Against Hillary, he would.  Anyone else I'm not so sure...


----------



## gr81 (May 31, 2005)

its ridiculous that liberals do threaten to leave, fuccin pussies. They should be threatening to stick around and stand up, not run and abandon issues. (not addressing you specifically LAM, just generalizing) Democrats these days are like young parents who try too hard to be friends with their children and impress then or not upset them, never disciplining them or standing up and taking control, and the republicans are like the children, drunk with power and out of control. Of course shit is fucced up in this country, neither party is what it used to be, both parties have lost view of alot of their basic values and principles. I mean limiting the privacy and freedom of American citizens with things like the patriot Act is not at all consistent with the republican value of less government, and don't even get me started on the democrats. The point is that government should be a place where people, ALL people come together for the good of all society, not a corrupt farce where people only care if their "team" wins. There is alot more than unites us than divides us as Americans and we lose sight of that to the point where we are unnable to even concede a statement if it is made by a representative of our party, no matter how foolish it is, and visa versa. Both parties are right AND both parties are wrong. Democrats are so scared to stand up and disagree b/c of how it looks or play out, well maybe someone should stand up and make people focus on what we believe and not how its gonna look when its regurgitated by Fox News. We all need to get a clue and grow up, b/c it should be about us, the citizens, and not the politicians.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

I live in Fla, Jeb is just as bad... and He helped G-Dub win, who could be good and let that happen??


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

If Jeb Bush becomes The President of the United States, then I will be 100% sure that there is no God. Right now I'm only 95% sure.


----------



## asiansensation (Jun 1, 2005)

The F***king Bushes are EVILS!!!


----------



## musclepump (Jun 1, 2005)

I like George W, at least compared to John Kerry. But I hate Jeb, fucking illegal immigrant lover!


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

If Jeb did get in and win the nomination, who in the hell would the democrats have that would be worth voting for? Cetainly not billery! They better do a better job of nominating someone that can win this time.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

I just think any Bush would have a harder time winning than another republican... so much controversy.  

Hillary doesn't have a chance in hell.


----------



## LAM (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> If Jeb did get in and win the nomination, who in the hell would the democrats have that would be worth voting for? Cetainly not billery! They better do a better job of nominating someone that can win this time.



that's the main problem with this shity ass 2 party system that we have, no decent candidates from either side.


----------



## tucker01 (Jun 1, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> that's the main problem with this shity ass 2 party system that we have, no decent candidates from either side.




Doesn't matter,  we have a 3+ party system.  All politicians are corrupt.  So you are screwed either way


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

well you gotta go with the lesser of the evils. I like Howard Dean personally, certainly more than Kerry or Bush. He's young, hella smart, articulate and energetic, and most of all a logical person. Gen Wesley Clark is a strong candidate imo, I have heard him speak many times and he is a smart guy, not to mention he help the most badass title there is, Supreme Commander NATO Allied Forces. no way he can he labeled soft on defense.


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

IainDaniel said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter, we have a 3+ party system. All politicians are corrupt. So you are screwed either way


Yeah, there's always corruption.  But once in a great while a man comes along the makes the country a much better place to live.  FDR was a man like that.  His own blueblooded peers despised much of what FDR did politically, but many of his programs made the USA the best country on the planet...for all its citizens.


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Right here, he is 100 times better than Slick Willie




Oh really? 

Then you're the first person i've ever heard say that. It's amazing to me that Bush-fanatics STILL, after all this time, can't admit that he's a bad president.

Our economy was actually good under Clinton. We didn't fight some bullshit war under Clinton. Clinton actually knew what he spoke about (well, at least he looked like he did), whereas Bush looks like it's the first time he saw the shit as he reads it off notecards.

The '90's were great with Bill, it's too bad no one can say the same about the 2000's


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Right here!  Enjoy Canada
> 
> I think it's funny how liberals threaten to leave the country.  I'd help them pack
> 
> I do think Jeb will run. Probably get the party's nomination, too. Would he win?  Against Hillary, he would.  Anyone else I'm not so sure...



Obviously we wouldn't really leave the country, but perhaps instead i'll become a politician and run for president. No matter how I do it'll be better than a Bush.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> Oh really?
> 
> Then you're the first person i've ever heard say that. It's amazing to me that Bush-fanatics STILL, after all this time, can't admit that he's a bad president.
> 
> ...



It amazes me people still won't admit that Bush inherited the economic downfall.  

Yes, Clinton didn't fight a war. In fact, he didn't do much of anything, (besides Monica) Doing nothing doesn't stir up controversy. Likewise, Bush is all controversy because he's getting something done.  

Maybe if Clinton had done something, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. -No, I don't blame him-

We'll never know what may have happened if Bush hadn't been so strong in the war on terror. You may disagree now, but remember most of the country hated Lincoln when he freed the slaves.  Down the road, when the dust settles, I whole-heartedly believe GWB will be remembered as one of the greats.  The greats are ALWAYS controversial.

You cannot deny the fact that it has been 5 years since 9/11, and we haven't been attacked.  That doesn't bar us from future attacks, but maybe... just maybe it's working.      As always, the liberal negativity chimes in to say "It's coming."  Well, they may be right, but Bush isn't going to sit around & wait for it.


BTW...Clinton should be in jail. The pardons were inexcusable.  How nobody holds him accountable for that absolutely blows my mind.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> Oh really?
> 
> Then you're the first person i've ever heard say that.



No, not really. The liberals have a louder, more obnoxious voice. They have Hollywood, the media, etc. 

The re-election of Bush shows where the majority of the country stands. These numbers don't lie.. they can't.  We're all made to think this country is all anti-Bush, when it clearly isn't.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> It amazes me people still won't admit that Bush inherited the economic downfall.
> 
> Yes, Clinton didn't fight a war. In fact, he didn't do much of anything, (besides Monica) Doing nothing doesn't stir up controversy. Likewise, Bush is all controversy because he's getting something done.
> 
> ...




