Bush planning to use nukes against Iran - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush planning to use nukes against Iran (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:46:12 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
As for the other option being worse, I have to ask myself if they really would be. What really defines Bush as a Republican? His budget policies? Fat fucking chance on that! His border policies? Nope, doesnt seem very Republican there either....

So far, the most we've gotten is someone with some character (not a raving sex-crazed adolescent like Clinton), and someone who has not been afraid to kick ass and take names, if not nearly hard enough.

Let me ask you, do we really have a Republican in office? What would a Democrat do differently? If it were Kerry other then Bush, what would he be doing? Would Kerry secure our border? Would he push to renew a gun ban? Would he have pushed for an extension on the Patriot Act? Would he have fought a war of terror abroad?

We would have filed a strongly-worded objection with the UN, AFTER he had cleaned out his trousers. Other than that, we would have higher taxes, more gun laws, and more terror attacks at home.

The evidence is clear: I wish I could remember the name of the raghead terrorist leader in question, but he specifically stated that Al Qaeda had not been prepared for the ferrocity of the American response to 9/11, and that it had completely disrupted the "second wave" of the attack. I think that counts for a lot.

I just wish he would show SOME indication of even KNOWING we have a problem on the border.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:46:43 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Please Consider
RON PAUL

He has your interests at heart. He believes in the constitution and he damm sure knows what to do with illegals and threats to our nation. He is a Republican in Name Only (RINO) And thats a good thing

Listen to Ron Paul's interview on coast to coast

Then say that.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:46:50 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:48:25 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

That same 'big folks' that think the President is 'raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President'?

Gimme a fucking break. You can't parrot the DU-line and expect people to take you seriously.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:50:00 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

I love it when people have to resort to personal attacks when they have been revealed as democratic party apologists.

Learn how politics works before you speak up in the future. It will save you the embarrassment. That last post was pathetic. Worse then pathetic. It proved my point perfectly.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:50:33 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Total leftist Bullshit!

Every fucking country in the Middle East, except Israel, was behind 9-11. Some nations played greater roles than others, but I didn't see a damned one of their leaders, especially Sadam Hussien, condemn the attacks.

Really?

Name ONE of the hijackers that was from Iraq.
Now, tell me the name of the country that the majority of the attackers were from.

Yeah...Speaking of "Leftist Bullshit" I'm smelling a bit of "Rightist Bullshit"....
"They didnt condemn it so they musta been part of it!"

Name one of the Pearl Harbor bombers that was from Germany.

Yeah, there weren't any, but just like in Iraq, we did the right thing by removing Hitler from power.

All of the Arab countries in the Middle East, Iraq included, sponsored terrorists. Just because none of the hijackers were from Iraq is irrelevent, as they were all funded by and some of them trained by Iraq.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:51:18 PM EDT

[#7]

I dont think there will be a 2008 presidential election. We will ahve a terrorist WMD attack which cannnot be proved of origin but will be blamed on Iran. We will nuke the shit out of them, and martial law will be declared.

Presidente for Life Senor Bush

If there is an elsection think outside the Box and if you have to Write in Ron Paul
www.house.gov/paul/

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:52:23 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I dont think there will be a 2008 presidential election. We will ahve a terrorist WMD attack which cannnot be proved of origin but will be blamed on Iran. We will nuke the shit out of them, and martial law will be declared.

Presidente for Life Senor Bush

If there is an elsection think outside the Box and if you have to Write in Ron Paul
www.house.gov/paul/

Yeah, that'll happen...

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:52:52 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I dont think there will be a 2008 presidential election. We will ahve a terrorist WMD attack which cannnot be proved of origin but will be blamed on Iran. We will nuke the shit out of them, and martial law will be declared.

Quoted, so that you can't edit away your stupidity.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:55:24 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

Total leftist Bullshit!

