Right bashing

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan, 12:29 PM) [snapback]382954[/snapback]</div>

We all know you're happy with a President who's wrong all the time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Jan 30 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]382967[/snapback]</div>

actually thats why i voted against him both times - now we have to keep his "wife" away :lol: Imagine 16 years of governing by polls :blink: when 8 was bad enough B)

If you were referring to President Bush - he has made mistakes - but at least he has followed his convictions and not let polls or popularity rule his roost. I happen to admire people like that. There are lots of Presidents who made tough decisions - only history will provide us with the answer as to whether President Bush was right or not. I wish the Dems could show a LITTLE conviction and step up to the plate now that they control the purse strings - why wont they try to stop the funding for the war?? A bunch of wooosies. I would at least respect them if they tried it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 30 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]382973[/snapback]</div>

I don't understand, and I'm an intelligent person, how you can respect someone for merely following convictions, even when his convictions are WRONG. But, I guess you respect those that you mimic, huh?

I have much more respect for someone who has an opinion, but opens their minds to others, allowing that opinion to morph if necessary.

Polls and popularity are important, at least somewhat. They're easy ways of showing what the people want in their government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Seems to me that you prefer the president as a dictator rather than an actual public servant. Go to North Korea. See how much you like a leader who follows his convictions.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 30 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]382927[/snapback]</div>

I 3rd that!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 30 2007, 04:15 PM) [snapback]382987[/snapback]</div>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 30 2007, 12:14 PM) [snapback]382939[/snapback]</div>

You agree with me that both parties are made up of corrupt, self-serving gangsters??? :blink:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 30 2007, 03:58 PM) [snapback]382973[/snapback]</div>

I don't think we'll need to wait that long ... most of us have figured it out already.

 

I have to agree with dbermanmd, Bush has had the gonads to do more than most. I too respect him for that, at least he didn't cut and hide. I wonder what clinton would have done, if anyhting?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 30 2007, 07:09 PM) [snapback]383053[/snapback]</div>

Again too quick to judge, so what he has taken on the terrorists and kept them at bay so to speak. Could be worse, he could have done nothing.. He went after binladen, yes he finnished what his father started with hussein (clinton didn't finnish he pulled out before completing his deal, I wonder if it was because of the polls) Its nice to see someone who doesnt care about the polls.. So what if he leaves the office as the worst president as far as the libs are concerned, He got alot more done in his term than most.

I really think we should pull everyone out & let the terrorists take over Iraq , heck invite the terrorists to Disney Land all expences paid as a token to how sorry we are that we went to war with them and ask for forgiveness under Ala. Maybe that will work.

Terrorizim is a real deal and the USA has shown them we will not tolerate them we are a Super Power Nation.

Quick someone give Daniel some smelling salts! :lol:

???

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 30 2007, 08:52 PM) [snapback]383088[/snapback]</div>

Done about what? You guys continue to startle me with your lack of reason. What would he have done about Afghanistan harboring the worst terrorist known to man? I'm sure he would've taken the same steps.

However, I doubt he would have had the ridiculous CONVICTION that Iraq needed to be mired in the same mess merely because "Saddam wanted to hurt my daddy..heh...heh..." And btw, if you think he followed his convictions, what about his alleged "conviction" that he wasn't "into nation-building." That conviction flew out the door the second he found an opportunity to blast Iraq.

Thus, we would have fixed Afghanistan, used our troops in ToraBora to take OBL the eff OUT!! Then, we would've worked a political/diplomatic angle to ensure North Korea and Iran weren't doing stupid sh%$ (like they are now), AND, let me add, we'd probably still have a surplus. And Hamas wouldn't be in power. And the Taliban wouldn't be growing in numbers, threatening to take over Afghanistan again. And Saddam Hussein, in all his sadistic glory, would still be containing the mess that is Iraq in his way--which frankly, worked.

Unfortunately, that solution would've required common sense, intelligence, and a recognition that we are actually part of the world, not above it. This is the kind of administration we have not seen since 2000. Sniff.

Maybe I should start making bracelets that say "WWBCD?" The WWJD bracelets didn't cause people to think; maybe the WWBCD braclets would...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 31 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]383220[/snapback]</div>

Actually, Clinton did have an opportunity to kill bin Laden but decided against the operation because of the outcry that would ensue from collateral deaths of women and children that were with him in the compound.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 30 2007, 08:52 PM) [snapback]383088[/snapback]</div>

I am not judging the decision to invade Iraq, what I am judging is the manner in which this war has been conducted. We all agree that Bush has made some monumental errors in judgement. Unfortunately, history will never be able to tell us what could have been if Bush had spent a little more time listening to others rather than ignoring them. There have been so many missed opportunities. Who knows where we would be now if he had accepted Rumsfelds' resignation the first time in 2004 after the Abu Ghraib scandal.

I'm not really sure about the claim that he's got a lot more done than most. He has accomplished very little domestically even with a friendly Congress. He's stretched the Army to the breaking point, emboldening our enemies. He's put us in a precarious situation with Iran. Latest poll shows 58% of Americans want him out of office now.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 31 2007, 09:15 AM) [snapback]383230[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I was aware of that. God forbid that collateral casualties are taken into consideration.

I was assuming that PriusGuy was referring to the past six years...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 31 2007, 08:31 AM) [snapback]383220[/snapback]</div>

clinton did not have the testosterone to do anything after WTC I in 1993 where they tried to kill 50,000 Americans - he did not have the testosterone to do anything after the embassy bombings - he did not have have the testosterone to do anything after the USS Cole was attacked.

what makes you think he would have done anything other than what he did all 8 years in office - RUN and HIDE? JEEEEZ

His only convictions were for perjury - impeachment, disbarment!!