You forget we went from 1941 to 2001 ( 60 years) between a major attack on American soil, so don't give GWB any props for the 4 years since the last major attack.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You forget we went from 1941 to 2001 ( 60 years) between a major attack on American soil, so don't give GWB any props for the 4 years since the last major attack.


Again, look at it negatively.

I'm not... but you know damn well after all that has happened since, the absolute Number 1 thing they want to do is attack us here. It IS a priority now, and it hasn't happened.. that's all I meant.


----------



## Mudge (Jun 1, 2005)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I am not familier with Jeb, is he that bad?



Supposedly he is the smart one. Some republicans had wished that he would have run, but he "wasn't interested" at the time.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Again, look at it negatively.
> 
> I'm not... but you know damn well after all that has happened since, the absolute Number 1 thing they want to do is attack us here. It IS a priority now, and it hasn't happened.. that's all I meant.



" Again, look at it negatively"..........I'm not sure what you are saying here? I'm just stating the facts, not giving false credit like you are to GWB.

To go around kicking peoples ass, giving weapons to other countries to fight those politically different to you ( Osama.............USSR ect.) is not the way to keep your people safe from hatred and terror.


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

This Bush-does-no-wrong tunnel vision makes me wanna fuckin puke  

Since Bush is one of the "greats", please tell me ONE good thing he did, just one.

And applaud him b/c there hasn't been ANOTHER terrorist attack? OMG dude, that's just ridiculous. If there ever was another attack on his watch he'd be crucified.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> It amazes me people still won't admit that Bush inherited the economic downfall.
> 
> Yes, Clinton didn't fight a war. In fact, he didn't do much of anything, (besides Monica) Doing nothing doesn't stir up controversy. Likewise, Bush is all controversy because he's getting something done.
> 
> ...






How can you even redirect 9/11 in Clinton's direction? That's your godamn republican mindset, finding anyway to get out of trouble for your fuck ups...Wasn't Bush the one anyways who gathered the intelligence that there was going to be an attack on the US months beforehand?


And on the whole Jeb running for presidency thing, I'd much rather see Jeb than Dick Cheney running, even though are both shitty candidates. JW if anyone's following me on this, but I'd like to see Arak Obama (spelling) run for the Democratic Party's nomination w/in the next few elections.


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> No, not really. The liberals have a louder, more obnoxious voice. They have Hollywood, the media, etc.


More obnoxious than...Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Fred Barnes, Lawrence Kudlow....the list goes on and on.  

Hollywood?....like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Arnold, Reagan, Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, Chuck Heston, James Woods, Ben Stein etc.

The media???  Which corporate masters owning the mass media, Murdoch included, are even remotely liberal?  General Electric--a leading defense contractor--Disney, Viacom...come on.

And finally, yes Bush did enter office on the downturn of an economic cycle.  The recession started a couple of months into his first term.  According to rightwing theory, Cllinton rode the coattails of prosperity caused by Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s...likewise Bush SR's tax hikes caused Bush the lesser's economic woes.  Seriously though, after 7 of the best economic years ever under Clinton, a recession was going to happen--the business cycle never stops.


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> The re-election of Bush shows where the majority of the country stands. These numbers don't lie.. they can't.  We're all made to think this country is all anti-Bush, when it clearly isn't.



So the numbers don't lie, huh?

Well, Clinton won his re-election by a landslide, not to mention he had some of the highest approval ratings ever, even AFTER Monica (and i love how Republicans bring up Monica as Clinton's biggest fault, when something like 50% of Americans admitted to cheating on their spouse....meanwhile they can't think of anything bad in his PRESIDENCY, ya know, the thing that MATTERS, ya know, what we hired hiim for)

My point being, Americans were happier with Bill than Jorge


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> More obnoxious than...Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Fred Barnes, Lawrence Kudlow....the list goes on and on.
> 
> Hollywood?....like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Arnold, Reagan, Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, Chuck Heston, James Woods, Ben Stein etc.
> 
> ...



You forgot Bill O"Reilly, he is the worst of them all.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> It amazes me people still won't admit that Bush inherited the economic downfall.
> 
> Yes, Clinton didn't fight a war. In fact, he didn't do much of anything, (besides Monica) Doing nothing doesn't stir up controversy. Likewise, Bush is all controversy because he's getting something done.
> 
> ...



You need to watch Farenheit 9/11, Bush looks so funny in that classroom after they told him of the 1st plane... Hows that for getting something done, look at the look on his face


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> So the numbers don't lie, huh?
> 
> Well, Clinton won his re-election by a landslide, not to mention he had some of the highest approval ratings ever, even AFTER Monica (and i love how Republicans bring up Monica as Clinton's biggest fault, when something like 50% of Americans admitted to cheating on their spouse....meanwhile they can't think of anything bad in his PRESIDENCY, ya know, the thing that MATTERS, ya know, what we hired hiim for)
> 
> My point being, Americans were happier with Bill than Jorge



Great Facts my boi


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> More obnoxious than...Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Fred Barnes, Lawrence Kudlow....the list goes on and on.
> 
> Hollywood?....like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Arnold, Reagan, Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, Chuck Heston, James Woods, Ben Stein etc.
> 
> ...


There is noone worse than  these


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 1, 2005)

I liked Jeb, but he seemed to want to get involved with the Schiavo crap and I don't really see the president being more than a puppet these days.

I wonder how long a president would have to fuck up to be considered at fault by someone of his party.  Honestly, if we have a shitty economy for 30 more years and all we get is republican presidents, GOP folk will still be blaming Clinton for it.  Honestly, I believe Bush is at fault, Clinton is at fault, and those idiots at Enron are at fault for the way things went down.  I have no idea if stuff is still bad, but I can't imagin they are that much better.


