Bush's Iraq policy "endorsed" by US voters - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Mephisto2 · 01-16-2005, 04:55 AM

Quote:

US voters 'endorsed Iraq policy'

President George W Bush has said his re-election has vindicated his administration's policy on Iraq.

Mr Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath.

In an interview in Sunday's Washington Post he said that his re-election was an "accountability moment".

The publication of the interview comes as Mr Bush prepares for the start of his second term on Thursday.

The newspaper asked Mr Bush why no-one had been held responsible for wrong information about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or mistakes made after the US-led war.

"Well, we had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election," he replied.

"And the American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and they chose me, for which I'm grateful."

On Wednesday, intelligence officials confirmed that the US had stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They said the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, was not planning to return to the country.

No troop timetable

Mr Bush would not be drawn on setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, despite recent comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell that troop numbers could be reduced by the end of this year.

"I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. And therefore I am more patient than some," he said.

When asked why the administration had so far failed to locate Osama Bin Laden, more than three years after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the president responded, "Because he's hiding."

Mr Bush said he was "pleased" that Bin Laden had been isolated by the worldwide hunt for him, adding: " I will be more pleased when he is brought to justice, and I think he will be."

Mr Bush will be inaugurated for a second four-year term on Thursday in a ceremony on the steps of the US Capitol building in Washington.

The event includes a parade which will escort Mr Bush and his wife Laura to the White House.

REF: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4178655.stm

I don't know. I think Bush won on domestic issues and not Iraq. I also don't like the way that he's using his re-election as an excuse not to take action against those who fucked up.

Thoughts?

Mr Mephisto

DJ Happy · 01-16-2005, 05:24 AM

It's absurd, but then, so is the man. To take an election victory of 51% to 49% to mean that every voter in the entire country thinks your administration is flawless is not even worthy of being called "twisted logic."

djtestudo · 01-16-2005, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ Happy

It's absurd, but then, so is the man. To take an election victory of 51% to 49% to mean that every voter in the entire country thinks your administration is flawless is not even worthy of being called "twisted logic."

Where did he call it "flawless"?

roachboy · 01-16-2005, 09:54 AM

i once tried this kind of argument out, when i was a kid.
my d- in math was a ringing endorsement of my math abilities.
it was functionally an a.

worked great.
everyone believed me.
just like everyone believes this claim from bush.

Manx · 01-16-2005, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i once tried this kind of argument out, when i was a kid.
my d- in math was a ringing endorsement of my math abilities.
it was functionally an a.

worked great.
everyone believed me.
just like everyone believes this claim from bush.

So by everyone you really mean 51%, right?

Willravel · 01-16-2005, 12:41 PM

This is coming from a source with little credibility, and little history with logic. "Mr. Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath." So people who make mistakes and fail at their jobs won't be heald accountalbe? This is what they are responsible for, and they screwed up. Why would they not be heald accountable?

*Sigh* I hope 51% of you guys are happy, because 100% of us have to live with this.

Rekna · 01-16-2005, 12:45 PM

This is really sad. I don't think this president has a grasp of reality. Now something else that bothers me is that there is no mention of this on fox news but I find it everywhere else.

jorgelito · 01-16-2005, 01:07 PM

Willravel, do you think the BBC is a source of little credibility? Or did I not understand your statemtn?

Willravel · 01-16-2005, 01:31 PM

What I mean is that Bush was not using logic. A leader knows that punishment and holding people responsible for their actions is part of the job. Bush is not holding those who screwed up responsibble for their actions. Bush has little credibility or logic. He lied about al Qaeda/Iraq connection, and Iraq/WMD connection. Sorry about the confusion. BBC is probably the best otu of all the major news networks (not to say it doesn't make it's fare share of biased mistakes, just less than ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc.).

Boo · 01-16-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

... Bush has little credibility or logic. He lied about al Qaeda/Iraq connection, and Iraq/WMD connection.....

I guess that his little credibility got him reelected?

"He lied"..... I really wish that this would go away. If Bush lied about WMD, then so did Clinton and many others. Our intelligence community let us down (or were they lying?). Is it actually lying if you make a statement based on the information provided to you?

