KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Who do you guys think would be the best to represent the Democratic Party? I side with Howard Dean. He seems to have great views. And I truly believe he could make the United States a better country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 As long as his last name isn't Lieberman or Sharpton I think he'll be OK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GASHWOUND Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Who do you guys think would be the best to represent the Democratic Party? I side with Howard Dean. He seems to have great views. And I truly believe he could make the United States a better country. Al Franken??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Dean is Kucinich light. The race will end up probably being Dean vs Bush though. And I'll end up voting Dean, then running to a bathroom to puke my guts out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Dean is Kucinich light. The race will end up probably being Dean vs Bush though. And I'll end up voting Dean, then running to a bathroom to puke my guts out. Well what do you think of Dean, sideshow? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDF Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 As long as his last name isn't Lieberman or Sharpton I think he'll be OK. what is wrong with lieberman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 what is wrong with lieberman Lieberman has agreed with a former drug czar [i believe the last name is Bennett] when the czar said that we should fight crime in Washington DC by "rounding up all blacks and put them on barges in the Potomac". Lieberman called himself as an expert about music and how lyrics make kids do things. To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "There are a lot of songs about love. I don't see everybody holding hands." He said that the kids committed the Arkansas school shootings because according to their teachers, "They were fine boys until they started listening to that 2Pack Shaker and them Bone Thugs and Harmony." He didn't mention that the two kids sung in the church choir regularly. He is an ally of Pat Robertson...the guy who claimed homosexuals, atheists, ACLU, People for the American Way, and other non Christian people [surprisingly he and Jerry didn't mention people who practice fundamentalist Islam] were responsible for 9/11. Lieberman wants to create a blanket ratings system for movies, video games, CD's and music live acts. He wants to institute government approved labels for music that CD's will need in order to be sold. He is part of the Parents Television Council that helped to get shows like Family Guy taken off the air under the guise of family values. I have a lot more about Joe but it's downstairs at the current moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Lieberman has agreed with a former drug czar [i believe the last name is Bennett] when the czar said that we should fight crime in Washington DC by "rounding up all blacks and put them on barges in the Potomac". Lieberman called himself as an expert about music and how lyrics make kids do things. To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "There are a lot of songs about love. I don't see everybody holding hands." He said that the kids committed the Arkansas school shootings because according to their teachers, "They were fine boys until they started listening to that 2Pack Shaker and them Bone Thugs and Harmony." He didn't mention that the two kids sung in the church choir regularly. He is an ally of Pat Robertson...the guy who claimed homosexuals, atheists, ACLU, People for the American Way, and other non Christian people [surprisingly he and Jerry didn't mention people who practice fundamentalist Islam] were responsible for 9/11. Lieberman wants to create a blanket ratings system for movies, video games, CD's and music live acts. He wants to institute government approved labels for music that CD's will need in order to be sold. He is part of the Parents Television Council that helped to get shows like Family Guy taken off the air under the guise of family values. I have a lot more about Joe but it's downstairs at the current moment. Well.............yeah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Dean is Kucinich light. The race will end up probably being Dean vs Bush though. And I'll end up voting Dean, then running to a bathroom to puke my guts out. Well what do you think of Dean, sideshow? He's a more middle of the road version of Dennis Kucinich [the guy I am backing for President]. Kucinich one ups Dean on every stance with a better approach that is more to my liking. The straw that broke me off the Dean bandwagon was that he supports the death penalty at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. Well here's a page of Bush's lies so it wouldn't completely surprise me if he was lieing about WMD. Frankly I'm pretty sure he is. http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html This is only page 1 of the lies too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. Well here's a page of Bush's lies so it wouldn't completely surprise me if he was lieing about WMD. Frankly I'm pretty sure he is. http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html This is only page 1 of the lies too! I want you to concede right now that if you followed ANY president's every word over the course of 3 years, you'd find just as many "lies". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. Well here's a page of Bush's lies so it wouldn't completely surprise me if he was lieing about WMD. Frankly I'm pretty sure he is. http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html This is only page 1 of the lies too! I want you to concede right now that if you followed ANY president's every word over the course of 3 years, you'd find just as many "lies". That's probably true, but I'm just trying to illustrate how it is quite fair to think that George W. Bush was lieing about WMD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 My point is thought, that the United States would be a better country if a man like Howard Dean was president. Not only for America but for all the other countries of the world as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Isn't that Senator, John Kerry I think his name is, going to run? Either way, it doesn't matter who the Democrats put against Bush -- Bush is either going to win or lose on his own merit. In other words, if the economy gets better by November of '04, he'll be a lock. Well if Iraq keeps going at the pace it's going with more troops dying nearly every day and the whole thing about intelligence failures. The CIA, according to the Washington Post, cut the uranium from Africa stuff in October...so they are wondering how it made it into Bush's speech in January. More and more people are getting disgruntled about the Iraq war and how much money it is going to take to deal with that. If people start sifting through Bush's lies and bulls***, he'll be out in 2004 for sure. Kerry is going to run but he voted for the Iraq war. I wonder how he and Lieberman thought being more Republican than the Republicans would get them the Democratic ticket. I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. Well here's a page of Bush's lies so it wouldn't completely surprise me if he was lieing about WMD. Frankly I'm pretty sure he is. http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/bushlies1.html This is only page 1 of the lies too! I want you to concede right now that