----------



## cappo5150 (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> Since Bush is one of the "greats", please tell me ONE good thing he did, just one.


He's good at falling on his face everytime he goes for a bike ride. ID10T


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> So the numbers don't lie, huh?
> 
> Well, Clinton won his re-election by a landslide, not to mention he had some of the highest approval ratings ever, even AFTER Monica (and i love how Republicans bring up Monica as Clinton's biggest fault, when something like 50% of Americans admitted to cheating on their spouse....meanwhile they can't think of anything bad in his PRESIDENCY, ya know, the thing that MATTERS, ya know, what we hired hiim for)



I really don't care about the Monica thing... to me, it just shows a lack of morals.  I have no use for people like this, including the 50% of Americans who do.




			
				Flex said:
			
		

> My point being, Americans were happier with Bill than Jorge



Apples & Oranges.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> You need to watch Farenheit 9/11, Bush looks so funny in that classroom after they told him of the 1st plane... Hows that for getting something done, look at the look on his face



Farenheit 9/11?

you should probably try to make an intelligent post when trying to challenge someone else's.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

cappo5150 said:
			
		

> He's good at falling on his face everytime he goes for a bike ride. ID10T



hahahha, you forgot how good he is at chewing his pretzel's lolol


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I really don't care about the Monica thing



Then why did you bring it up?

And why do Republicans ALWAYS bring it up when trying to badmouth Clinton? 
I'll tell you why, because they can't talk about anything that MATTERED that he did wrong in his Presidency.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I really don't care about the Monica thing... to me, it just shows a lack of morals.  I have no use for people like this, including the 50% of Americans who do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This has got to be the worst arguement ever.

So as a Republican, you have no respect for half of the country? Just...wow.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> How can you even redirect 9/11 in Clinton's direction? That's your godamn republican mindset, finding anyway to get out of trouble for your fuck ups...Wasn't Bush the one anyways who gathered the intelligence that there was going to be an attack on the US months beforehand?



Did I not specifically say I didn't blame Clinton?   


I blame the terrorists.. you go ahead & blame Bush.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> This has got to be the worst arguement ever.
> 
> So as a Republican, you have no respect for half of the country? Just...wow.


I have no respect for cheaters, no.  You do?

I never said it was an argument.. only why I didn't like him.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

You anti-Bush folks just continue to embarrass yourselves with absurd comments.

By the way, Jeb Bush is a solid guy. I have always said that he should have run for President before W.

I love the "I'll move to Canada" comments. Maybe you can move in with Alex Baldwin..oh, that's right, he was just running his mouth about that.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Farenheit 9/11?
> 
> you should probably try to make an intelligent post when trying to challenge someone else's.



 
My post was only in relevance to that scene, it was a good refference to his "taking action"  so if that makes my intellegence questionable then..


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> I liked Jeb, but he seemed to want to get involved with the Schiavo crap and I don't really see the president being more than a puppet these days.


But he didn't. I don't blame him for wanting to. Who wouldn't? but he didn't.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I really don't care about the Monica thing... to me, it just shows a lack of morals.  I have no use for people like this, including the 50% of Americans who do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You let your obsession with God ( who forgives and dosen't want us to judge others) pollute your common sense. Bush Jr and his Daddy both influenced war and oppression around the world, they might not get head from interns but they break more important commandments


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Yes, Clinton didn't fight a war. In fact, he didn't do much of anything, (besides Monica) Doing nothing doesn't stir up controversy. Likewise, Bush is all controversy because he's getting something done.
> 
> Maybe if Clinton had done something, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. -No, I don't blame him-



I see that you don't blame him, but even remotely bringing up the idea that Clinton could have done something more to prevent 9/11 is bullshit...Bush knew for months beforehand and I guess Bush was "getting something done" to prevent it...he did a really good job didn't he.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> More obnoxious than...Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tucker Carlson, Robert Novak, Fred Barnes, Lawrence Kudlow....the list goes on and on.
> 
> Hollywood?....like Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson, Arnold, Reagan, Tom Selleck, Chuck Norris, Chuck Heston, James Woods, Ben Stein etc.
> 
> The media???  Which corporate masters owning the mass media, Murdoch included, are even remotely liberal?  General Electric--a leading defense contractor--Disney, Viacom...come on.



your hollywood list, the media...  Shall I list the liberal ones?


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> I see that you don't blame him, but even remotely bringing up the idea that Clinton could have done something more to prevent 9/11 is bullshit...Bush knew for months beforehand and I guess Bush was "getting something done" to prevent it...he did a really good job didn't he.


ugg..


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

alright, back to work, boys.. lunch is over


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I think Bush senior and Bush junior have done more than enough damage.


good lord...make it stop


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You let your obsession with God ( who forgives and dosen't want us to judge others) pollute your common sense. Bush Jr and his Daddy both influenced war and oppression around the world, they might not get head from interns but they break more important commandments



obsession. hmm..


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 1, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> But he didn't. I don't blame him for wanting to. Who wouldn't? but he didn't.



Yeah, but the only reason he wanted to was because it benefitted him wrt the GOP.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> I see that you don't blame him, but even remotely bringing up the idea that Clinton could have done something more to prevent 9/11 is bullshit...Bush knew for months beforehand and I guess Bush was "getting something done" to prevent it...he did a really good job didn't he.


I seem to wandered into the dumbest thread ever. Five minutes of my life that I will never get back.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> obsession. hmm..



Good comeback   When you are done judging my religious beliefs give me a real answer.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Yeah, but the only reason he wanted to was because it benefitted him wrt the GOP.


Odd for a politician, don't you think.

That case had NO winners and neither side was worth jumping into battle with. I thought Jeb did a decent job of just sitting it out.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> I seem to wandered into the dumbest thread ever. Five minutes of my life that I will never get back.



Then leave. This is a thread about politics, not about insulting other IM members.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Good comeback   When you are done judging my religious beliefs give me a real answer.