I do disagree with his policy of not holding people accountable.

roachboy · 01-16-2005, 01:58 PM

you know, boo, there is an ignominious history--so far relatively small, but nonetheless--into which bush's performance around the war in iraq can be placed--johnson on the tonkin gulf, the maine incident (spanish-american war, cant remember the president)---the only space within which the relativization line you run above operates is conservative media-land.
what is amazing to me is that you--or anyone else--find that relavitization to be compelling, either historically or politically. it indicates a truly strange relation to the plausibility of one's own positions/arguments.
one that you didnt even make up for yourself.

what surprises me is bush's snese of impunity.
because there is no other motivation that can be used to explain such a surreal pronouncement.
must have been the air force jacket he was wearing--maybe it got him all dizzy in a very military kinda way.

roachboy · 01-16-2005, 03:49 PM

later in the same article, we also had this fine interaction with the president of the united states...

Quote:

When asked why the administration had so far failed to locate Osama Bin Laden, more than three years after the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US, the president responded, "Because he's hiding."

source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4178655.stm

Willravel · 01-16-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

I guess that his little credibility got him reelected?

"He lied"..... I really wish that this would go away. If Bush lied about WMD, then so did Clinton and many others. Our intelligence community let us down (or were they lying?). Is it actually lying if you make a statement based on the information provided to you?

I do disagree with his policy of not holding people accountable.

You think credibility got Bush reelected? Your sarcastic remark makes it seem as if it were obvious that Bush was elected on his credibility. That's absurd. Credibility means that he has earned and deserves our trust. WMDs and a link from al Qaeda to Iraq are reason enough to at the very least question what he says before believing it. If people don't understand that, they are simply ignorant to politics, which is what really won the election.

I don't remember saying that Clinton was honest. If you mislead someone, then you are corrected, but you feel no remorse for having led people the wrong way (leading to 100k Iraqi civilian deaths and thousands of American soldier deaths), that shows no character at all. Is it weak to admit when you have wronged people, dileberately or not? His dishonesty becomes aparent through his resolving to continue along the path of the misinformation. That makes it a lie.

Boo · 01-17-2005, 12:39 AM

IN MY OWN FORMED OPINION - It is obvious to me that a majority of the American People believe that President Bush has credibility. This was proven by 51% in an election that many thought he would lose. What of the people that were supportive of the war at the beginning (when they were utilizing the same intelligence that President Bush had)? Its a very distinguished list. I believe that Mr. Kerry was even on it. My point is - Since more information has been garnered and the war effort is experiencing some pretty significant dificulties, people have forgotten the progression of the intelligence. His congress and numerous other people believed the same intelligence that formed his decision. Calling someone a liar because they believed in their peoples ability to gather quality intelligence is shameful. Dislike of his methods, his ability to communicate, his leadership qualities, and his charisma are all worthy of debate.

The politics forum has proven again to be intolerant to other peoples opinions. I will no longer bother you with my "conservative media-filled" statements. As a 21 year, Air Force jacket wearing, retiree, I must be posting in a dizzy, military way. As to the statement about my inability to form my own opinions, I will refrain from commenting.

Mephisto2 · 01-17-2005, 01:16 AM

Boo, the only issue I have is with Bush claiming that the election obviated him from addressing the issues and people who need to be held responsible for their actions. Claiming that, because 51% of the people voted for him, he has a total endorsement for all his policies and doesn't need to do anything is the height of arrogance.

Mr Mephisto

Lebell · 01-17-2005, 09:23 AM

To address the original question, I think Kerry was stronger on national policy and that Bush did indeed win on his foriegn policy, specifically the war on terror, including Iraq.

In in a sense he is very right; if the majority of those voting did not like his overall policies (with what I believe is a heavy weighting of the terror/war issue), then Kerry would have won.

As to not being accountable, I don't know how it was said or what context, but Bush knows damn well that presidents are accountable; he only has to look back at Clinton's impeachment. (Or would that mean that presidents aren't accountable?)

StanT · 01-17-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto

I don't know. I think Bush won on domestic issues and not Iraq. I also don't like the way that he's using his re-election as an excuse not to take action against those who fucked up.

Thoughts?

Mr Mephisto

I think Bush won because 51% of the voting population viewed him as the better of two really lousy choices. Calling this a mandate on any given policy is an excercise in political propaganda and arrogance.

roachboy · 01-17-2005, 11:14 AM

i have noticed that bush is wearing his new velour commander in chief jacket more and more these days, and that something about the commander in chief jacket seems to jack up the level of arrogance in his utterances.

just a thought.

arch13 · 01-17-2005, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Mr Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath.