Every fucking country in the Middle East, except Israel, was behind 9-11. Some nations played greater roles than others, but I didn't see a damned one of their leaders, especially Sadam Hussien, condemn the attacks.

Really?

Name ONE of the hijackers that was from Iraq.
Now, tell me the name of the country that the majority of the attackers were from.

Yeah...Speaking of "Leftist Bullshit" I'm smelling a bit of "Rightist Bullshit"....
"They didnt condemn it so they musta been part of it!"

Name one of the Pearl Harbor bombers that was from Germany.

Yeah, there weren't any, but just like in Iraq, we did the right thing by removing Hitler from power.

All of the Arab countries in the Middle East, Iraq included, sponsored terrorists. Just because none of the hijackers were from Iraq is irrelevent, as they were all funded by and some of them trained by Iraq.

Oh I see, we base our invasion objectives on the negatives of the leadership of the country in question. Gotchya.
What have we done to Saudi Arabia? North Korea? Iran? Syria? etc etc etc.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:55:53 PM EDT

[#11]

Let'em fly... the more the better. Just set them for airburst so we can still get the oil.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:56:38 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
As for the other option being worse, I have to ask myself if they really would be. What really defines Bush as a Republican? His budget policies? Fat fucking chance on that! His border policies? Nope, doesnt seem very Republican there either....

So far, the most we've gotten is someone with some character (not a raving sex-crazed adolescent like Clinton), and someone who has not been afraid to kick ass and take names, if not nearly hard enough.

Let me ask you, do we really have a Republican in office? What would a Democrat do differently? If it were Kerry other then Bush, what would he be doing? Would Kerry secure our border? Would he push to renew a gun ban? Would he have pushed for an extension on the Patriot Act? Would he have fought a war of terror abroad?

We would have filed a strongly-worded objection with the UN, AFTER he had cleaned out his trousers. Other than that, we would have higher taxes, more gun laws, and more terror attacks at home.

The evidence is clear: I wish I could remember the name of the raghead terrorist leader in question, but he specifically stated that Al Qaeda had not been prepared for the ferrocity of the American response to 9/11, and that it had completely disrupted the "second wave" of the attack. I think that counts for a lot.

I just wish he would show SOME indication of even KNOWING we have a problem on the border.

I agree, the man has character, and he has it in spades.
But character doesnt always get it done.

Like I said, I dont disagree with having US troops in the Middle East, or attacking Iraq. But its all utterly worthless if we cant keep Chico and his family from walking right into the country let alone 10 terrorists armed to the teeth intent on evil deeds.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:57:14 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

That same 'big folks' that think the President is 'raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President'?

Gimme a fucking break. You can't parrot the DU-line and expect people to take you seriously.

blah blah blah I'm too stupid to think beyond two options blah blah you hate Bush so your a DU troll blah blah blah.

Seen it all before, try a new line.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:58:24 PM EDT

[#14]

Specop_007's idea for the 2006 and 2008 elections:

"Vote Democrat! They can't be as bad as Bush!"

Just make sure you keep Jimmy Carter in a basement someplace so people aren't reminded just how fucking bad the democrats can be.

Posted: 4/8/2006 6:59:28 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I dont think there will be a 2008 presidential election. We will ahve a terrorist WMD attack which cannnot be proved of origin but will be blamed on Iran. We will nuke the shit out of them, and martial law will be declared.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quoted, so that you can't edit away your stupidity.

Better yet print it out and frame it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:00:23 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
Specop_007's idea for the 2006 and 2008 elections:

"Vote Democrat! They can't be as bad as Bush!"

Just make sure you keep Jimmy Carter in a basement someplace so people aren't reminded just how fucking bad the democrats can be.

Yep, thats exactly what I said isnt it.
Very good, very observant of you.

Any other first grade comments you'd like to make?

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:01:21 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
But its all utterly worthless if we cant keep Chico and his family from walking right into the country let alone 10 terrorists armed to the teeth intent on evil deeds.