I'm not... I just really don't see what you want me to say?!?!


----------



## Pepper (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> Then leave. This is a thread about politics, not about insulting other IM members.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I'm not... I just really don't see what you want me to say?!?!




It's ok I know. It's easy to  give blanket complements to you're leader of choice, but hard to back them up when questioned on them.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> I'll tell you why, because they can't talk about anything that MATTERED that he did wrong in his Presidency.


When you do NOTHING, what is there to talk about? 
The best thing Clinton did was launch that cruise missle toward Osama. Too bad he  missed him.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> It's ok I know. It's easy to  give blanket complements to you're leader of choice, but hard to back them up when questioned on them.




I can't follow you... We were talking about Slick Willie's cheating, followed by your claim of my "obsession" with God, me judging your beliefs?????, now I can't back up my defense of Bush?


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> When you do NOTHING, what is there to talk about?
> The best thing Clinton did was launch that cruise missle toward Osama. Too bad he  missed him.



By nothing I'm assuming you mean keeping the economy great, keeping foreign relations in good condition, individualism w/in the CFR, and no war?

B/C in that case, Bush has done a whole lot...


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> I can't follow you... We were talking about Slick Willie's cheating, followed by your claim of my "obsession" with God, now I can't back up attacks against Bush?



You avoided my comments in response to your exaggerated claims that GWB has kept us safe since 911. If you are going to make claims about something a leader has done back them up. Starting wars and arming others to fight your wars is not the way to keep your people safe. And you wonder why most countries hate us. It is not moral or Godly to get involved in killing for the sake of wealth or to force your political beliefs.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> By nothing I'm assuming you mean keeping the economy great, keeping foreign relations in good condition, individualism w/in the CFR, and no war?
> 
> B/C in that case, Bush has done a whole lot...


Don't even go there. Clinton did not do one single thing to make a good economy. It was already there. He just rode it till it ran out. Foreign ralations to Bill was Whitewater and trying to keep his buddies out of hot water. Oh yeah, several went to jail.


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> your hollywood list, the media... Shall I list the liberal ones?


Please do.  But I already know that anyone disagreeing w/ rightwing politics is branded a liberal whether justified or not.  So that will probably be an exercise in futility.  But let's see...

Yes, please list the liberal media in this country--please start w/ the 6 corporations that own vitually all of the US media and work your way down.  This should be interesting.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Not ignoring anyone's questions.. as I said, I'm at work & I will answer them tonight. 

looking forward to it


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> You anti-Bush folks just continue to embarrass yourselves with absurd comments.


I don't think we're anti-Bush in the sense that our motivation for disliking him and his cronies is b/c he's a Bush.  Just look at his track record on the economy (tax cuts/budget management), health care, social security, Iraq, and education.  His neo-fascist bent w/ respect to all of these topics is evident if you merely look.  Those blinded by ideological commitment or worship hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see.

I just wish that you went after the abuses of power by Bush the way you all went after Clinton for lying under oath.  You guys are ultimate team players apparently.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

wow this thread is just self destructed by a bunch of people that know nothing about politics, and that includes just about everyone, not just the conservatives. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier about partisan bashing. everyone is wrong so no one is to blame, we run to a moral safe ground,we team up to where we are blinded by emotion. Clinton was not all good, and Bush is not all bad. The economy wasn't simply great under clinton and then bad the minute Bush came in, there are a million factors to blame, some of them are attributed to Bush of course. And please, you people who blindly support Bush and see no faults of his are just as foolish as anyone. He did lie and cheat and scam us into this war, as well as himself into the election, but its possible that despite all of that, our presence may not be such a bad thing in the future. its possible that was thinking ahead and that in 20 years maybe we will be better off, no one knows. Doesn't mean what he has done, is doin is not unethical. The point is that we all need to objectively view the situations surrounding us, otherwise its nothing but a political gang war where no ground is giving up. The fact of the matter is that there are alot of negative trends going on in this country and we are all in it together and for anything to change we need to stop being petty, act like mature adults and concede our stubbornness, for the good of the god damm country. For no other reason than how about the fact that if these trends continue America is not going to be a superpower in 20 years!


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Don't even go there. Clinton did not do one single thing to make a good economy. It was already there. He just rode it till it ran out. Foreign ralations to Bill was Whitewater and trying to keep his buddies out of hot water. Oh yeah, several went to jail.


I'll compare the number of convictions of the Clinton administration w/ the Reagan administration any day.  Remember when Bush Sr. pardoned all the major players in the Iran/contra affair on Christmas eve b/c as Cap Weinberger said, "I'm too old to go to jail." implying he'd rat out Bush Sr. ("I was out of the loop").  I remember that traitorous day.

Dead wrong again dg806, Clinton did many things to keep the good economy rolling:  balancing the budget--fiscal discipline--keeps interest rates low; paying down the debt; Clinton signed NAFTA which opened the door for foreign trade (I disagreed w/ that one).

I could go on but you get the point.  Presidents have an effect on the course of the economy.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

I couldn't agree more. I'm obviously bias and admit to it, I just wish all the voters in America would actually look for the better candidate than just trying to win. There were things wrong w/ Kerry and Bush, but I just think that if you take a step back and look at each thing Bush has done during his presidency you'll see that he hasn't helped America improve at all, in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> When you do NOTHING, what is there to talk about?





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Dead wrong again dg806, Clinton did many things to keep the good economy rolling:  balancing the budget--fiscal discipline--keeps interest rates low; paying down the debt; Clinton signed NAFTA which opened the door for foreign trade



Keep up your Bush-can-do-no-wrong-attitude, it suits you well.


----------



## busyLivin (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> Keep up your Bush-can-do-no-wrong-attitude, it suits you well.


give me a break, you're just as much "Bush-can-do-no-good"


----------



## Flex (Jun 1, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> give me a break, you're just as much "Bush-can-do-no-good"



actually I'm FAR from it.