Nice try, but I reserve the right to hold any elected or appointed official responsible for their actions. That is the very basis of accountability.
It is not legal to preclude the holder of office from such accounability using past accomplishments as a defense.
This would seem to prepping people for something....

mike059 · 01-17-2005, 11:37 AM

Accountability is what someone else has to do, Clinton got impeached for a blow job, If I was married to Hillary, I would lie too. Bush lies to the public, and gets re elected. I remember someone saying "The majority is seldom right" I think that applies here.

fibber · 01-17-2005, 06:36 PM

Wow, an official who performs in the manner endorsed by the majority that elected him.

What kind of fucktarted system is that?

And even when some third party scrub gets to make a run to the double digits and some new asshat gets in on 40-something percent of the vote, I'm guessing he might try and perform in the manner endorsed by the plurality that elected him.

Pehaps even when someone rises to the position of dictator, he may try and take care/follow the wishes of those who helped him achieve that position.

I will take the higher path, next time I get promoted at work, I will go and shit squarely on the center of my bosses desk. That'll show her.

-fibber

JohnnyRoyale · 01-17-2005, 06:41 PM

I don't think Bush won the election at all, I think Kerry lost. The best I can say for Kerry is he really, really, REALLY wanted to beat Bush. Maybe it was the Republicans that were better able to frame the issues during the campaign, but if Kerry had a real plan, he could have pushed that, and made that the focus of the campaign, rather than spending his time responding to the Bush camp's attacks. The guy walked away with victories during the debates, but couldn't set the tone for the rest of the campaign, so either he wasn't as smart as he looked in the debates, or didn't really want to win.

Beating someone who wanted to win is one thing, but beating a guy who doesn't look like he wanted to win in the first place isn't a real victory, or any sort of mandate.

BTW, roachboy, the Spanish-American War was President William McKinley.

fibber · 01-17-2005, 06:52 PM

Yeah, and Indy didn't really seem like they wanted to play the Pats up there so that win should also be stricken. The Pats should do the honorable thing and just forfeit the game to the Steelers. Of course then the Steelers wouldn't have REALLY won then so they would have to automatically forfeit the superbowl. The Eagles won't have TO, so they're not really trying even if they do try their best, so I will go ahead and declare the Falcons the non-winner/winner/non-loser of the season so that Champs has a logo to put on the hats.

Congrats Atlanta,

-fibber

arch13 · 01-17-2005, 07:19 PM

I'm going to say this again.

Quote:

Mr Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath.

Nice try, but I reserve the right to hold any elected or appointed official responsible for their actions. That is the very basis of accountability.

This is just common sense. An elected official, nay any man woman or child, is resposible for their own actions and may be called to task for said actions. They should be expected to be prepared to defend any choice they have made and suffer the consequence's if that choice is found to be incorrect.

That is accountability and it's at the foundation of freedom.

JohnnyRoyale · 01-17-2005, 08:25 PM

fibber: If Kerry was serious about winning, then why didn't he give up his Senate seat, like Edwards did? The unfortunate side effect of one side not doing their best is, the other side wins. Just ask Bush.

and off-topic: Once the Pats are done with the Steelers, it's bird bashing time.

fibber · 01-17-2005, 08:50 PM

To insinuate that anyone who would take MILLIONS of other peoples money AND be subject to some of the harshest most biased attacks for such an extended period would be, to me, tantamount to calling them both an enormous prick and a moron.

I don't think Kerry is either, but I just can't take that he would half-ass it with a strait face.

Now I find both parties in practice to still be quite centrist despite their very public bitch sessions against each other and didn't vote for either, but I'll at least give credit where it's due.

Yes I did refer to my candidate as a scrub earlier.

-fibber

StanT · 01-17-2005, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnyRoyale

fibber: If Kerry was serious about winning, then why didn't he give up his Senate seat, like Edwards did?

Edwards was up for reelection this year, Kerry was not.

roachboy · 01-18-2005, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Polls: Bush not backed on Iraq war

Tuesday 18 January 2005, 11:02 Makka Time, 8:02 GMT

Most Americans disapprove of Bush's support for Iraq

Despite President George Bush's belief that by re-electing him Americans expressed support for the war on Iraq, two recent opinion polls have shown the opposite.

The polls published on Tuesday showed most Americans think the war was a mistake and disapprove of the way their president is handling things in Iraq.

Shortly before Bush's inauguration for his second term in office, a Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that 55% of Americans felt the Iraq war was not worth fighting, against 44% who thought it was.

Respondents also disapproved of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq by a 58 to 40% margin, and 57% of the 1007 adults surveyed by telephone from 12 to 16 January were not confident that the upcoming elections in Iraq would lead to a stable government.