Agreed. But that one item does not make me regret having voted for him, no matter how important it is.

Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry would be doing anything different on that issue, but doing LOTS of things different on OTHER equally important issues.

It's just the way it is, man.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:01:45 PM EDT

[#18]

well, this thread has certainly departed from the original topic.

IBTL- hijack, personal attacks, stupidity....

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:01:59 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Seen it all before, try a new line.

Ya, because this doesn't sound like something a leftard at DU would say:

Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

Your words, you deal with it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:02:29 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

That same 'big folks' that think the President is 'raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President'?

Gimme a fucking break. You can't parrot the DU-line and expect people to take you seriously.

blah blah blah I'm too stupid to think beyond two options blah blah you hate Bush so your a DU troll blah blah blah.

Seen it all before, try a new line.

You are the one who started in with the raving lunatic crap. You are the one who launched into the democratic apologist crap. You've proven you have no clue how the political system in the US works. You've proven you love to launch personal attacks rather than making an argument. You argue like a liberal. You sound like a liberal in your posts. You post liberal talking points.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:03:29 PM EDT

[#21]

Yep, thats exactly what I said isnt it.
Very good, very observant of you.

Any other first grade comments you'd like to make?

well first response is usually

Then its an accusation that your a Du'er
Then it get down to name calling like your a libtard

~~Thew~~ Those above and some others are the arguments of the feeble minded when they dont have anything intelligent to say.

Then its usually a call out thru im and email to equally like minded idiots to jump in. They believe stupidity in numbers makes em more intelligent

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:04:40 PM EDT

[#22]

It has taken only me two beers to make this post:

If it's us or them?...I have no problem with it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:05:19 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Specop_007's idea for the 2006 and 2008 elections:

"Vote Democrat! They can't be as bad as Bush!"

Just make sure you keep Jimmy Carter in a basement someplace so people aren't reminded just how fucking bad the democrats can be.

Yep, thats exactly what I said isnt it.
Very good, very observant of you.

Any other first grade comments you'd like to make?

And you still continue with the personal attacks! You just can't understand the fact you haven't a clue about politics. It must be embarrassing for you in public.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:05:20 PM EDT

[#24]

Hersh is notorious for writing bullshit.

www.slate.com/?id=2058474

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:06:59 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

Yet another person who falls for the leftist media tripe...

Oh yes, thats definately it.
Dont be a fucking idiot man, Jesus.

All this "This or that" bullshit is incredibly childish and makes you look like nothing more then a fool.

Just because I dont like Bush doesnt make me a Democrat or a Leftist, unless your so simple minded (Which is apparently the case) you cannot fathom any options between choice A and choice B.

You are misguided…

I knew on 09/11 that Iran, Syria and Iraq would either have to change course dramatically or be changed.

All that remained is the method to get it done.

Why?
What do you think would be more effective for our country.
1) Solidly securing our borders and enforcing very strict immigration so we know who is coming and going.
2) Spending billions of dollars to go overseas and attack a country which wasnt involved in the 9/11 incident, and put us into the position where we will continue to spend billions of dollars a year for decades because we cant leave.

From where I sit option 1 is far preferable. We're already up to our ears in debt.

But all of that is neither here nor there. I understand why we're in this war and dont disagree with it. But it COMPLETELY WORTHLESS if we dont SECURE OUR OWN BORDER. We can invade any damned country we want and if we leave the doors open to our own we accomplish nothing.

Add to that the financial irresponsibility shown and all the other questionable acts and I have a hard time thinking we have the right man as President.

And the truly sad part of the whole deal?
The other option was no better.

And add to the long list of "What the fucks..." this idea....

We are going to use nukes against you so you dont get nukes.

That sounds downright assinine to me.

It's about time our tax dollars were spent for something worthy.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:07:13 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
But its all utterly worthless if we cant keep Chico and his family from walking right into the country let alone 10 terrorists armed to the teeth intent on evil deeds.