I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. I judge my opinion based on how the person does. 

Bush Sr. was a very good president, as was Clinton. But since Jr. got in, it's been all bad news. THATS why i don't like him.

So take your biased Bush goggles off and look at what's really going on.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

biased bush goggles...


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

> wow this thread is just self destructed by a bunch of people that know nothing about politics, and that includes just about everyone, not just the conservatives. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier about partisan bashing. everyone is wrong so no one is to blame, we run to a moral safe ground,we team up to where we are blinded by emotion. Clinton was not all good, and Bush is not all bad. The economy wasn't simply great under clinton and then bad the minute Bush came in, there are a million factors to blame, some of them are attributed to Bush of course. And please, you people who blindly support Bush and see no faults of his are just as foolish as anyone. He did lie and cheat and scam us into this war, as well as himself into the election, but its possible that despite all of that, our presence may not be such a bad thing in the future. its possible that was thinking ahead and that in 20 years maybe we will be better off, no one knows. Doesn't mean what he has done, is doin is not unethical. The point is that we all need to objectively view the situations surrounding us, otherwise its nothing but a political gang war where no ground is giving up. The fact of the matter is that there are alot of negative trends going on in this country and we are all in it together and for anything to change we need to stop being petty, act like mature adults and concede our stubbornness, for the good of the god damm country. For no other reason than how about the fact that if these trends continue America is not going to be a superpower in 20 years!



 dammit everyone stop and read this post!


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

lol gr81, don't worry, I agree with you. It just can't be settles that easily. I'm always going to be a Redskins fan, and I'm always going to be critical of Bush. It's not that we're argueing with each other, it's that we're argueing over Bush's job as president. Every1 who's posted in this thread has unfortuanately already chosen sides and there's nothing productive that's going to come out of this thread. Baseless bitching about pardons, affairs, morals, etc is why this thread is going to fizzle out.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

gr81 said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is that there are alot of negative trends going on in this country and we are all in it together and for anything to change we need to stop being petty, act like mature adults and concede our stubbornness, for the good of the god damm country.


  Very good point. Both Repubs and Democrats are too blame. Yes I voted for Bush both times and would do it agian if he ran against the same people. I think both sides have went to the far extremes and both need to come back toward middle ground. I really don't see any republican I am crazy about yet, but if the democrats don't come up with someone decent that is not so damn liberal and want to ban guns, guess who I will be voting for? I am a registered Democrat!


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

Flex said:
			
		

> Keep up your Bush-can-do-no-wrong-attitude, it suits you well.


Read my previous post.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

He wasn't banning guns though... he was banning assault rifles and placing laws making it harder to own a gun. =/ Shit, im a guy, I love guns , but I do agree that there need to be much much harsher penalties and that it should be harder to obtain one. 9/11 was a disaster, but look at all the gun related deaths in the past 20 years. The reason England is so safe is b/c they can't own guns. We should take a step in that direction, but not so dramatically.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Clinton signed NAFTA which opened the door for foreign trade (I disagreed w/ that one).


I did too. Where do you think alot of the trade deficit is coming from?
They send all our jobs to Mexico for cheaper labor and now our stuff is bought in Mexico!


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> He wasn't banning guns though... he was banning assault rifles and placing laws making it harder to own a gun. =/ Shit, im a guy, I love guns , but I do agree that there need to be much much harsher penalties and that it should be harder to obtain one. 9/11 was a disaster, but look at all the gun related deaths in the past 20 years. The reason England is so safe is b/c they can't own guns. We should take a step in that direction, but not so dramatically.


Spoken like a true liberal  Who are you talking about?


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> Spoken like a true liberal  Who are you talking about?



Yes, as a liberal, I appreciate life. Sorry, won't happen again?  You think as a liberal I'm like an abstaining monk, but I'm 19, live in DC, and candrink you under the table. It's just that I've seen what guns can do, and since, like most white, rich, conservatives, you've probably only seen a gun on one of your hunting expeditions or something.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> Yes, as a liberal, I appreciate life. Sorry, won't happen again?  You think as a liberal I'm like an abstaining monk, but I'm 19, live in DC, and candrink you under the table. It's just that I've seen what guns can do, and since, like most white, rich, conservatives, you've probably only seen a gun on one of your hunting expeditions or something.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

I am glad we can agree on that DG. I wanna throw something out there that confuses me and I don't mean it to be derogatory or instagative, I honestly don't see how this is not hypocritical. Republicans claim to be so righteous and focused on life and preserving life, from the anti-abortion, prolife crowd (which btw I am not judging), to the Terry shiavo(sp) case, which btw a law was made specifically from her situation which is unconstitutional, to all the religious right who claim that life is never expendable. Yet Bush has signed more death warrants in Texas than anyone else in this country, and guns ownership is an untouchable subject for everyone. How is that not hypocritical of this party? it boggles my mind.. and I am sure there are things that democrats do that is also hypocritical so this is not party bashing at all, honest question


----------



## maniclion (Jun 1, 2005)

Anarchy is the way.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

LMAO! I have a gun safe full of handguns, rifles and shotguns. I carry one with me everyday. I am listed in the register of deeds in my county to lawfully carry concealed. I work part time as a police officer and I see guns and what they do. I had a cousin killed in DC in 1991 by a drug dealer. But banning guns is not the answer. Punishing the guys who commit crimes with guns is the answer. Lets enforce the laws we already have. And living in DC, you can't even own a gun.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

> Punishing the guys who commit crimes with guns is the answer



oh yeah, hows that workin out for us so far? thats really been a great deterran


----------



## Decker (Jun 1, 2005)

dg806 said:
			
		

> I did too. Where do you think alot of the trade deficit is coming from?
> They send all our jobs to Mexico for cheaper labor and now our stuff is bought in Mexico!


