PDA

View Full Version : Bush sex scandal



beck
16th November 03, 11:01 AM
How come I never heard of this?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/11257_scandal.html

Doctor Gonzo
16th November 03, 11:05 AM
I don't know between him fucking over the economy and him fucking up world affairs, where is there room for a story like this?

:: ducks the incoming flames ::

hehe sorry all (you too Phleg, I know your the founding member of the Young Republicans, I still lub yas!)

Doc

Shorrtee McHeals
16th November 03, 11:17 AM
Probably because its not true. Anyone seen this anywhere else besides Pravda? Heh.

beck
16th November 03, 11:41 AM
http://www.unknownnews.net/cache18.html

If you search on google you can find a few links. It was obviously buried.

Shorrtee McHeals
16th November 03, 12:08 PM
Conspiracy!

Phleg
16th November 03, 01:35 PM
I don't know between him fucking over the economy

It's pretty hard for a president to fuck over the economy considering that it's Congress that controls the budget, spending, taxes, etc.

And if a President were to have an effect over the economy, it's a slow effect. Things like that take years to actually show any real effect on the economy. It's generally accepted by economists that you only see the real effects of an administration's policies 2-3 years after they were enacted.


hehe sorry all (you too Phleg, I know your the founding member of the Young Republicans, I still lub yas!)

Campus Libertarians. Don't get me wrong, I dislike MANY things Bush has done. However, he didn't even have a chance to fuck up the economy before it started going down. Hell, it was already going into a recession when Clinton was in office. And if you look now, a couple years after Bush's inauguration, the economy's picking itself back up.

Kiko
16th November 03, 01:37 PM
Why are ya reading Pravda? Something we should know, comrade?

I like the story they had about the killer bears tho. :)

Fano
16th November 03, 04:21 PM
It's generally accepted by economists that you only see the real effects of an administration's policies 2-3 years after they were enacted.

This is why it boggles me anytime I hear of a policy proposition designed for less than a 3-year term before being put up for reevaluation. It's not just that it takes 2-3 years to see the effects, but also even when the policy is put into play, many times it won't actually be "put to use" for months. We spoke about this in my Public Administration course and I found it fairly interesting.

If you're going to accuse anyone of bringing the economy down, don't look at what people are doing now... look back 5 or even 10 years.

Sithray
17th November 03, 03:04 AM
The excuse of delayed economy is something Republicans invented cause they do such a shitty job running the government.

Sithray
17th November 03, 12:40 PM
Kwill's post is gone from here...

Kwill
17th November 03, 12:41 PM
I noticed that, why??

Kwill
17th November 03, 12:41 PM
I SAID the woman was probably insane. There.

Sithray
17th November 03, 12:42 PM
Someone else's post is gone as well, this thread was at 11 before the error, it was at 9 when I posted that your post was missing.

Kwill
17th November 03, 12:43 PM
Plus the boards broke shortly after I posted it this morning.

Boanerges
17th November 03, 12:44 PM
World affairs you might have a point on but the economic problems... well, I don't think you can say Bush is directly responsible for that. Look at the major factors that produced this slump

1. The tech bubble of the stock market burst. The so called "dot bust" of 2000. That was a long time coming because people doing their own trading were too stupid to realize they were buying into companies that made no money (I remember seeing some Linux company make an IPO in the late 90s and have their value increase 700% in one day... making money off Linux isn't easy).

2. The cooked book scandals. Enron, Worldcom, Adelphia and even Tyco. All major names that cooked their books to make them look better so their stocks would stay high. Again, this was a long time coming.

3. Jobless recovery. This one is murkier than the others but what is quite clear is most of the manufacturing jobs have left our country for places like Mexico, India and China. As such you have millions of people who are not trained for other jobs that pay what they were used to earning and lack the job market to put their current skills to use. Adding to this crunch is the fact that many people lost some of their retirement in the stock market downturn and as such you have more people working longer to make up that shortfall.

4. 9/11. We've never had to deal with something like this. Ever. Economies run off of confidence in the future and this dark day destroyed a lot of confidence. We're 2 years hence and I can't say it's very surprising to find people still a little apprehensive because of this.