Agreed. But that one item does not make me regret having voted for him, no matter how important it is.

Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry would be doing anything different on that issue, but doing LOTS of things different on OTHER equally important issues.

It's just the way it is, man.

So, you wouldnt vote for Kerry because he would have done other things wrong, but you will vote for Bush knowing he does some thing wrongs.

And is there no other candidate? Would the LIbertarian party be more or less in line with your views as compared to Bush?

These are the reasons third parties have no chance in hell. Because people just think in terms of 2 options. Option D and option R.

And if we dont begin to think outside of the box a little bit we're going to continue getting substandard people.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:08:11 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
Yep, thats exactly what I said isnt it.
Very good, very observant of you.

Any other first grade comments you'd like to make?

well first response is usually
Then its an accusation that your a Du'er
Then it get down to name calling like your a libtard

~~Thew~~ Those above and some others are the arguments of the feeble minded when they dont have anything intelligent to say.

Then its usually a call out thru im and email to equally like minded idiots to jump in. They believe stupidity in numbers makes em more intelligent

When are you going to post the pictures of Bush as a monkey? I love that one. How about that he is the stupidest president ever elected? We've already learned he is a raving lunatic in this thread...

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:08:17 PM EDT

[#28]

Oh yes! I hope we blast thier asses to glass!

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:08:55 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

That same 'big folks' that think the President is 'raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President'?

Gimme a fucking break. You can't parrot the DU-line and expect people to take you seriously.

blah blah blah I'm too stupid to think beyond two options blah blah you hate Bush so your a DU troll blah blah blah.

Seen it all before, try a new line.

So is this yet another example you of 'trolling' just because you feel like it, ala the drunk driving thread?

(For those that don't remember, that's where you stated there should be a period of a couple hours every night where drunk driving would be permitted, because only drunks were on the road then.)

You post some stupid shit just to get a reaction.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:09:01 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The democrats aren't that bad. They couldn't be any worse than Bush. Blah blah blah.

Since your obviously to simple minded for this discussion maybe you can save the great PR statements and Koolaid for the rest of the sheeple in other threads, and let big folks talk in this one.

That same 'big folks' that think the President is 'raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President'?

Gimme a fucking break. You can't parrot the DU-line and expect people to take you seriously.

blah blah blah I'm too stupid to think beyond two options blah blah you hate Bush so your a DU troll blah blah blah.

Seen it all before, try a new line.

You are the one who started in with the raving lunatic crap. You are the one who launched into the democratic apologist crap. You've proven you have no clue how the political system in the US works. You've proven you love to launch personal attacks rather than making an argument. You argue like a liberal. You sound like a liberal in your posts. You post liberal talking points.

Actually, YOU started with the personal attacks when I said my bit about Bush.

Yeah, you pegged me. Because I dont like how Bush is doing I'm definately a Democrat. Your a sharp one, no doubt about that. Cant pull the wool over your eyes, no ones fooling you are they.
And becuase I dont like the current system of healthcare that automatically means I want a socialist system doesnt it.
Yep, no middle ground at all.

Your definately on top of things.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:10:14 PM EDT

[#31]

When are you going to post the pictures of Bush as a monkey? I love that one. How about that he is the stupidest president ever elected? We've already learned he is a raving lunatic in this thread...

As per your request

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:10:25 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

Your words, you deal with it.

Absolutely my words!

Hiding how much money we print, giving a flying shit about the border. Yeah, the more time that goes on the more I think this man has no idea what the hell hes doing.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:10:56 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But its all utterly worthless if we cant keep Chico and his family from walking right into the country let alone 10 terrorists armed to the teeth intent on evil deeds.

Agreed. But that one item does not make me regret having voted for him, no matter how important it is.

Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry would be doing anything different on that issue, but doing LOTS of things different on OTHER equally important issues.

It's just the way it is, man.

