| 16th February 2006 09:31 AM |
|
|
| nanatod |
"i agree with you partially about your assessment of the dem party. we lack leadership"
Did you forget about Richie Daley?
He controls more of Chicago than his father did. |
| 16th February 2006 09:42 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Your party controls ZERO... in this country
Whine Whine Whine
You control nothing and won't for decades!
TELE!
What is it like to be a total ZERO????!!! Jizzy
Please advise
BTW tell the board what your party controls!
.JPG)
|
| 16th February 2006 10:26 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Riffhard wrote:
Hey Bucky I hate to be the bearer of more bad news,but.....the next president is going to be George Allen (R-Va.). Remember,you heard it here first!
I should mention that I truly do want to see the Democrats get their act together. A one party country is good for nobody. Neither the country,the populace,or the controlling party. Absolute power leads to,....blah,blah,blah. It's true though. It's high time the Dems start dumping the likes of Soros,Moore,Sheehan,MoveOn.org....The present Dem party are too emboldened to the far left. Yet they never seem to understand why most normal Americans think they are nothing but angry,spoiled,whining punks. Well hell! Take a look at the names I have mentioned and try and imagine any of those kooks being happy about anything other than a Bush impeachment?!?! That's not gonna happen so move on(no pun intended),and take control of the party back from these freaks!!! They are killing the party! As I have stated before,slow suicide is is still suicide.
Hillary in '08? God I hope so!! Please nominate her!! I beg of the Dems!
Riffy
[Edited by Riffhard]
Just the mere fact that Allen is even mentioned as presidential "material" shows just how far the educational system in this country has fallen. This also goes a long way in explaining why "Republicans" (you do realize that true Republicans no longer exist, right?) control all branches of government. |
| 16th February 2006 11:05 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" This also goes a long way in explaining why "Republicans" (you do realize that true Republicans no longer exist, right?) control all branches of government. "
|
| 16th February 2006 11:05 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
In one of Ann Coulter's great books she discusses how Dems & their acolytes in the mainstream media always call GOPers "dumb" & yet election after election, the "dumb" guy wins. I'm not beholden to Allen at this point but I'm guessing he's at least as "dumb" as Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush & he'll beat any Dem he runs against.
[Edited by glencar] |
| 16th February 2006 11:07 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
riffy, you're crazy! the nomination, and most likely the presidency, is mccain's or powell's for the taking in 08 if they want it. they would both be perfect for the job--sane minds after an insane past 8 years.
one other thing i don't understand: i agree with you partially about your assessment of the dem party. we lack leadership and some of the prominent dems are too michael moorish for their (and our) own good. but can't you see that the men who control your party right now are just the same kind of kooks, only in the other direction? bush, cheney, rummy, wolfie and the rest are just as far right as the names you mention are far left...its just that for some reason they were able to get themselves elected .... (once!)....
actually, the dearth of good leadership on both sides of the isle is sickening. we have had nary a good leader since, say, wellstone died......
[Edited by Starbuck]
Bush is not as hard right as you think. Nobody runs up those kinds of deficits can truly be thought of as a conservative. He has yet to veto anything after 5 years in office. |
| 16th February 2006 11:09 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Bush is not as hard right as you think. Nobody runs up those kinds of deficits can truly be thought of as a conservative. He has yet to veto anything after 5 years in office.
Deficts do not matter ( see : The Great Ronald Reagan ) --- just charge everything to the National Debt and let the Children / Grandchildren pay for it later on .... YES !
" Kids do not vote Ronnie ! "
Snuggle to the Joe ! |
| 16th February 2006 11:13 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Hmm, sounds like a plan... |
| 16th February 2006 11:16 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Hmm, sounds like a plan...