Now, if we had bad policy that played a major role then you might be able to say Bush is directly responsible but the only policy Bush has enacted is one to let you keep more of your hard earned money which, historically, has lead to more growth and more tax revenues. If anything, I'd say Bush has done a bangup job under some tough times regarding the economy.

Kwill
17th November 03, 12:47 PM
Heh, you should have heard Michael Moore last night on cspan. The interviewer HATED him, I am not sure why, he kept asking him about how he was handling all his money, accused him of being an atheist (he's Catholic), being an attention whore, and then asked him if he actually wrote the book.

The reason I am thinking about this now is he was very harsh on the republicans encouraging the "everyman" to invest in the stock market. He felt that the working person should not be in the stock market (or pension plans, either) as it was too much of a gamble.

Edit: the interview was on his new book, "dude where's my country."

Sithray
17th November 03, 12:50 PM
Michael Moore is a fucking genius.

Kwill
17th November 03, 12:54 PM
I was very impressed with him last night. He did not let the asshole interviewer make him mad, or intimidate him, although you could see he really wanted people to know he wasn't all stuck up now that he's really rich.

He is very wise. He benefitted from the Bush tax cut, but is giving his extra income from the tax cut to charities. He also appreciated the irony of making money from a book that criticized the very administration that gave him the extra income.

Boanerges
17th November 03, 01:06 PM
The reason I am thinking about this now is he was very harsh on the republicans encouraging the "everyman" to invest in the stock market. He felt that the working person should not be in the stock market (or pension plans, either) as it was too much of a gamble.

For such a "genius" he sure is a really big idiot.

The stock market is not a good source of revenue for the short term investor but over the long term the stock market does tend to go up. The reason so many people got burned lately is because the stock market does fluctuate. The long haul investor stays the course and rides the downturn out because, like all things, it will eventually go back up.

If his idea isn't to reinvest in our economy then what does he advocate? Giant matresses?

Sithray
17th November 03, 01:14 PM
For such a "genius" he sure is a really big idiot.

The stock market is not a good source of revenue for the short term investor but over the long term the stock market does tend to go up. The reason so many people got burned lately is because the stock market does fluctuate. The long haul investor stays the course and rides the downturn out because, like all things, it will eventually go back up.

If his idea isn't to reinvest in our economy then what does he advocate? Giant matresses?

The government wants the poor man to invest in the economy via the stock market, yet they only give the rich/super rich tax breaks. The poor man is usually working from paycheck to paycheck, therefore can't afford a short term loss in the stock market. Rich republicans have no problem saying "the everyman should invest", because they are rich off their ass' and only see investment as another means of a tax break, especially if they can report short term losses. They only want the poor man to invest to drive the price of their stock back up.

He is a genius because he sees the flaws in their reasoning. I personally pulled all my stocks when Bush entered office, and rightly so, I would have lost about 15k if I hadn't.

Kwill
17th November 03, 01:23 PM
As he said, most of the people who are investing in the stock market aren't using disposable income, but their retirement funds or money they should be saving. And they can't stand a huge loss in income from a crash, as they can't recoup the money they have invested.

Merauk
17th November 03, 03:54 PM
It's pretty hard for a president to fuck over the economy considering that it's Congress that controls the budget, spending, taxes, etc.


However, he didn't even have a chance to fuck up the economy before it started going down. Hell, it was already going into a recession when Clinton was in office. And if you look now, a couple years after Bush's inauguration, the economy's picking itself back up.

So if I understand correctly:

1.) If the economy is bad and a Republican is in office then it is because the Congress controls the economy.
2.) If the economy is bad and a Democrat is in office then it is because the President controls the economy.
3.) If the economy is good and a Democrat is in office (with a Republican predecessor) then it is because fiscal adjustments take several years and he is reaping the wind of his Republican predecessors policies.
4.) If the economy is bad and a Republican is in office (with a Democratic predecessor) then it is because fiscal adjustments take several years and he is inheriting the poor policy decisions of his Democratic predecessor.