if you followed ANY president's every word over the course of 3 years, you'd find just as many "lies". That's probably true, but I'm just trying to illustrate how it is quite fair to think that George W. Bush was lieing about WMD. Maybe, but some people think he was lying simply because we haven't found anything yet, and that's not fair. Maybe if the UN was honest, they would have found them for us months if not years ago and saved this country billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of our service men. Of course, that would be expecting far too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 Maybe, but some people think he was lying simply because we haven't found anything yet, and that's not fair. Maybe if the UN was honest, they would have found them for us months if not years ago and saved this country billions of dollars and the lives of hundreds of our service men. Of course, that would be expecting far too much. I'm not sure if this really has anyything to do with it but the United Nations is severely under financed right now and has been severely restricted in their activities. And in fact more that half of the debt owed to the United Nations is owed by the United States. So in my opinion the Bush administration cannot place any of the blame for the WMD issue on the United Nations. I'd also like to add that the United Nations is far from being perfect and they have made some very poor decisions in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I don't know why everyone is so surprised that this Iraq war is going the way it is. Did they expect us to go in and have 0 casualties. If you ask me, it's gone very well. When you consider that every solitary US death was analyzed ad nausium, it just seems a lot worse than it really is/was. And until we've been in there a while longer and give us more time to search for the supposed WMD, it's far too early to paint Bush as a liar. Sure, he's a liar because he's a politician, but it's too early to say he lied about all of the things he said about Iraq. Time will tell. And how many democrats voted "yes" to the Iraq war? Just curious. http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/...sp?story=424008 The Independent in Britain has done a study of reasons for war and how they were false. It's easy to see Bushie's lies. He lied when he said he hadn't made up his mind about going to war. [March 2002...he was quoted as saying "f*** Saddam. We're taking him out." without proof or reason] http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/24/...imep.saddam.tm/ Link that shows the quote and explains it He lied about the Niger-Uranium deal that never happened. Colin Powell said, "I'm not reading this - this is bulls***." [when Bush, Blair and he met the morning of the UN speech about the UN speech] Rummy lied when he said he knew exactly where the WMDs were, near Baghdad and Tikrit. Where are they if we said we knew where they were and had satellite photos that could track the movement of them? Now they're saying we might be there as long as four more years. His own generals told him not to go into Iraq. The UN told him not to go in, as did every one of our allies excepy Tony the Discredited. His own father, and his father's National Security Advisor Brent Snowcroft told him not to go alone. But this is what happens when cocaine addict, boozehound, AWOL spoiled little boy never had a fair fight in his entire life. Bush hasn't the slightest clue about how the world works - daddy always did everything for him. He's not capable of comprehending what "consequences" are because he's never had to face any. Since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", there has been on average one US soldier dying every day until today. So they are not over analyzing. There have been simply, a multitude of deaths over there but to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "Stuff happens." [and one of the soldiers recently killed by a sniper was from my home town so there have been a few more people questioning the Bush reasons for war here because the death hit home] And to your Democrats that voted for the authorization of force in Iraq... 81 Democrats in the House voted for it Democrat Yes Voters Link 29 Democrats in the Senate voted for it Democat Yes Voters Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndySoxFan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 good god, this place is a f***ing liberal hotbed. well, i have had enough of you and your ilk. go f*** a tree hippie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KipWellsFan Posted July 15, 2003 Author Share Posted July 15, 2003 I LIKE BEING A TREE HUGGER!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndySoxFan Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I LIKE BEING A TREE HUGGER!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 Since Bush declared "Mission Accomplished", there has been on average one US soldier dying every day until today. So they are not over analyzing. There have been simply, a multitude of deaths over there but to quote Donald Rumsfeld, "Stuff happens." [and one of the soldiers recently killed by a sniper was from my home town so there have been a few more people questioning the Bush reasons for war here because the death hit home] When was the mission declared accomplished? I don't really recall that. But, I do recall that the object of the mission was to overthrow Saddam's regime, and I haven't seen him or his cronies doing much lately. And many of his henchmen have either been captured or have surrendered. Sounds like a fairly successful mission up to this point. And of course our soldiers are dying -- it's war dude. And they're being shot at from buildings full of citizens. What do you think is going to happen? And like I said, with every death being front page news (unlike wars in the past due to a lack of extensive media outlets), of course people are going to be up in arms. And Rumsfeld, in a sick and cold way, is right. Stuff does happen, and it's unfortunate that Saddam had to bring it to this point. But, hopefully we will never have to deal with that sick motherf***er again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clujer420 Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 good god, this place is a f***ing liberal hotbed. well, i have had enough of you and your ilk. go f*** a tree hippie LOL, yeah, lots of liberals on here it would seem. I, for the record, am independent, just as any open-minded, clear thinking person would be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 I'm not sure if this really has anyything to do with it but the United Nations is severely under financed right now and has been severely restricted in their activities. And in fact more that half of the debt owed to the United Nations is owed by the United States. So in my opinion the Bush administration cannot place any of the blame for the WMD issue on the United Nations. I'd also like to add that the United Nations is far from being perfect and they have made some very poor decisions in the past. Blix said that they were making gains in their search but Bush and Co. kept pressuring that we needed to invade and not allow the search. In later interviews, Blix has called Bush and Co. "bastards" for subverting their search attempts at every point. Bushie was the one who went over the UN and said we were invading despite what Blix did or said. Let's not forget that the blood of the 200+ dead US soldiers is on Bush's hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.