W- W- W- What ?!?!
|
| 16th February 2006 11:17 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
If you weren't such a Dem & a giver-awayer of people's names & addresses, I think we could be friends. |
| 16th February 2006 11:21 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" If you weren't such a Dem & a giver-awayer of people's names & addresses, I think we could be friends."
|
| 16th February 2006 11:24 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Betcha he nailed the woman off his left shoulder. |
| 16th February 2006 11:29 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
glencar wrote:
In one of Ann Coulter's great books she discusses how Dems & their acolytes in the mainstream media always call GOPers "dumb" & yet election after election, the "dumb" guy wins. I'm not beholden to Allen at this point but I'm guessing he's at least as "dumb" as Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush & he'll beat any Dem he runs against.
[Edited by glencar]
See what I mean. You actually quote that...that...well, lest I be labelled a hater like the long line of GOPers like her, Rush, Hannity, Savage I'll just call her(?) Ms. Coulter. Play to lowest common denominator and you'll do well. Your masters have figured that out. Congrats on your success and being played for a fool. But hell, booyah! |
| 16th February 2006 11:30 AM |
|
|
| glencar |
Who a fool? Who a fool? You a fool, son. Learn that. |
| 16th February 2006 11:48 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Who a fool? Who a fool? You a fool, son. Learn that. "
|
| 16th February 2006 11:55 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Joey wrote:
" Who a fool? Who a fool? You a fool, son. Learn that. "
Wouldn't this be more appropos?
What else am I supposed to believe when someone uses Coulter and great book in the same sentence? |
| 16th February 2006 12:26 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
Wouldn't this be more appropos?
THIS !!!! :
|
|
|
V
http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/jan2005/p4.html
|
| 16th February 2006 12:50 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
What, fool? The great books are only written by those with whom you agree? Have you actually read her book? Give it a try & then get back to me. Until you do, ixnay on the the Coulter-bashing. |
| 16th February 2006 01:29 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
Check out the skeech on Bryant Gumbel, commenting on his dislike of winter Olympics: "So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world’s greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention."
Feel a retraction/apology coming......? Hmmmm......its 50/50. |
| 16th February 2006 01:31 PM |
|
|
| monkey_man |
Hmm yes read Ann Coulter for her facts. . .hee .hee .hee. Let's see a transcript from one of her appearances on Canandian TV.
COULTER: "Canada used to be one of our most loyal friends and vice-versa. I mean Canada sent troops to Vietnam - was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?"
MCKEOWN interrupts: "Canada didn't send troops to Vietnam."
COULTER: "I don't think that's right."
MCKEOWN: "Canada did not send troops to Vietnam."
COULTER (looking desperate): "Indochina?"
MCKEOWN: "Uh no. Canada ...second World War of course. Korea. Yes. Vietnam No."
COULTER: "I think you're wrong."
MCKEOWN: "No, took a pass on Vietnam."
COULTER: "I think you're wrong."
MCKEOWN: "No, Australia was there, not Canada."
COULTER: "I think Canada sent troops."
MCKEOWN: "No."
COULTER: "Well. I'll get back to you on that."
McKeown tags out in script: "Coulter never got back to us -- but for the record, like Iraq, Canada sent no troops to Vietnam."
|
| 16th February 2006 02:04 PM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Well, I think she misspoke a little there. There were no offical troops sent but there was plenty of help from Canada, which is her overall point.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/ |
| 16th February 2006 02:15 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Well, I think she misspoke a little there. There were no offical troops sent but there was plenty of help from Canada, which is her overall point."
 
.......................................................
[ Edited by Fiji ]
[Edited by Joey] |
| 16th February 2006 02:16 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" What, fool? The great books are only written by those with whom you agree? Have you actually read her book? Give it a try & then get back to me. Until you do, ixnay on the the Coulter-bashing."
|
| 16th February 2006 02:35 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
" What, fool? The great books are only written by those with whom you agree? Have you actually read her book? Give it a try & then get back to me. Until you do, ixnay on the the Coulter-bashing."
Uh, I have read enough of them to know that she writes like a sixth grade special needs student but thanks, I think I can qualify for the task. |
| 16th February 2006 03:37 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
Oh , that is just beautiful !!!!!