Sithray
17th November 03, 04:36 PM
So if I understand correctly:

1.) If the economy is bad and a Republican is in office then it is because the Congress controls the economy.
2.) If the economy is bad and a Democrat is in office then it is because the President controls the economy.
3.) If the economy is good and a Democrat is in office (with a Republican predecessor) then it is because fiscal adjustments take several years and he is reaping the wind of his Republican predecessors policies.
4.) If the economy is bad and a Republican is in office (with a Democratic predecessor) then it is because fiscal adjustments take several years and he is inheriting the poor policy decisions of his Democratic predecessor.


See my post about how republicans invented "delayed economy"

Every time a republican is in office the economy plunges, even when a republican is in office 2 terms in a row (ie, Ronald) the economy still stays low...(5 trillion in debt his first term, 8 trillion in debt his second, economy crashed in 85 under his command, slight up after but maintained lows until bush in 88, who promised no new taxes to cover for Reagen, but in the end taxed the shit out of everything. It wasn't until Clinton that the economy picked up, even up till his 8th year in office republicans were trying to say it was because of Bush that the economy was doing so well...Then Bush jr. takes over and within a year the economy is at a record low, and planes are crashing into our buildings.

Kitska
17th November 03, 04:39 PM
Sithgay for presidente!

Mesmer
17th November 03, 05:07 PM
Bush is the worst president I have seen in my lifetime.

He has us bogged down in Iraq. He lied about the reason for going to Iraq. He didnt plan for "post" war occupation at all. Some soldiers are having to buy their own bullet proof vests for fucks sake. The pentagon has completely fucked up how the soldiers in iraq are compensated for their service. Some are not getting paid on time, some not getting paid at all, some getting overpayments which are then deducted out of their accounts automatically. Soldiers in Iraq are having to worry about whether their houses will be taken and their families out on the streets. In 2 company's. 94 % of soldiers stated that they had experienced a problem with their paychecks. He has slashed benefits for Veterans across the board all the while claiming that the very people who serve this country and risk their lives deserve our unwaivering support (which they do).

Bush ran as a moderate conservative, but he has been so far to the right that many moderate republicans are pissed. Bush has yet to implement any policy change that even remotely grants benefits to those who he works for - U.S. Citizens.

Bush appointed John Ashcroft. Most of the attorneys I have spoken with, many of whom have been practicing for over 30 years, agree that he is a horrible attorney general because he obviously allows his own political and moral views to influence his decisions. He spent $8000 on curtains to cover the breasts of a statue. He has encouraged the enforcement of the Patriot Bill against non-Terrorist criminals such as drug dealers and organized crime when there is a perfectly acceptable statute for prosecuting such folks called RICO. He has attempted to drastically reduce the amount of discretion that Federal Judges have in sentencing criminals, trying to force the judges to hand down stricter penalties. Its no surprise that the companies that build and sometimes run these private prisons contributed lots-o-cash to his campaign.

Bush appointed Donald Rumsfeld. See pentagon problems mentioned above.

I could go on and on, although I will give bush credit for one thing: He didnt plant evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, yet.

Bush is an unmitigated disaster, and I have not even talked about the economy because I dont have anymore time to contribute to this post.

Boanerges
17th November 03, 05:29 PM
Then Bush jr. takes over and within a year the economy is at a record low, and planes are crashing into our buildings.

And this is Bush's fault... how?

Sithray
17th November 03, 05:38 PM
And this is Bush's fault... how?

Hello! He is the most powerful man in the country, that's how. The "buck stops here" with him. He can try and divert blame all he wants, but it all comes down to him. If he is allowing people in his administration to make bad descisions, it is still his fault. No matter how you try to say it's not his fault, ultimately, it is. That is the price you pay to be the president.

Now I am not saying republicans are blind sheep, but republicans are blind sheep.

Stabu
17th November 03, 06:04 PM
Yeah, Clinton tossing a couple of missles at Osama everytime he killed a few American's really helped us out, in regards to planes crashing.