So, you wouldnt vote for Kerry because he would have done other things wrong, but you will vote for Bush knowing he does some thing wrongs.

And is there no other candidate? Would the LIbertarian party be more or less in line with your views as compared to Bush?

These are the reasons third parties have no chance in hell. Because people just think in terms of 2 options. Option D and option R.

And if we dont begin to think outside of the box a little bit we're going to continue getting substandard people.

So when has a third party ever had a chance of gaining power on the national scene? When in the last 220+ years has a third party been relevant?

Edit: Point out one personal attack I have launched against you. One.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:13:04 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

So when has a third party ever had a chance of gaining power on the national scene? When in the last 220+ years has a third party been relevant?

Roosevelt.

Being as educated on politics as you claim to be you should know that.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:15:18 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
And is there no other candidate? Would the LIbertarian party be more or less in line with your views as compared to Bush?

From what I've seen, I would lean more Constitution than Libertarian.

These are the reasons third parties have no chance in hell. Because people just think in terms of 2 options. Option D and option R.

And if we dont begin to think outside of the box a little bit we're going to continue getting substandard people.

Perhaps.

The bottom line is we either fight inside our party to ensure substandard people DON'T rise to the top, or we go the third route, in which case the opposition will be in power for a long time (unless they fragment, and they won't, because theirs is a MUCH more lockstep party than ours will ever be).

I'm not saying we have an optimum situation, just reality.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:15:33 PM EDT

[#36]

per request

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:16:19 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:

So when has a third party ever had a chance of gaining power on the national scene? When in the last 220+ years has a third party been relevant?

Roosevelt.

Being as educated on politics as you claim to be you should know that.

Excuse me? Wasn't he Republican?

(I'm assuming you mean Teddy.)

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:17:39 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
Quoted:
And is there no other candidate? Would the LIbertarian party be more or less in line with your views as compared to Bush?

From what I've seen, I would lean more Constitution than Libertarian.

These are the reasons third parties have no chance in hell. Because people just think in terms of 2 options. Option D and option R.

And if we dont begin to think outside of the box a little bit we're going to continue getting substandard people.

Perhaps.

The bottom line is we either fight inside our party to ensure substandard people DON'T rise to the top, or we go the third route, in which case the opposition will be in power for a long time (unless they fragment, and they won't, because theirs is a MUCH more lockstep party than ours will ever be).

I'm not saying we have an optimum situation, just reality.

i cant argue with you, it is reality.

Doesnt mean I have to like it though.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:18:26 PM EDT

[#39]

Democrats suck
Republicans pretyy much suck
COnstitution party way to bible thumpery Dont want to live in a theocracy
Libertarian Open Borders? think not

Alternatives? Yeah Ron Paul

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:18:51 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

So when has a third party ever had a chance of gaining power on the national scene? When in the last 220+ years has a third party been relevant?

Roosevelt.

Being as educated on politics as you claim to be you should know that.

Excuse me? Wasn't he Republican?

(I'm assuming you mean Teddy.)

Your correct for the most party.
I'll let our local Political major DigDug fill in all the details.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:19:58 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:
Quoted:

The only good third party candidate is the one that skims votes off of your opponent.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

-Most accurate thing I've read all day

The system being what it is, giving your vote to 3rd party candidate is almost as good as voting for the other guy. Sucks but hey, that's life. Not always fair, bite the bullet and do what you can IMO.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:20:06 PM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

+1. Sorriest excuse for a president ever. His arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:20:36 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
i cant argue with you, it is reality.

Doesnt mean I have to like it though.

I hear ya, brother.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:20:53 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The only good third party candidate is the one that skims votes off of your opponent.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

-Most accurate thing I've read all day

The system being what it is, giving your vote to 3rd party candidate is almost as good as voting for the other guy. Sucks but hey, that's life. Not always fair, bite the bullet and dow hat you can IMO.