Exactly dg, I disliked many things that Clinton did.  But that's what you do with entrenched power, you criticize it and try to rectify perceived flaws.  You never get it perfectly, but it's the effort that counts.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

gr81 said:
			
		

> oh yeah, hows that workin out for us so far? thats really been a great deterran


And how much punishment do you think these guys are getting? I see in court, these guys get slapped on the wrist and turned back out on the streets. There is no punishment. You have to make the punishment worth not wanting to do the crime. And right now, its not even close. Right now, crime does pay.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

You have to find the source and serve the punishment there, or gun deaths will never change. You should know that as a police officer. And BTW, that's ridiculous if you think no1 owns a gun in DC...

Also, a real question. To carry concealed, it's 10 years after having your license before you get that right? Just curious as to the req.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Exactly dg, I disliked many things that Clinton did.  But that's what you do with entrenched power, you criticize it and try to rectify perceived flaws.  You never get it perfectly, but it's the effort that counts.


Like Gr81 said, all politicians are crooked and you are left to choose between the lesser of two evils closest to your opinion.


----------



## maniclion (Jun 1, 2005)

The Machine is out of control, no one has full control of it anymore, the brakes are worn down and the clutch is frozen and won't let anyone down shift it without maximum cooperation.  Right now all their doing is stripping the gears and if we're not careful we'll lose that one and have to drastically downshift.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> You have to find the source and serve the punishment there, or gun deaths will never change. You should know that as a police officer. And BTW, that's ridiculous if you think no1 owns a gun in DC...
> 
> Also, a real question. To carry concealed, it's 10 years after having your license before you get that right? Just curious as to the req.


I didn't say no one had a gun. It's just illegal to own a handgun.
You can own a handgun on your 21st birthday. Then if you want a concealed carry license, you have to take a class to get your permit. No waiting. (this is NC law) Some states may be different. And in some big cities like DC, New York, Chicago, they will not even issue you a concealed carry unless you are some big politician or movie star or have millions. The only legal way in these cities is if you carry or deposit large sums of money on your job. And even then, it may take years to get one approved if at all.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

for all destructive types of behavior you need to get to the root of the problem, THAT is the only way to make a dent. Any psychologist will tell you that. The problems are deeper and more complicated than simply, oh I want to shoot someone and the penalty isn't that bad.. Its much more complex an issue than that and until we stop trying to cut these problems off at the pass, there going to continue to develop.. could you agree thats an accurate assesment?


----------



## maniclion (Jun 1, 2005)

maniclion said:
			
		

> The Machine is out of control, no one has full control of it anymore, the brakes are worn down and the clutch is frozen and won't let anyone down shift it without maximum cooperation. Right now all their doing is stripping the gears and if we're not careful we'll lose that one and have to drastically downshift.


Buckle up kids it's gonna be a jolt to the System when it happens.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

gr81 said:
			
		

> for all destructive types of behavior you need to get to the root of the problem, THAT is the only way to make a dent. Any psychologist will tell you that. The problems are deeper and more complicated than simply, oh I want to shoot someone and the penalty isn't that bad.. Its much more complex an issue than that and until we stop trying to cut these problems off at the pass, there going to continue to develop.. could you agree thats an accurate assesment?


Maybe......but you can't read someone's mind and determine what they will do. If we make the punishment stiffer or just enforce the laws that are there, it will make a huge dent. You will always have problems that you cannot forsee. But, the prisons and jails are waay overcrowded and there is no where to put people even if you wanted to. That is another problem.I live in a small county with probably 50,000 people or so. The jail is suppose to hold about 30-50 people. We constantly have over 100 in there. Guess what a DWI driver gets? A written promise to show back in court on his date if he gets a ride home. In Charlotte, it is a mandatory $400 or so bail.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

DG, as a police officer, do you agree with the new system of putting drug abusers through that clinical rehab instead of jail.


----------



## gr81 (Jun 1, 2005)

you shouldn't ask a police officer, you need to ask an expert. Addiction needs to be treated very specifically, and that is NOT done in jail, theres no other way to face it.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> DG, as a police officer, do you agree with the new system of putting drug abusers through that clinical rehab instead of jail.



Legalize all drugs, why the hell are they even an issue.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 1, 2005)

Add my wish to the list

Here is exactly what I want from this war.  So, my taxes are paying for this war.  Why can't we get our taxes paid back in oil?  How much money has this war sucked from the taxpayers pockets?  If it were truly blood for oil we should be getting our oil any day now.  So, instead of not getting our tax money paid back in oil, we are having gas prices raise and, in the event you want to buy a hybrid to save money, the politicians are trying to push a top-off tax through.  The way I figure it, the money this war has cost us is in the billions or so.  I figure the folk over there could knock down the price of a barrell to the point where we are paying $1.70 per gallon instead of $2.30.


----------



## topolo (Jun 1, 2005)

Dude, 

Republicans have the Presidency, Senate, House and majority of Governorships.

55-45 in the Senate......why?

Because Liberals have people like you making their case.......please keep it up.

60-40 is right around the corner and so is President Frist or Mccain.

Keep talking   





			
				Flex said:
			
		

> Oh really?
> 
> Then you're the first person i've ever heard say that. It's amazing to me that Bush-fanatics STILL, after all this time, can't admit that he's a bad president.
> 
> ...


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Dude,
> 
> Republicans have the Presidency, Senate, House and majority of Governorships.
> 
> ...




YAYY then maybe one day we can become a one party system..  

what ever happened to balance being a good thing?


----------



## seven11 (Jun 1, 2005)

they should have public executions.... that would bring the crime right down alot hehe


----------



## seven11 (Jun 1, 2005)

for example: cops catch a drug deal on the street, get a rope out and hang him right there. people that see it wont be able to sleep for weeks and wont ever think about selling drugs


----------



## min0 lee (Jun 1, 2005)

> 25 REASONS TO FEEL BAD ABOUT BUSH
> 
> Economic Indicators
> 
> ...