Whats that? You say Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama out but refused to give the order. No way

Sithray
17th November 03, 06:16 PM
Yeah, Clinton tossing a couple of missles at Osama everytime he killed a few American's really helped us out, in regards to planes crashing.

Whats that? You say Clinton had an opportunity to take Osama out but refused to give the order. No way

Bullshit! His "opportunity" was for the Saudi gov to get Osama for him in exchange for Terrorism sanctions against Sudan to be lifted....

How the fuck were the Saudi's going to hand over Bin Laden exactly? They couldn't, and Clinton knew that. They never had him in custody, only said that if the sanctions were lifted, they would extradite him, yet he wasn't even in SA, but in Afghanastan.

Maybe if you actually knew 2 shits about the gov' and what goes on in it, you wouldn't sound so lost...

read: republicans are blind sheep

Merauk
17th November 03, 06:34 PM
The "buck stops here" with him. He can try and divert blame all e wants, but it all comes down to him. If he is allowing people in his administration to make bad descisions, it is still his fault. No matter how you try to say it's not his fault, ultimately, it is. That is the price you pay to be the president.

I think this is the thing which I find to be the problem with politicians today. After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy addressed the American Association of Newspaper Editors (http://www.jfklibrary.org/jfk_newspaper_editors.html) and went through the reasoning for the invasion. This was followed up with a press conference the following day in which I think one of the most poignant answers ever was given by a President. There is nothing I despise more then a man not big enough to own up to his mistakes, far to many politicians fall into that category today. It is disappointing that in todayís age of information technology we actually get less press conferences with elected officials and the ones we do see are sugar coated spin sessions. Anyone know how many press conferences Bush has given since Iraq, aside from his recent meeting with Sir David Frost I canít think of any press conference or interview he has given (I honestly donít know the count on this so if somebody knows I would be curious as to the answer).



QUESTION: Sir, since last Saturday, a certain foreign policy situation has given rise to many conflicting stories. But during that time, reporters in Washington have noticed that there has been a clamming up of information from formerly useful sources. To my knowledge the State Department and the White House has not attempted to take a representative group of reporters and say "these are the facts as we know them." And this morning we are not permitted to ask any further questions abut this foreign policy situation. In view of the fact we are taking a propaganda lambasting around the world, why is it not useful, sir, for us to explore with you the real facts behind this, or our motivations?



THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think in answer to your question that we have to make a judgment as to how much we can usefully say that would aid the interest of the United States. One of the problems of a free society, a problem not met by a dictatorship, is this problem of information. A good deal has been printed in the paper. I wouldn't be surprised if those of you who are members of the press would be receiving a lot of background briefings in the next day or two by interested people or interested agencies.

There's an old saying that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan, and I wouldn't be surprised if information is poured into you in regard to all the recent activities.

Now, I think we see some of the problems, to move from this particular case, in the problem of Space, where the Soviet Union -- no reports were made in regard to any experiments that they carried out. "Our man in space" -- I saw in a national magazine about some student said the Americans talk a good deal about their man in space. The Soviet Union says nothing and yet it wins. Well, that is one of the problems of a democracy competing and carrying on a struggle for survival against a dictatorship.

But I will say to you, Mr. Vanocur, that I have said as much as I feel can be usefully said, by me, in regard to the events of the past few days. Further statements, detailed discussions, are not to conceal responsibility because I am the responsible officer of the government, and that is quite obvious, but merely because I do not believe that such a discussion would benefit us during the present difficult situation. I think you will be informed and some of the information, based on what I have seen, will not be accurate.

If you have never taken time to read about Kennedy I recommend looking at some of his speeches. I cannot think of a greater orator in the 20th century, nor can I think about a person who better defined what I like about America ( We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard). Sure you can say the press went soft on him over his social life and medical/drug issues. Read some his press conferences though they hit him fairly on the issues that mattered (as above) and he gave well thought out and candid response to those answers.

Sithray
17th November 03, 06:38 PM
Merauk got it out before me, I was in the middle of a google on Kennedy when you posted. He pretty much admitted that no president can blame anyone but himself.