Mistake

Similarly, a USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll published in the nationally distributed newspaper showed that Americans believed it was a mistake sending troops to Iraq by a 52% to 47% margin.

Also based on a telephone survey of 1007 adults, taken between 14 and 16 January, the USA Today poll found that respondents were now more or less equally divided as to whether the United States should keep, increase or reduce current troop levels in Iraq.

Until September 2004, the prevailing opinion in polls was that troop levels should be maintained.

Disapproval

Bush also got majority disapproval ratings on a number of other issues in The Washington Post/ABC News poll: 52% disapproved of the way he is handling the US economy, social security (55%), the budget deficit (58%), immigration (54%) and health care (51%).

Bush got high approval ratings for coping with terrorism (61%) and education (56%). In foreign affairs, environmental issues and taxes, respondents were divided.

However Bush's overall approval rating stood slightly higher than last month at 52%, and 55% of those surveyed said they expected him to do a better job as president during the next four years than he did in his first term.

The margin of error for both polls was plus or minus three percentage points.

SOURCE: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...9FC84966D4.htm

unclear i am on why i had to look to al jazeera to find this kind of article.
unclear i am on why the american press has decided to abandon its critical function relative to this particular, dangerous administration.
but there we are

JohnnyRoyale · 01-18-2005, 07:42 AM

When Bob Dole ran against Clinton, he wasn't up for re election, but gave up his seat when he got the nomination. Kerry didn't. One reason I know Kerry didn't was that Mass. has a republican govenor, and Romney would have put a republican in the seat, but it still smacks of hedging your bet.

fibber · 01-18-2005, 08:15 PM

If that's the case, what kind of fucking morons are running the DNP? If they would have run someone who would have given 100% they would have had a better chance of eclipsing the oh-so-narrow margin. And in addition, every single person who voted for Kerry wasted their vote.

I still have to believe Kerry gave it his all and Kerry voters didn't waste anything. As for the DNP leaders....... no comment. (I liked Dean, Crazy yell and all

)

-fibber

hannukah harry · 01-19-2005, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arch13

I'm going to say this again.

Nice try, but I reserve the right to hold any elected or appointed official responsible for their actions. That is the very basis of accountability.

This is just common sense. An elected official, nay any man woman or child, is resposible for their own actions and may be called to task for said actions. They should be expected to be prepared to defend any choice they have made and suffer the consequence's if that choice is found to be incorrect.

That is accountability and it's at the foundation of freedom.

you can hold the right to hold them accountable all you want, but it's too late for that now. you can't hold a second term president accountable for anything (unless it's criminal). and he doesn't have to hold anyone accountable because we can't hold him accountable for that. that's the problem with term limits, when you're in your last term, you can do whatever teh fuck you want.

drakers · 01-20-2005, 07:44 AM

It scares me Bush was even elected whether it was dealing with Iraq or domestic issue. The guy is a moran, can not admit when he has made a mistake, and feels he is number one and does not have to consult with any other countries before bombing the hell out of one.

Snug · 01-20-2005, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StanT

I think Bush won because 51% of the voting population viewed him as the better of two really lousy choices.

Yup, you just nailed the reason *I* voted for Bush.

FishKing · 01-20-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boo

IN MY OWN FORMED OPINION - It is obvious to me that a majority of the American People believe that President Bush has credibility. This was proven by 51% in an election that many thought he would lose. What of the people that were supportive of the war at the beginning (when they were utilizing the same intelligence that President Bush had)? Its a very distinguished list. I believe that Mr. Kerry was even on it. My point is - Since more information has been garnered and the war effort is experiencing some pretty significant dificulties, people have forgotten the progression of the intelligence. His congress and numerous other people believed the same intelligence that formed his decision. Calling someone a liar because they believed in their peoples ability to gather quality intelligence is shameful. Dislike of his methods, his ability to communicate, his leadership qualities, and his charisma are all worthy of debate.

The politics forum has proven again to be intolerant to other peoples opinions. I will no longer bother you with my "conservative media-filled" statements. As a 21 year, Air Force jacket wearing, retiree, I must be posting in a dizzy, military way. As to the statement about my inability to form my own opinions, I will refrain from commenting.

51%....Look at the people who got him elected...OHIO They were promised jobs and like the WMD that were in IRAQ I think you will not find work in OHIO either...

My next vote will be for JED.... He has all the inside scoop...

Bush was re-elected because no one wanted or though that John Kerry was much better...I have 23 years, Air Force Jacket...Retiree.....

I will call you for lunch.

