Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/1/2004 4:16:14 PM EST
I was just thinking today how Dubya started to look rough later in the debates last nite. I think we should come up with some new catch phrases for him that will better convey his points. I would like to contribute some:

1)with respect to the Global War on terror, my opponent is emphasizing that we maintain a strong goal-line stance at home. I think America is safer if we keep the fight on the enemie's goal line rather than on ours!

2)if we do not pro-actively seek out and destroy terrorism abroad then we might as well be driving at night without our headlights on. While our allies can help, their flashlights are not as strong as our headlights.

3)What do "firehouses" have to do with homeland security? We are dealing with terrorists, no arsonists.

Keep them coming!
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 4:50:34 PM EST
4) We are in a real sandbox, with a real enemy, where the real game is kill the enemy. My opponent's perception of how to handle the situation in his sandbox is not to kill the enemy, but to play patty cake with him.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 5:45:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By ishoot2live:
My opponent's perception of how to handle the situation in his sandbox is not to kill the enemy, but to play patty cake with him.



Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:32:13 PM EST
While your're busy keeping your eye on someones balls, I'll take care of the rest of the world.
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:41:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By five-star:
While your're busy keeping your eye on someones balls, I'll take care of the rest of the world.



That would be cool if he actually says this!
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:44:01 PM EST
Bush needs to spark off a good short speach like the guy that played the President in ID4 did. Bush needs to get the country choked up with all the fire of September 12th, 2004. If he did that during the next debate, he'd hand Kerry his ass back.

Bush also needs to get modivated like Kerry seem to as he went on during the speach, after he realised that Bush was not going to go full on attack mode. Kerry's hands were shaking, cause he was scared Bush would bring up his record and really make him accountable for it, and Bush didn't. Bush was on anoyed mode. Not attack mode.

If he's to do better in the next two, he's going to need to be fully engaged.

Here's one..."Your plan on how to deal with the terrorists sucks! Cause they don't want to make a deal with you, they don't want to surrender to you, they don't want to hurt you...THEY WANT TO KILL YOU AND EVERY OTHER AMERICAN! We need to spend our resources that will keep our country SAFE!"
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 6:47:24 PM EST
I made this argument on another forum, maybe a good 2+ minute closer for Dubya:

People whine and argue that too much emphasis is placed on 9/11. That is bullshit. Nothing has ever posed such an imminent threat to the security of our civilians AT HOME than that day. When I grew up as a kid, sometimes I would have trouble sleeping at night for fear of Mutually Assured Destruction. This was a huge but intangible threat to all of our lives, but there was nothing really to do about it. If it happened, we would just die immediately. 9/11 however showed the entire world that we were very vulnerable to attack by any small group of motivated and relatively invisible fanatics. This group used the laxity of our free society against us to propagate their attack.

This very concept was felt by every single person in America, and almost immediately everyone realized that our lifestyles would be change forever by this one act. This one act was a huge intrusion into our very freedom, because it was clear that things would have to change or we would be open to a huge influx of more such attacks - the same manner that class action suits explode, so potentially could terrorism explode into the US.

What could have been done? Completely isolate the US and its borders, making us virtual prisoners within our own borders? The other option was to strike deep against our enemy- islamofascism. It is completely naive to think that you can pin a single face or country with the bad-guy role of islamofascism- it is prevalent around the world. Rather than strike all over and violate the sovereignty of multiple 3rd world shit holes the Bush administration made a quick and decisive decision to attack the most obvious perpetrator of 9/11, and also the larger threat of Iraq.

After decimating the Taliban, we tore through Iraq and demonstrated the sheer might of a token portion of our military. We have now established bases far more capable than any carrier group right in the midst of the middle east, over some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and are establishing a new democracy in the heart of some of the most fundamental Islamic lands. This is an incredible tactical move. We not only have air and sea based capabilities in the area, but now an enormous land based force projection to deal with any potential adversaries.

So the gliberals gloat and whine that Saddam did not launch 9/11. So what? He had the motivation and capabilities to do far, far more damage than 20 monkeys with box-cutters. Unless someone has a real crystal ball, I challenge their ability to predict who will attempt the next sucker punch on our country. Beginning with the embassy in Tehran, decades of inaction by soft leaders such as Carter and Clinton have only encouraged the islamofascists to try progressively bolder worldwide attacks on our people and interests, culminating with the attacks on our soil with the first WTC attack in the 90' to 9/11.

What is clear is that whatever we were doing was NOT WORKING. John Forbes Kerry was in the Senate for 20 years during that time. There are absolutely NO initiatives on his record demonstrating any useful attempts to thwart islamofascism in that long time period. He was in the Senate during the Marine barracks attack in Beirut '83, Beirut US embassy bombings '83&'84, TWA hijacking in Athens '85, Pan Am hijacking in Karachi '86, Pan Am 103 in Lockerbie '88, WTC '93, Riyadh bombing '95, Dhahran bombing '96, African US embassy bombings '98, USS Cole '00. Kerry's record showed that he missed over 70% of the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings in his reign. He and the administrations did NOTHING back then, why does anyone believe that he will change NOW?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 7:39:08 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 7:39:36 PM EST by ishoot2live]
My opponent claims that he is keeping his eye on the ball.... Well that's fine if your're playing a favorite American pastime.

In my world of the Presidency, the ball that my eyes are on is the ball that is bouncing over the words of freedom...
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 8:03:52 PM EST
ClayP, if Bush were to deliver that rant (actually a slightly polished & edited version) he would guarantee himself a double digit win & Electoral landslide in November!

He needs to cut out the nicey-nice BS, call the enemy out by name, and cut Kerry off at the knees!

Good job!
Top Top