Jogging with the President

[ubersoldier87]

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/03/26/loc_amos26.html

And I woudn't be saying that my sources are outdated, when your entire argument has consisted of a bill from 2003 that is now nearly void from bush's budget.

 

[W0RF]

uber, look at my last post, it's updated

:edit: btw, do you get news and information from any source other than op-ed pieces?

oh, and also.....

Wednesday, March 26, 2003

Do you ever learn?

It's a very simple, fundamental rule of politics. Any amount of money less than the maximum you can think of, is a cut. It's not a Republican thing, not a Democrat thing, it's a political thing. Just like Bush ads claiming Kerry voted to raise taxes 98 times (some of those were just "no" votes on tax CUTS).

Oh, and a couple posts back, I cited numbers from the FY2005 budget passed in July. Don't know if you saw that but there's more cuts (meaning increases) in there too.

 

[MÆST]

:tup: to post #1

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Blair is intelligent, though rather confused between socialism and liberalism. Chirac is intelligent, though fanatical in his pursuit of French glory on the world stage. Berlusconi is intelligent, though corrupt to the hilt. Saddam was intelligent, though insane. Bush is not intelligent.

hrm...well I was thinking more American...can you remember the last time we had a truely intelligent person in the Presidency? If it was anyone, it was probably Ronald Reagan...

If you say Clinton, I will proceed to go AWOL. Clinton was as dumb as Bush is.

 

[Sam_The_Man]

really?

Sure. He owns a vast business empire and has used the government for personal gain in a way most African dictators can only dream of. No-one's going to tell me he's stupid. Honesty is another thing entirely, which was my point.

hrm...well I was thinking more American...can you remember the last time we had a truely intelligent person in the Presidency? If it was anyone, it was probably Ronald Reagan...

If you say Clinton, I will proceed to go AWOL. Clinton was as dumb as Bush is.

Perhaps you're right - perhaps America doesn't have a history of electing Presidents based on their capability for government. In which case maybe November is time to start.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Perhaps you're right - perhaps America doesn't have a history of electing Presidents based on their capability for government. In which case maybe November is time to start.

Who are you going to vote for? Kerry and Bush are pretty much equals in all but their political leanings... ESPECIALLY in terms of intelligence. If John McCain was running again, he would have my vote...

I've considered not voting, but John Kerry, besides being unattractive and boring, just doesn't seem like someone that can lead our country. Definitely not any better than GWB, and I doubt that he would handle any situation like we have had in the past 4 years as well as Bush did (as bad as it may or may not have been).

Besides that, the 44% who are still going to vote for him are only voting for him because he is "not bush" not because he would be a good president (come on you know at least half of that number).

^^ IMO.

 

[Fluid]

I've considered not voting, but John Kerry, besides being unattractive and boring, just doesn't seem like someone that can lead our country.

No. Even if both are not of your liking, at least do your country a favor and vote something if only to provide some counterweight to the greater of evils. We all know what happened last time no one voted.

 

[Metakill]

Adolf Hitler was a very compassionate humanitarian who also believed strongly in animal rights. Here is Adolf caring for an otter injured in a hunters trap:

 

[Iron Archer]

Perhaps you're right - perhaps America doesn't have a history of electing Presidents based on their capability for government. In which case maybe November is time to start.

Sam, are you suggesting we vote for you? Hmm... while Bush uses the perception that he is stupid to his advantage, in which case he can prove his detractors wrong, I would argue that you use the perception that you are smart to your advantage, in which case you will fail once your opinions and stances are proven wrong, much like Kerry does, but the truth remains that you are both truly dumb (in the clinical sense) and devoid of any common sense--which is unfortunately unremediable--so you have to resort to tearing down the other guy. You should try Kerry's tactics on for size and reverse your stances a few dozen times--look where it's gotten him.

 

[Metakill]

I always felt the best way to discredit rampant right-wingers was to allow them to speak as much as we could get them to.