.


----------



## ZECH (Jun 1, 2005)

goandykid said:
			
		

> DG, as a police officer, do you agree with the new system of putting drug abusers through that clinical rehab instead of jail.


I do not know anything about rehab because I don't deal with it. But yes, I agree rehab is better than jail. If you put them in jail and they just pull time and get out, they do the same thing. At least rehab has a chance.


----------



## topolo (Jun 1, 2005)

TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> YAYY then maybe one day we can become a one party system..
> 
> what ever happened to balance being a good thing?



Who said balance was good? Shopuld we have communists and Nazis for the sake of balance?

Republicans run the country because they have better ideas period!! State by state they win more elections.

The Bush haters just can't get over the fact that they lost.


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Who said balance was good? Shopuld we have communists and Nazis for the sake of balance?
> 
> Republicans run the country because they have better ideas period!! State by state they win more elections.
> 
> The Bush haters just can't get over the fact that they lost.


 
LOL so the communists and Nazis are your example of balance???   

Id just rather not have either party in complete control.. whether the republicans or the democrats have better ideas is a matter of opinion, because if it was factual it already would be a unicameral system


----------



## topolo (Jun 1, 2005)

YES! Communist and Nazis = Liberals.

You didn't know that?





			
				TriZZle305 said:
			
		

> LOL so the communists and Nazis are your example of balance???
> 
> Id just rather not have either party in complete control.. whether the republicans or the democrats have better ideas is a matter of opinion, because if it was factual it already would be a unicameral system


----------



## TriZZle305 (Jun 1, 2005)

no i meant balance between the democrats and republicans, you are going to extreme


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jun 1, 2005)

He will bring balance...


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

Topolo, you're making your party look like retards. Go get your GED, divorce your cousin, and sell your 1989 Ford F150 before you post again.


----------



## goandykid (Jun 1, 2005)

Just saw the news, Jeb says NO to running for president in press conference 6-1-2005.


----------



## LAM (Jun 1, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Who said balance was good? Shopuld we have communists and Nazis for the sake of balance?
> 
> Republicans run the country because they have better ideas period!! State by state they win more elections.
> 
> The Bush haters just can't get over the fact that they lost.



funny that the number of people who have defaulted on mortgages has doubled in the past 4 years.  the subprime mortgage market is blowing up.  I guess that is because of the GREAT job the republicans are doing with our economy.


----------



## GFR (Jun 1, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> YES! Communist and Nazis = Liberals.
> 
> You didn't know that?



Tell us how exactly Nazis and communists are the same?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Jun 2, 2005)

topolo said:
			
		

> Who said balance was good? Shopuld we have communists and Nazis for the sake of balance?



That's not balance. 



> Republicans run the country because they have better ideas period!! State by state they win more elections.



Federal and state and local politics are extremely different within the Republican party, for many reasons. 



> The Bush haters just can't get over the fact that they lost.



They have gotten over the fact.  Just just still don't like him. 


Remember the federal elction was 51% to 49%.

Expect more electoral vote distribution based upon the populace vote in the future.

Similar to the initiative in Colorado that lost, last time.


----------



## John H. (Jun 2, 2005)

LAM said:
			
		

> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050601/pl_nm/bush_father_dc
> 
> If that ever happened I would renounce my US citizenship and move to Canada !



Hi LAM,

AGREED!!!

This country has all it can stand, and more than it should  - it is time to "bush-hog"....

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jun 2, 2005)

Robert DiMaggio said:
			
		

> I think Bush senior and Bush junior have done more than enough damage.




Hi Robert,

They are NOT DONE - not by a long shot!!!

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jun 2, 2005)

busyLivin said:
			
		

> Right here!  Enjoy Canada
> 
> I think it's funny how liberals threaten to leave the country.  I'd help them pack
> 
> I do think Jeb will run. Probably get the party's nomination, too. Would he win?  Against Hillary, he would.  Anyone else I'm not so sure...



Hi Busy,

Hillary WILL WIN!! Because SHE'S QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. And can do the job for the benefit of ALL people not just the "select few". That is of course assuming there will be a country left after the Bushes get through with it... They are not done yet...

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Jun 2, 2005)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> If Jeb Bush becomes The President of the United States, then I will be 100% sure that there is no God. Right now I'm only 95% sure.



Hi Foreman,

I'd say they are PROOF of the existance of the Devil. And Evil. 

And they "profess" to be "christian" which as far as I am concerned is PROOF TOO.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 2, 2005)

John H. said:
			
		

> Hi Busy,
> 
> Hillary WILL WIN!! Because SHE'S QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT. And can do the job for the benefit of ALL people not just the "select few". That is of course assuming there will be a country left after the Bushes get through with it... They are not done yet...
> 
> Take Care, John H.


hillary has a great shot at winning the democratic nomination. i hope she does. i guarantee she looses the presidency. america has a favorable impression of her husband not her. remember how his autobiography outsold hers? let the democrats nominate hillary. they will hand over the election to who ever gets the republican nomination. this is guaranteed. no easier bet


----------



## Eggs (Jun 2, 2005)

Hillary would never win the presidential election. If the Democrats put her up, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.

Why? Because most people, like myself, cant stand her. I mean, she lets her husband run around and stick cigars in his interns... how in the hell would I choose her for president? Now if the next day I'd seen Billy walk out the front door with a big lip and blackened eye, hell yeah I'd think about voting for her.

She doesn't have the "balls" to be President(and not because she's a girl)... and she'd be just the lackey that everyone else is thats been president so far. Maybe I'll vote Green next election. Anything to get away from the retards that make it into the "Big 2" these days.