Too bad the republicans had him shot.

Stabu
17th November 03, 07:35 PM
Maybe if you actually knew 2 shits about the gov' and what goes on in it, you wouldn't sound so lost...

Well considering it was the Sudanese government, you might want to rethink that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8174-2003Nov6.html

"Miniter reports the potentially explosive claim that the Sudanese even offered to hand over bin Laden himself to the United States in 1996. Miniter's source on this is a Sudanese cabinet official, Elfatih Erwa. He says he met in March 1996 with a CIA officer in Virginia, where the offer was made to hand over the Saudi exile. Key Clinton national security officials poured cold water on Erwa's story when Miniter queried them about it. Nonetheless, it's worth recalling that Sudan had given up Carlos the Jackal, a notorious terrorist, to the French in 1994, so there might have been an opening with the Sudanese on the matter of al Qaeda that the Clinton administration did not sufficiently exploit."

Sithray
17th November 03, 07:48 PM
Well considering it was the Sudanese government, you might want to rethink that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8174-2003Nov6.html

"Miniter reports the potentially explosive claim that the Sudanese even offered to hand over bin Laden himself to the United States in 1996. Miniter's source on this is a Sudanese cabinet official, Elfatih Erwa. He says he met in March 1996 with a CIA officer in Virginia, where the offer was made to hand over the Saudi exile. Key Clinton national security officials poured cold water on Erwa's story when Miniter queried them about it. Nonetheless, it's worth recalling that Sudan had given up Carlos the Jackal, a notorious terrorist, to the French in 1994, so there might have been an opening with the Sudanese on the matter of al Qaeda that the Clinton administration did not sufficiently exploit."

Tardified!

Sudan wants Sanctions lifted, they are in bad light with the US, they offer to give Bin Laden to the Saudi gov for the Saudi's to go to bat for them with the US. The Saudi's are like WTF? We don't want Bin Laden...he is an exile. So they turn to the US, "Do YOU want Bin Laden? We can get him for you via the Sudan if you lift sanctions", Clinton says "hell no, wtf are you gonna do to get Bin Laden that we haven't already been trying?"

Rightly so, to this day the Saudi/Sudan Gov. have been unable to provide leads on the whereabouts of Osama, and have even been uncooperative at times to provide intelligence. So basically, the US would have lifted sanctions that NEEDED to be in place, so that the Saudi's/Sudan's could go on a wild goose chase for possibly years to come. DON'T THINK SO!


there might have been an opening with the Sudanese on the matter of al Qaeda that the Clinton administration did not sufficiently exploit."

Big MIGHT in there. That little statment was thrown together by the current administration and circulated to the media with days after two planes hit the world trade center. Don't confuse patriotism with knowlege. They started blaming Clinton for the towers early on, cause they knew it could mean re-election in 04.

Phleg
17th November 03, 11:35 PM
So if I understand correctly:

1.) If the economy is bad and a Republican is in office then it is because the Congress controls the economy.
2.) If the economy is bad and a Democrat is in office then it is because the President controls the economy.

No, I'm saying that the premise is wrong either way. The Congress controls the economy far more than the President does. Period. However, IF you were to be of the belief that the President has a significant effect, it STILL fails. Hey, way to take quotes out of context, though. Just like a pro.

Sithray
18th November 03, 12:29 AM
No, I'm saying that the premise is wrong either way. The Congress controls the economy far more than the President does. Period. However, IF you were to be of the belief that the President has a significant effect, it STILL fails. Hey, way to take quotes out of context, though. Just like a pro.

WTF? The congress controls the economy? More lies by the republicans. I don't know what country you grew up in, but the congress in the USA can't do ANYTHING without the president, and vice versa. It's not like congress just passes laws/tax/budget/economy plans out of the blue, the president has to approve them. If the president comes up with laws/tax/budget/economy ideas,he has to take it through congress.

Stick to comps Phleg...

Merauk
18th November 03, 01:04 AM
No, I'm saying that the premise is wrong either way.