Laters

01-16-2005, 09:54 AM	#4 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i once tried this kind of argument out, when i was a kid. my d- in math was a ringing endorsement of my math abilities. it was functionally an a. worked great. everyone believed me. just like everyone believes this claim from bush. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-16-2005, 01:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	you know, boo, there is an ignominious history--so far relatively small, but nonetheless--into which bush's performance around the war in iraq can be placed--johnson on the tonkin gulf, the maine incident (spanish-american war, cant remember the president)---the only space within which the relativization line you run above operates is conservative media-land. what is amazing to me is that you--or anyone else--find that relavitization to be compelling, either historically or politically. it indicates a truly strange relation to the plausibility of one's own positions/arguments. one that you didnt even make up for yourself. what surprises me is bush's snese of impunity. because there is no other motivation that can be used to explain such a surreal pronouncement. must have been the air force jacket he was wearing--maybe it got him all dizzy in a very military kinda way. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-17-2005, 12:39 AM	#14 (permalink)
Boo Leave me alone! Location: Alaska, USA	IN MY OWN FORMED OPINION - It is obvious to me that a majority of the American People believe that President Bush has credibility. This was proven by 51% in an election that many thought he would lose. What of the people that were supportive of the war at the beginning (when they were utilizing the same intelligence that President Bush had)? Its a very distinguished list. I believe that Mr. Kerry was even on it. My point is - Since more information has been garnered and the war effort is experiencing some pretty significant dificulties, people have forgotten the progression of the intelligence. His congress and numerous other people believed the same intelligence that formed his decision. Calling someone a liar because they believed in their peoples ability to gather quality intelligence is shameful. Dislike of his methods, his ability to communicate, his leadership qualities, and his charisma are all worthy of debate. The politics forum has proven again to be intolerant to other peoples opinions. I will no longer bother you with my "conservative media-filled" statements. As a 21 year, Air Force jacket wearing, retiree, I must be posting in a dizzy, military way. As to the statement about my inability to form my own opinions, I will refrain from commenting. __________________ Back button again, I must be getting old.

01-17-2005, 09:23 AM	#16 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	To address the original question, I think Kerry was stronger on national policy and that Bush did indeed win on his foriegn policy, specifically the war on terror, including Iraq. In in a sense he is very right; if the majority of those voting did not like his overall policies (with what I believe is a heavy weighting of the terror/war issue), then Kerry would have won. As to not being accountable, I don't know how it was said or what context, but Bush knows damn well that presidents are accountable; he only has to look back at Clinton's impeachment. (Or would that mean that presidents aren't accountable?) __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-17-2005, 11:14 AM	#18 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have noticed that bush is wearing his new velour commander in chief jacket more and more these days, and that something about the commander in chief jacket seems to jack up the level of arrogance in his utterances. just a thought. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-16-2005, 05:24 AM	#2 (permalink)
DJ Happy Psycho	It's absurd, but then, so is the man. To take an election victory of 51% to 49% to mean that every voter in the entire country thinks your administration is flawless is not even worthy of being called "twisted logic."

01-16-2005, 12:41 PM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	This is coming from a source with little credibility, and little history with logic. "Mr. Bush said there was no need to hold any of his officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgements in pre-war planning or managing the aftermath." So people who make mistakes and fail at their jobs won't be heald accountalbe? This is what they are responsible for, and they screwed up. Why would they not be heald accountable? Sigh I hope 51% of you guys are happy, because 100% of us have to live with this.

01-16-2005, 12:45 PM	#7 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	This is really sad. I don't think this president has a grasp of reality. Now something else that bothers me is that there is no mention of this on fox news but I find it everywhere else.

01-16-2005, 01:07 PM	#8 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Willravel, do you think the BBC is a source of little credibility? Or did I not understand your statemtn?

01-16-2005, 01:31 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	What I mean is that Bush was not using logic. A leader knows that punishment and holding people responsible for their actions is part of the job. Bush is not holding those who screwed up responsibble for their actions. Bush has little credibility or logic. He lied about al Qaeda/Iraq connection, and Iraq/WMD connection. Sorry about the confusion. BBC is probably the best otu of all the major news networks (not to say it doesn't make it's fare share of biased mistakes, just less than ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, etc.).

01-17-2005, 01:16 AM	#15 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	Boo, the only issue I have is with Bush claiming that the election obviated him from addressing the issues and people who need to be held responsible for their actions. Claiming that, because 51% of the people voted for him, he has a total endorsement for all his policies and doesn't need to do anything is the height of arrogance. Mr Mephisto

01-17-2005, 11:37 AM	#20 (permalink)
mike059 Tilted Location: Pensacola, Florida	Accountability is what someone else has to do, Clinton got impeached for a blow job, If I was married to Hillary, I would lie too. Bush lies to the public, and gets re elected. I remember someone saying "The majority is seldom right" I think that applies here.

