Portrait of a Psycho
- Thread starter PoundTheRock
- Start date
Sorry to inform you sir, but refusing to worship Clinton against your wish does not make one brain dead. Why go after Osama when you can take Ruby Ridge instead!!
By the way, the numbers at those rally's are not small. Take another look.
Oh, Ok. He aint that bad. I had those sunglasses in 84 when Sonny Crockett ruled the ratings.
This is the Democrats' idea of a way to appeal to the majority of voters who rejected them the last two elections.
Bush has been a mediocre president, but if I could redo the past two elections, I would still prefer him to Gore or Kerry.
Yep, god forbid the supreme court would have selected Gore in 2000. He would have failed to prevent a devastating terror attack on our soil, would have failed to catch terrorist #1 (and terrorists #2, #3, #4...). Gore would have alienated and pissed off the rest of the world, would have been unable to effectively deal with a real Iranian nuclear thread and would have bankrupted the treasury. Thank god we elected George Dubaiya Bush and none of that has happened.
Gore gave a speech in Saudi Arabia recently in which he said we have pursued a reign of terror on arabs living here. He and Kerry feel eavesdropping on al qaeda communications with americans is just wrong. I shudder to think how many terror attacks we would have suffered if either of these two were in charge.
We would still be sending aid to North korea to assist in their nuclear violations. Iraq would probably have nukes, as well as a big chemical/biologic stockpile and the Taliban would still be ruling Afghanistan.
Gore gave a speech in Saudi Arabia recently in which he said we have pursued a reign of terror on arabs living here.
That's not exactly what he said but it was still a bad idea, Bush selling our ports to UAE is 100 times worse idea though.
He and Kerry feel eavesdropping on al qaeda communications with americans is just wrong.
Oh please, I'd expect it from sputr but you know better than that, their position is that eavesdropping WITHOUT A COURT WARRANT WHICH IS EXTREMELY EASY TO OBTAIN is just wrong.
I shudder to think how many terror attacks we would have suffered if either of these two were in charge.
Hmm, I am not hearing about Bush prevening attacks on our soil either. I am not sure what he's done in this respect either - ports, borders, public transportation are as unprotected as they were 5 years ago. Clinton on the other side did prevent quite a few terror attacks.
We would still be sending aid to North korea to assist in their nuclear violations.
Whether we are sending aid or not, NK is developing nukes and bush is doing absolutely nothing about it.
Iraq would probably have nukes, as well as a big chemical/biologic stockpile and the Taliban would still be ruling Afghanistan.
Even Nader would have invaded Afghanistan, don't forget it was even approved by the UN, the french germans, chinese and russians. They would not have invaded Iraq which did not have nukes of course. Maybe they would then have sufficient resources today to deal with nuclear Iran.
I don't worship Bush nor do I approve of everything he does. I don't think everything Clinton did was wrong either. We've been through this before. Most of the liberal posters on this board kind of follow that lead in the reverse situation though.
-Clinton invades no enemy of ours w/ no threat - Hero
-Bush invades radical Muslims post 9/11 - Terrorist/ war criminal.
What a joke.
I could go on all night coming up w/ examples, but Ill let the previously mentioned thread take care of that.
Anyway, I did approve of Clintons welfare reform. My hats off to him for that.