Or in the case where we have a Republican Congress and President it would be the fucking liberals on the Supreme Court dragging the economy down.

Phleg
18th November 03, 01:16 AM
Or in the case where we have a Republican Congress and President it would be the fucking liberals on the Supreme Court dragging the economy down.

We've been through this, or do you need remedial education? Actions by the President AND the Congress take several years to actually show an effect.

Phleg
18th November 03, 01:17 AM
WTF? The congress controls the economy? More lies by the republicans. I don't know what country you grew up in, but the congress in the USA can't do ANYTHING without the president, and vice versa. It's not like congress just passes laws/tax/budget/economy plans out of the blue, the president has to approve them. If the president comes up with laws/tax/budget/economy ideas,he has to take it through congress.

Yeah, and it's completely up to the Congress whether or not to pass his plans/ideas. The veto isn't an all-powerful tool like you make it out to be. If it was, you'd see it used far more often.

Morley
18th November 03, 03:19 AM
See my post about how republicans invented "delayed economy"

Then Bush jr. takes over and within a year the economy is at a record low, and planes are crashing into our buildings.

Bullshit! His "opportunity" was for the Saudi gov to get Osama for him

Too bad the republicans had him shot.
That little statment was thrown together by the current administration and circulated to the media with days after two planes hit the world trade center.

They started blaming Clinton for the towers early on, cause they knew it could mean re-election in 04.

More lies by the republicans.


And here I thought your brother had the market cornered on ignorance. Guess its in the genes.
Grow the fuck up.

Kiko
18th November 03, 08:54 AM
So all that talk about checks and balances with the 3 branches of US government was a myth? Or lemme guess, they figured out a way to exploit that part of the game?

The two party system is long overdue for a major overhaul. Both of 'em aren't what they started out as. Neither of 'em seems to have anything to do with the demographic groups they originally supported/appealed to.

All the blaming and fingerpointing is fun.. What's your solution? Campaigning based on the past is nonsense. If you think it's broken FIX it.

If you're not interested in fixing anything, but only attaining/retaining a power base, you're part of the problem, not the solution. We need a new party based on Servant-Leadership.

Sithray
18th November 03, 11:24 AM
And here I thought your brother had the market cornered on ignorance. Guess its in the genes.
Grow the fuck up.

Saying I am ignorant, then posting nothing to back it up, shows you are possibly the biggest re..what? re...what? RE-TARD! ever to speak to me without permission. If you suck my cock 3 times I will grant you permission to address me. Let me work over your mom once more though, bitch is insatiable.

Sithray
18th November 03, 11:26 AM
Yeah, and it's completely up to the Congress whether or not to pass his plans/ideas. The veto isn't an all-powerful tool like you make it out to be. If it was, you'd see it used far more often.

STICK TO COMPOOTERS! U R SOUNDING LIKE A FULL!

Phrost
18th November 03, 12:32 PM
I didn't read any of the thread.

But it amazes me that anyone can believe that a party which supports turning the country into a welfare state with a monsterous government tossing cash at every social problem, could possibly be better for the economy than the party that supports free enterprise.

I know, lets make the government SO big, that it can feed and clothe us as well. Heck, lets swing the doors to the country open so our hard working people can pay college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Lets cut our military in half, and spend the rest of the money on food stamps, "hug a terrorist" programs, and artists who think urine is an acceptable artistic medium.

Gee, the Jackass party really has it going on, don't they?

Chantress
19th November 03, 01:35 AM
How come I never heard of this?

http://english.pravda.ru/world/20/91/368/11257_scandal.html

You didnt hear about it because it is not true.

Find this Kasper person for me please. She is a public servant and in Texas her employment records are public information. Here is the link for you.

http://www.co.fort-bend.tx.us/directory/Search_Name.cfm?ByFirstLetter=K&NextPage=1

#1- That clerk does not work for Fort Bend County.
#2- There is no one named Becky Kasper that has a drivers license in Texas. www.publicdata.com is my source.
#3- Allegations and filing a court case can be done by anyone. If I feel like it i can file a civil case against anyone I want to. Chances are it will get me no where so rational people do not file them.