While I agree with it, I didnt say it. You got the qoutes messed up.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:22:07 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The more time that goes by the more I think Bush is a raving fucking lunatic who is not fit to be a President.

+1. Sorriest excuse for a president ever. His arrogance is exceeded only by his incompetence.

I think DU has suffered another containment breach.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:22:29 PM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

Roosevelt.

As I said, third party candidates get the other major party elected. Did you not see me post that already? Woodrow Wilson won the election...

Edit: I'll make this a little clearer. Specop_007 just made my point for me again. Roosevelt split the republican party and lost the election to a democrat Woodrow Wilson.

So in other words Specop_007, it would be better to have a third party candidate split the votes and have the republicans lose...

Edit2: What we are seeing here is an example of someone who doesn't know how to keep and retain power. This is a problem with the republican party, and conservatives and libertarians in particular. They will eat their own and expect instant gratification. If they don't get they're way, they will sacrifice the party and let the other guys win just to prove a point. That is how you knock yourself out of power.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:27:56 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:
Quoted:

Roosevelt.

As I said, third party candidates get the other major party elected. Did you not see me post that already? Woodrow Wilson won the election...

Better read a bit more about that election Mr. Political so you can actually understand exactly how it played out and what happened.

That said, what you said is indeed right. The party fragmented and we lost.
What your missing here is the underlying reasons. Sure, you can get in the car and drive it, doesnt mean you know how the engine works.

Well, your driving politics but you surely dont understand it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:28:53 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But its all utterly worthless if we cant keep Chico and his family from walking right into the country let alone 10 terrorists armed to the teeth intent on evil deeds.

Agreed. But that one item does not make me regret having voted for him, no matter how important it is.

Why? Because neither Gore nor Kerry would be doing anything different on that issue, but doing LOTS of things different on OTHER equally important issues.

It's just the way it is, man.

So, you wouldnt vote for Kerry because he would have done other things wrong, but you will vote for Bush knowing he does some thing wrongs.

And is there no other candidate? Would the LIbertarian party be more or less in line with your views as compared to Bush?

These are the reasons third parties have no chance in hell. Because people just think in terms of 2 options. Option D and option R.

And if we dont begin to think outside of the box a little bit we're going to continue getting substandard people.

So when has a third party ever had a chance of gaining power on the national scene? When in the last 220+ years has a third party been relevant?

Lincoln was a third party candidate, when things get too far out of line the political landscape shifts.

But lets ignore the third party discussion for a moment and concentrate on the real heart of the matter, who can win in '08?

And don't fall for that conservative wet dream " we can beat Hillary" either, because it doesn't matter, she won't be nominated.

Who do we have that can beat Joe Biden? A neoconservative isn't going to do it, too many of us are fed up with them, McCain can't do it, and it wouldn't be a victory if he did, so who?

Ron Paul really is the only choice, you go another direction and the GOP is going to get stomped on, a third party will become established as a voting block significant enough that they can swing presidential elections, and the GOP becomes an irrelevent minority party again.

Republicans are fractured because our president has been a horrible disappointment, that's his legacy. You can whine about the media and the voters and whatever but the bottom line is he's destroyed the parties credibility and set back the conservative movement at the time when we can least afford it.

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:31:17 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

The only good third party candidate is the one that skims votes off of your opponent.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

We have a winner!

-Most accurate thing I've read all day

The system being what it is, giving your vote to 3rd party candidate is almost as good as voting for the other guy. Sucks but hey, that's life. Not always fair, bite the bullet and dow hat you can IMO.

While I agree with it, I didnt say it. You got the qoutes messed up. hr

Sorry, DigDug gets cred for that one, and why we're at it, I believe it is quote, not qoute.
JK, couldn't resist

Posted: 4/8/2006 7:31:21 PM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:
www.moresaltplease.com/images/salt%20shaker.gif

I was thinking the exact thing while scolling down...

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Bush planning to use nukes against Iran (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us