P.O.S.T.I.N. '
..............................................
ss
[Edited by Joey] |
| 16th February 2006 03:50 PM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
coulter...
she does have nice legs...
but i have never read her books...
quote:
On the heels of her widely successful books on Liberal treachery, Slander and Treason, Ann Coulter is about to publish a special updated edition of one of the most influential political tracts of the modern age.
"If you think she knows Joe McCarthy, wait till you hear how she admires Hitler." - Bob Novak
"A new classic. A great political strategy guide for the modern conservative." - Tucker Carlson
"If you love America, you'll love this book." - Sean Hannity
"Smart... funny... reveals Liberal treachery." - Rush Limbaugh
"It's like she knows my playbook." - Karl Rove
"Have you hanged a Liberal today?" - Michael Savege
|
| 16th February 2006 03:56 PM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
rasputin?......
FEEEJ???....is that you??
 |
| 16th February 2006 04:52 PM |
|
|
| glencar |
This new poster does seem like a double secret agent... |
| 16th February 2006 04:58 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" This new poster does seem like a double secret agent... "
|
|
|
|
V
“ The US is definitely less secure. In August the US State Department noted that terror acts against American have not decreased, but increased, since we went to war in Iraq.
It also appears that US troops in Vietnam soon realized that our ARVN ally was not the most devoted fighter; going into some battles ARVN might have a 50% percent desertion rate. The same seems to be true in Iraq, where battalions of the Iraqi Armed Forces refused to go to hotspots (like Fallujah), and fight along side the US Marines and against their own countrymen. That became so common in Vietnam that commanders called it "combat refusal" instead of mutiny; in Iraq the American general called it "command failure."
In war the first casualty is Truth. In Iraq, sadly, we now know from the 9/11 Commission Report that this war was totally unnecessary. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as the UN Hans Blix declared before the war, and there were no links between bin Laden and Saddam. Without a doubt, the Bush administration mislead this nation to a war.
How did Bush respond, he changed the aim. We now have a new goal. We are "Exporting Democracy, Bringing Freedom."
Iraq never has had any training in democracy. Bush's desire to create an Iraqi democracy is aimed for domestic American voters. Moreover, Iraq doesn't like being occupied, which many of us learned from Vietnam. In Iraq, they are not waving American flags -- they are shooting rocket-propelled grenades. What would you Texans do if some country occupied Texas? Join them, or get out your deer rifles?
Just think, if the Supreme Court did not stop the voting in the 2000 election -- handing the presidency to George Bush -- we would have responded to Sept 11, gone into Afghanistan with our allies, and not be involved in a guerrilla War in Iraq.
In Vietnam it took until the Tet Offensive and 1968 -- three years of war before the American people knew that we had been misled. What did President Johnson do, did he admit his mistakes? No, nor has Bush. Like Johnson in Vietnam, Bush in Iraq got us into a guerrilla war without a satisfactory exit strategy, without a definition of winning.
In the long run, unfortunately, the results probably will be the same in Iraq as in Vietnam. Us veterans all have seen this movie before. Faced with a stark future after Tet 1968, LBJ asked his citizens to join us in a total national effort to win the war -- to complete the job. After the Insurgency in Iraq last April -- Bush's Tet -- this administration asked Americans to stay the course, finish the job.
In Vietnam the failed attempt to complete the job between Tet 1968 and our withdrawal in 1973 cost over 21,000 American combat deaths, perhaps a million Vietnamese. How many deaths will it cost in Iraq? As Philosopher George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it."
http://www.rtis.com/touchstone/jan2005/p4.html
.....................................................
[ Edited by Fiji ]
[Edited by Joey] |
| 17th February 2006 12:08 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
glencar wrote:
In one of Ann Coulter's great books she discusses how Dems & their acolytes in the mainstream media always call GOPers "dumb" & yet election after election, the "dumb" guy wins. I'm not beholden to Allen at this point but I'm guessing he's at least as "dumb" as Ronald Reagan & George W. Bush & he'll beat any Dem he runs against.
[Edited by glencar]
Actually, H.L. Mencken explained this phenomenon many years ago: "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
BTW, has Miss Annie figured out which precinct she's supposed to vote in yet?
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler] |