Chantress
19th November 03, 01:44 AM
I didn't read any of the thread.

But it amazes me that anyone can believe that a party which supports turning the country into a welfare state with a monsterous government tossing cash at every social problem, could possibly be better for the economy than the party that supports free enterprise.

I know, lets make the government SO big, that it can feed and clothe us as well. Heck, lets swing the doors to the country open so our hard working people can pay college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Lets cut our military in half, and spend the rest of the money on food stamps, "hug a terrorist" programs, and artists who think urine is an acceptable artistic medium.

Gee, the Jackass party really has it going on, don't they?

OMG I agree with Phrack! What is wrong with this picture? :p

downinit
19th November 03, 10:00 AM
I didn't read any of the thread.

But it amazes me that anyone can believe that a party which supports turning the country into a welfare state with a monsterous government tossing cash at every social problem, could possibly be better for the economy than the party that supports free enterprise.

I know, lets make the government SO big, that it can feed and clothe us as well. Heck, lets swing the doors to the country open so our hard working people can pay college tuition for illegal immigrants.

Lets cut our military in half, and spend the rest of the money on food stamps, "hug a terrorist" programs, and artists who think urine is an acceptable artistic medium.

Gee, the Jackass party really has it going on, don't they?

Call me crazy, but weren't you the one urging everyone NOT to vote for Bush three years ago?

Phleg
19th November 03, 12:43 PM
Probably. You still hear me doing the same.

This isn't a two-party system, yaknow ;)

downinit
19th November 03, 12:51 PM
Technically it isn't, but it might as well be. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure Bush was the most right-wing candidate there was, and Phrack seems to be all about extreme capitalism now, so I'm wondering why he is/was against Bush.

Phrost
19th November 03, 01:37 PM
A. I do rabidly support Capitalism.

B. If I'd known that we'd have a bunch of Muslims crashing planes into buildings a year after the election, I wouldn't have supported Gore. But at the time, he did seem to be the lesser of the two evils.

Clinton ran the country based on which way the winds were blowing, and whatever the most recent polls said. While when it came to national security, he was a failure (now that the facts have started to come out), but he wasn't much of a threat to us as a free market system.

By all indications, Gore was likely to follow in the same footsteps.

On the other hand, the info I had about Bush did not indicate that he'd make much of a president. However, I was wrong about that. For these times, he's EXACTLY the president we need. Had the Muslims decided to throw sand at each other for another 8 years and mostly leave us out of it, who knows what kind of president he would have been. But sometimes you need someone willing to kick a little ass without giving in to pressure from the weak-willed. GWB is exactly that kind of person.

C. I'm mostly Libertarian, except when it comes to some international relations issues. I think that if someone poses a threat to us, we need to actively hunt them down, and exterminate anyone that's even spoken nicely to them.

I loathe people who are so childish in their world view as to think that all problems can be resolved peacefully. While nobody wants to seek out conflict, when it comes knocking on your door you're under no obligation to reason with it at your own expense.

The other thing I'm starting to become more aware of, is the desperate need for society to have an agreed-upon set of morals, and that they be fairly strict. I am not a Christian, but religion has its uses in controlling the population. I'd wager that more people fear Hell than they do prison, and this keeps a lot of the uneducated poor in their place as opposed to robbing and murdering those better off than they are.

A strong family unit IS key to the integrity of a society, and to keeping people off the dole. 2/3rds of Black children born today are being born to single mothers. Statistically, do you have any idea how unlikely it is that a child of a single mother will grow up to anything other than poverty, or at best, a lower middle class lifestyle?

Also, in 2000 I hadn't moved to California. After living in a state run by liberal Democrats, I realized how horrid it would be to have a country run by them. The housing costs are astronomical, fed by a government that subsidizes them by paying welfare land barons exactly what they ask to rent houses out to families with the government footing the bill.

Section 8 housing is in almost every neighborhood, which means your kids go to school with trash, no matter how hard you work to move out of such conditions, unless you can afford $1500 a month for private schools which are little more than up to the standards of public schools in the rest of the country.