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 31 2007, 09:15 AM) [snapback]383230[/snapback]</div>

What about the outcry from the widows, widowers, and orphans from 9/11?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PA @ Jan 31 2007, 11:30 AM) [snapback]383232[/snapback]</div>

This argument is getting old. Remember the "I support our troops but I don't support the war" argument? That was bogus as well. Makes people "feel" good. The ONLY time people support the "manner in which a war is fought" is if they are winning with the right to re-support it if they win in the end.

I have studied the civil war a lot and President Lincoln was villified from all over due to the conduct of the war. If we were trying to overturn slavery today, we would have allowed the south to secede because too many people were dying.

WAR IS HELL. The only way to fight it is to get in, kill a lot of people, and WIN. Otherwise we should not even start it. I am DAMNED mad at the way the war was fought. I put equal blame on the President AND congress AND THE DAMN FICKLE VOCAL PUBLIC WHO HAVE NO CLUE!!!!!!!

Good thing Independence was fought for in 1776 and slavery died over in 1865 and Nazism destroyed in 1945, 'because I think we have lost our way since then. 2005 on, NO ONE SHOULD DIE FOR WHAT IS RIGHT ANYMORE. So now we have genocide all over the world, with impunity.

Individually, I would risk my life to save a person being attacked in the street, I expect the same from my nation as well.

It no longer matters whether we should have gone into Iraq or not....we DID! Now, we are acting like a person who sits in a corner and picks our scabs, and cuts our bodies. Slowly bleeding hoping someone will come along and save us from ourselves.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(priusguy04 @ Jan 30 2007, 05:52 PM) [snapback]383088[/snapback]</div>

I have no love for Clinton. But I'm pretty sure he would not have invaded a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the 9/11 attack, that was an obstacle to bin Laden's objective of reestablishing the Caliphate, and that was no longer capable of threatening anybody.

This means that some thousands of now-dead brave American men and women would still be alive, along with some tens of thousands (at least) of innocent Iraqi women and children. It means that the Islamic radicals would not be welcomed in Iraq. And as a collateral benefit, when Katrina hit, the National Guard would have been at home and available to respond, and the head of the disaster management agency would have been a competent administrator, and not a political hack with zero experience who botched the job completely; so that some hundreds of the over-1,000 people killed by Katrina probably would have been saved.

And instead of the largest national debt in American history and polemics about how to save social security, we would probably have the largest surplus in our nation's history.

Empires frequently collapse due to military over-extension, and that's the road W is leading us down.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Schmika @ Jan 31 2007, 10:50 AM) [snapback]383266[/snapback]</div>

Just by claiming that the argument is old doesn't invalidate it. It's not as old as the argument for invading Iraq. If you mean that you're tired of hearing it then change the channel but even FoxNews is beginning to side with the rest of us. War is hell, that's true which is yet another reason to go to great lengths not to start one in the first place! The fickle public, as you put it, can rant all that it wants to, it didn't start the war and it's not making it any worse. Prolonging the war and not listening to the growing chorus of voices calling to end it is making it worse. The idea that genocide is the reason for invading Iraq is silly because there has always been genocide committed all over the world and this country does nothing about it. Ditto for fighting for what's right. This country had to be dragged kicking and screaming in to WWII and even then only after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 31 2007, 10:47 AM) [snapback]383264[/snapback]</div>

You sexist pig. (I wonder if being called a pig bothers you as much as being called a dog.) Why does it have to be testosterone that makes someone pull a military action?

I admit that he made a mistake after the Cole. I've long said that was his SECOND mistake in office-the first was allowing the Independent Counsel to re-up.

I used to hold doctors in the highest regard--I assumed them to be intelligent individuals, with great powers of both observation and analysis, as their trade would require. You, unfortunately, have ruined that for me with your unbending, unwavering support of this ridiculous excuse of a leader. I can understand why you would be a Republican, but a good Republican would be horrified at his actions, including spending and special interests. Therefore, you're not a good Republican, analyst, or observer, but a Bush disciple, with no logic or reason included. Idolater, I think, is another good word for it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jan 31 2007, 10:53 AM) [snapback]383268[/snapback]</div>

You are right - he would not have invaded another country - heck - he did NOT even defend Americas's at home where we were being slaughtered. To think he would help others when he did NOT even help his own (whose care he was sworn to protect - but we know he problems with keeping his promises) would be silly - especially given the FACTS that he did not protect us.

Empires rot from within - witness the left today - the anti-americanism - the enablers of evil - those who see evil and call it good and who see good and call it evil.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Jan 31 2007, 11:07 AM) [snapback]383278[/snapback]</div>

Slaughter? Granted, I stayed drunk a lot in '92 and '93 (last two years of college, you see), but the only "slaughter" I remember of the 90s was Oklahoma City. By our own, if you remember.

Oh, and the Chicago Bulls slaughtering all other basketball teams...but I don't think anyone would have wanted Clinton to invade Chicago to make that stop. Except for those warmongering Utes and their Jazzy team.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 31 2007, 11:05 AM) [snapback]383274[/snapback]</div>

Oink.

What about doing nothing after the first WTC attack in 1993? I mean they only killed 6 of us and sent only 1,000 to the hospitals - they were trying to kill 50,000 of us. And what did clinton do? Was doing nothing ok for you too?

The same could be said of you too my friend.

BTW - I am not a republican.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Jan 31 2007, 11:12 AM) [snapback]383282[/snapback]</div>

There was the first WTC bombing. Clinton's administration caught those guys.