01-17-2005, 06:36 PM	#21 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Wow, an official who performs in the manner endorsed by the majority that elected him. What kind of fucktarted system is that? And even when some third party scrub gets to make a run to the double digits and some new asshat gets in on 40-something percent of the vote, I'm guessing he might try and perform in the manner endorsed by the plurality that elected him. Pehaps even when someone rises to the position of dictator, he may try and take care/follow the wishes of those who helped him achieve that position. I will take the higher path, next time I get promoted at work, I will go and shit squarely on the center of my bosses desk. That'll show her. -fibber Last edited by fibber; 01-17-2005 at 06:47 PM..

01-17-2005, 06:41 PM	#22 (permalink)
JohnnyRoyale Psycho Location: Boston, MAss., USA	I don't think Bush won the election at all, I think Kerry lost. The best I can say for Kerry is he really, really, REALLY wanted to beat Bush. Maybe it was the Republicans that were better able to frame the issues during the campaign, but if Kerry had a real plan, he could have pushed that, and made that the focus of the campaign, rather than spending his time responding to the Bush camp's attacks. The guy walked away with victories during the debates, but couldn't set the tone for the rest of the campaign, so either he wasn't as smart as he looked in the debates, or didn't really want to win. Beating someone who wanted to win is one thing, but beating a guy who doesn't look like he wanted to win in the first place isn't a real victory, or any sort of mandate. BTW, roachboy, the Spanish-American War was President William McKinley. __________________ I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

01-17-2005, 06:52 PM	#23 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	Yeah, and Indy didn't really seem like they wanted to play the Pats up there so that win should also be stricken. The Pats should do the honorable thing and just forfeit the game to the Steelers. Of course then the Steelers wouldn't have REALLY won then so they would have to automatically forfeit the superbowl. The Eagles won't have TO, so they're not really trying even if they do try their best, so I will go ahead and declare the Falcons the non-winner/winner/non-loser of the season so that Champs has a logo to put on the hats. Congrats Atlanta, -fibber Last edited by fibber; 01-17-2005 at 07:00 PM..

01-17-2005, 08:25 PM	#25 (permalink)
JohnnyRoyale Psycho Location: Boston, MAss., USA	fibber: If Kerry was serious about winning, then why didn't he give up his Senate seat, like Edwards did? The unfortunate side effect of one side not doing their best is, the other side wins. Just ask Bush. and off-topic: Once the Pats are done with the Steelers, it's bird bashing time. __________________ I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

01-17-2005, 08:50 PM	#26 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	To insinuate that anyone who would take MILLIONS of other peoples money AND be subject to some of the harshest most biased attacks for such an extended period would be, to me, tantamount to calling them both an enormous prick and a moron. I don't think Kerry is either, but I just can't take that he would half-ass it with a strait face. Now I find both parties in practice to still be quite centrist despite their very public bitch sessions against each other and didn't vote for either, but I'll at least give credit where it's due. Yes I did refer to my candidate as a scrub earlier. -fibber

01-18-2005, 07:42 AM	#29 (permalink)
JohnnyRoyale Psycho Location: Boston, MAss., USA	When Bob Dole ran against Clinton, he wasn't up for re election, but gave up his seat when he got the nomination. Kerry didn't. One reason I know Kerry didn't was that Mass. has a republican govenor, and Romney would have put a republican in the seat, but it still smacks of hedging your bet. __________________ I'm gonna be rich and famous, as soon I invent a device that lets you stab people in the face over the internet.

01-18-2005, 08:15 PM	#30 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	If that's the case, what kind of fucking morons are running the DNP? If they would have run someone who would have given 100% they would have had a better chance of eclipsing the oh-so-narrow margin. And in addition, every single person who voted for Kerry wasted their vote. I still have to believe Kerry gave it his all and Kerry voters didn't waste anything. As for the DNP leaders....... no comment. (I liked Dean, Crazy yell and all ) -fibber

01-20-2005, 07:44 AM	#32 (permalink)
drakers Psycho Location: IOWA	It scares me Bush was even elected whether it was dealing with Iraq or domestic issue. The guy is a moran, can not admit when he has made a mistake, and feels he is number one and does not have to consult with any other countries before bombing the hell out of one.