Not only that, but you can't go out for a nice evening without having to deal with ghetto trash that walks around with fists full of cash, courtesy of the government paying their living expenses, yelling in movies and in nice restaurants, and basically turning anything nice into the ghetto from which they came.

More and more, I do lean Republican now. Anyone who's disgusted with the idea that there are people out there who want to leverage the success of others to provide comfortable lifestyles to those who are lazy and inept, will eventually start to agree with a mixed Libertarian/Republican philosophy.

Stabu
19th November 03, 01:51 PM
I consider myself a Republican, and I can't stand Bush.

For one thing I am fairly liberal on my views toward the environment, homosexuality, and abortion.

Few more reasons......

I think his foreign policy decisions will cost him the election, and undo what little he and the Republican controlled congress have done. I also don't understand how the war on terrorism caused us to attack a country that has had very little ties to Al-Queda. I found it very disrespectful for Bush to bring up the names of all the people that lost their lives on Sept. 11 every time he needed to sell this war. I don't particularly care for the Patriot Act, and its infringement on civil liberties. ( dumbass, made me agree with Al Gore :angryface )

Phrost
19th November 03, 02:00 PM
Check out this article. It's long, but it's a hell of a read.

The key term to get out of it is "South Park Republican" and it means exactly what you think it does.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_4_were_not_losing.html

Boanerges
19th November 03, 04:22 PM
I consider myself a Republican, and I can't stand Bush.

For one thing I am fairly liberal on my views toward the environment, homosexuality, and abortion.

Few more reasons......

I think his foreign policy decisions will cost him the election, and undo what little he and the Republican controlled congress have done. I also don't understand how the war on terrorism caused us to attack a country that has had very little ties to Al-Queda. I found it very disrespectful for Bush to bring up the names of all the people that lost their lives on Sept. 11 every time he needed to sell this war. I don't particularly care for the Patriot Act, and its infringement on civil liberties. ( dumbass, made me agree with Al Gore :angryface )

I'm not a die hard Bush fan. I like the man but I think he's also made some serious mistakes. Bush is not really a diplomat and it shows any time we deal with pretty much anyone but Britain. He shot himself in the foot by letting Blair talk him into asking the UN for permission to attack Iraq and then did it again by criticizing his closest allies when they weren't as supportive as he wanted (had one UN ambassador chastised specifically for that reason). I think his building of the case for war with Iraq was pretty poor because neither he nor his staff were prepared to do so. We should have just gone in and done it like we did in Kosovo. There probably wasn't as direct a link as Bush portrayed.

But Bush is not as dumb as he seems to like people to think. He was very wise in his handling of 9-11. He's been pretty sharp on actually rooting out Al Queda and the military and intelligence community have pretty badly decimated what little Osama had built. It's also telling when captured people relay their total surprise at the massive response Bush put up. One of Osama's top people said they were expecting more of what Clinton did: fire million dollar missles to blow up $10 tents. Nobody expected a full scale military action. Terrorism won't ever fully be won (only takes one zealot with explosives to become a martyr) but Bush has done a pretty good job in the face of some tough times. The fact that Al Queda has had to struggle to pull off even a handful of attacks recently is proof of that.

Will he win a second term? Probably. The Democrats look to be serving up Howard Dean, a man so far left even Bill Clinton would probably have to turn his head to the left to see him. The nation just isn't that liberal atm and while Dean is guaranteed the "I hate Bush" vote I don't think he's going to get the votes of the mainstream. Dean's solutions to our problems are an abrupt pullout in Iraq (gee, Howard, why don't you just hand Iraq over to Iran then?) and repealing all those tax cuts Bush had put in (translation, Dean wants more of your money in Washington). It's a hard sell, especially if the economy keeps going up and unemployment keeps dropping (in other words, everything the Democrats said wouldn't happen).

deadcat
19th November 03, 11:41 PM
I lost like 8k when Red Lobster's board kicked out our manhating lesbian idiot CEO.

Ive since recovered about 6k since Dick took over for the interim.