So rant away DP!

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You should try Kerry's tactics on for size and reverse your stances a few dozen times--look where it's gotten him.

:tup: +1

edit: made for clarity of my thumbs up. At least one of the candidates has a firm plan for our country.

 

[Iron Archer]

I always felt the best way to discredit rampant right-wingers was to allow them to speak as much as we could get them to.

So rant away DP!

you call that a rant? I beg to differ, the DNC convention was one big rant-fest decrying Bush, nothing more. I'm not going to sit here and argue semantics and crap like Skorch used to, or repeat something I heard on some talk radio show. I happen to have opinions contrary to some of you, and I'll let you know what they are at my own pace. Discredit that.

 

[Metakill]

I'd call making a thread into a smear-campaign against Sam-the-Man, who is neither liberal, American, or someone who had anything to do with this thread until he was attacked, a rant yes.

More, please!

 

[Sam_The_Man]

Sam, are you suggesting we vote for you? Hmm... while Bush uses the perception that he is stupid to his advantage, in which case he can prove his detractors wrong,

He hasn't proven them wrong yet, so his plan must be extremely long-term. Besides, pretending to be stupid and then being smart doesn't play to your advantage at all - it just makes you into a love-hate figure, at best.

I would argue that you use the perception that you are smart to your advantage, in which case you will fail once your opinions and stances are proven wrong, much like Kerry does,

"Once my opinions are proven wrong"? I like the note of inevitability. You sound like a Marxist telling me that one day the capitalist edifice must crumble.

but the truth remains that you are both truly dumb (in the clinical sense) and devoid of any common sense--which is unfortunately unremediable--so you have to resort to tearing down the other guy.

Are you saying that I don't provide solutions, only problems? Well, no, you aren't, you're calling me stupid and hoping I'll lose my temper and say something to prove you right, but I'll assume the best about you for now just to piss you off. But again, you're wrong. In any case, this thread is about Bush the man, not the politician. Retard tried to connect the two: I said it didn't work, and why. The only possibility was 'tearing down the other guy' or building him up, and obviously I did the former - though, as I've already said, I didn't tear him down, just said that Retard had done nothing to build him up. Then somewhere along the way someone called me an idiot. I love the way threads can turn out.

You should try Kerry's tactics on for size and reverse your stances a few dozen times--look where it's gotten him.

With a very good chance of being elected? Maybe I should.

 

[Predcaliber]

always great to see that people start an political discussion, even if the intension was that it was absolutly not to be one. :tdown:

 

[Iron Archer]

always great to see that people start an political discussion, even if the intension was that it was absolutly not to be one. :tdown:

oh the humanity!!!! such a cruel, cruel world!!! FFS why isn't there a "worlds smallest violin" smiley?

Oh and Sam, I was just trying to illustrate how your behavior on this board illustrates the difference between Bush's demeanor and perception thereof--in and out of the public view. You give us dose after dose of what you're all about every day with every post you make, in a public forum, while Bush is basically represented through sparse media coverage that is not always favorable to him. Unfortunately for you Sam, the only media coddling you get here comes from sycophants like tool.

 

[Onsop]

Yea that pic does look photoshoped, it looks off scale. It doesnt realy look like the soldier is supposed to be shorter than bush. Dont be dumb and think that we need a president to defend our country. Thats what the Pentagon is for. Now who will you vote for, the dumbass or the smartass?

 

[Metakill]

Jeez, DP, I rarely like anything you have to say either, but I'm not starting a hate-rally against you. If Sam makes you so upset, put him on your ignore list. He's not the president of these forums, you know.

 

[W0RF]

/me backs slowly away from the thread.

It was a nice thought, anyway, Ren.

 

[_Zd_Phoenix_]

always great to see that people start an political discussion, even if the intension was that it was absolutly not to be one. :tdown:

Start a thread about a politician and it seems quite likely to me it's gonna go that way, especially when it's one as contraversial as Dubya.