I wish Powell would go for President. I know he wont, but I'd want him in office 100x more than Hillary.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 2, 2005)

Eggs said:
			
		

> Hillary would never win the presidential election. If the Democrats put her up, they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.
> 
> Why? Because most people, like myself, cant stand her. I mean, she lets her husband run around and stick cigars in his interns... how in the hell would I choose her for president? Now if the next day I'd seen Billy walk out the front door with a big lip and blackened eye, hell yeah I'd think about voting for her.
> 
> ...


----------



## brogers (Jun 2, 2005)

I live in Florida, Jeb has done a good job here, he would make a good president, and I think you shouldn't judge him based on his brother, that is retarded. I do not agree with alot of what GWB has done, and I'm surprised the democrats don't like him more considering he spends federal money just like a democrat. He is not really a good representation of the republican party at all, at least not the Reagan-republicans. The reason he won was mostly because a great deal of people felt that his morals were far more in line with theirs than the likes of John Kerry (Lieberman would have been a waaay better choice).

That said, I consider myself a Libertarian, and I think far more people ESPECIALLY in the bodybuilding community should explore this party. Libertarians are basically the minimal government party. With all the attention being paid to steroids and the recent Pro-hormone ban I really feel that it opens the door for people to look into something other than the "Big Two" to identify their ideals/politics with. 

The bottom line is the government involvement in our lives is getting out of hand and needs to be cut back severly. I think people from both parties will agree with this.

Bush bashing gets old by the way. Especially such intelligent comments as "I'm not sure there will be anything left when he leaves office" Please. Statements like that do not convince anyone to side with you, but instead convince them of your ignorance and lack of substance.


----------



## Pepper (Jun 2, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> I live in Florida, Jeb has done a good job here, he would make a good president, and I think you shouldn't judge him based on his brother, that is retarded. I do not agree with alot of what GWB has done, and I'm surprised the democrats don't like him more considering he spends federal money just like a democrat. He is not really a good representation of the republican party at all, at least not the Reagan-republicans. The reason he won was mostly because a great deal of people felt that his morals were far more in line with theirs than the likes of John Kerry (Lieberman would have been a waaay better choice).
> 
> That said, I consider myself a Libertarian, and I think far more people ESPECIALLY in the bodybuilding community should explore this party. Libertarians are basically the minimal government party. With all the attention being paid to steroids and the recent Pro-hormone ban I really feel that it opens the door for people to look into something other than the "Big Two" to identify their ideals/politics with.
> 
> ...


That was one hell of a post! I can't argue with any of it. 

I guess I would be a Libertarian if they were more viable.


----------



## ponyboy (Jun 2, 2005)

Pepper said:
			
		

> That was one hell of a post! I can't argue with any of it.
> 
> I guess I would be a Libertarian if they were more viable.



I love the leader!  

Oh wait...that's Movementarian.


----------



## Decker (Jun 2, 2005)

brogers said:
			
		

> The bottom line is the government involvement in our lives is getting out of hand and needs to be cut back severly. I think people from both parties will agree with this.


Well said.  Congress should not take its duties to legislate on behalf of the public's safety, health, and welfare to extremes.  Simple safety net legislation is sufficient.



			
				brogers said:
			
		

> I do not agree with alot of what GWB has done, and I'm surprised the democrats don't like him more considering he spends federal money just like a democrat. He is not really a good representation of the republican party at all, at least not the Reagan-republicans.


Reagan and Bush II both spent like drunken sailors.  Instead of tax and spend--the left's reputed mantra, they borrowed and spent.  Just look at the deficit and debt that exploded under their administrations--they were/are horrible fiscal conservatives.


----------



## Eggs (Jun 2, 2005)

Decker said:
			
		

> Well said.  Congress should not take its duties to legislate on behalf of the public's safety, health, and welfare to extremes.  Simple safety net legislation is sufficient.



I believe this as well... I think BR is right in that the recent (past 30-40 years) has caused many to open their eyes up to other parties. I wouldn't be surprised in the next three or four elections if some of the other parties start to make some head way. There are many stuborn idiots who will always vote based on what their parents did, but I think that group is growing smaller. The smaller parties dont have the budget or history that the Big Two have, but if they can figure a way to compensate for that, they might actually achieve something.



> Reagan and Bush II both spent like drunken sailors.  Instead of tax and spend--the left's reputed mantra, they borrowed and spent.  Just look at the deficit and debt that exploded under their administrations--they were/are horrible fiscal conservatives.



Agreed, that has definitely been one of the top problems they've had.


----------



## John H. (Jun 3, 2005)

bio-chem said:
			
		

> hillary has a great shot at winning the democratic nomination. i hope she does. i guarantee she looses the presidency. america has a favorable impression of her husband not her. remember how his autobiography outsold hers? let the democrats nominate hillary. they will hand over the election to who ever gets the republican nomination. this is guaranteed. no easier bet



Bio:

Assuming she runs and then looses, it would be good - because for the first time the REPUBLICANS will have to find their way out of the mess THEY MADE and will not be able to blame someone else for it. They WILL have to stand before the firing squad for what THEY HAVE DONE.

John H.


----------



## bio-chem (Jun 3, 2005)

John H. said:
			
		

> Bio:
> 
> Assuming she runs and then looses, it would be good - because for the first time the REPUBLICANS will have to find their way out of the mess THEY MADE and will not be able to blame someone else for it. They WILL have to stand before the firing squad for what THEY HAVE DONE.
> 
> John H.


For the first time?  what they have done? elaborate further john, what the hell are you talking about?


----------



## BigDyl (Jun 3, 2005)

This country is run by corporations anyways...


----------



## Nachez (Nov 15, 2005)

i think Hulk Hogan should run for president
have Jesse Ventura as his vice president
the democrats could use these 2


----------



## goandykid (Nov 15, 2005)

its only a matter of time till foreman hits this w/ a "dead thread" picture


----------

