Anyone remember those Bush campaign promises?

[spillmind]

i know i haven't had a lot of time to frequent the board as of late... and apologies to anyone i've left hanging. it's tough when you are trying to defend your posts from about ten different angles.

i thought i'd post this site, since it seems like many forgot about what bush promised when he took (haha) office in 2000. enjoy!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kerry's foolishness, lies, and idiocy on a daily basis make this election decision a no brainer for anyone with a brain. Broken promises? You're soaking in it!

 

[Annie]

i know i haven't had a lot of time to frequent the board as of late... and apologies to anyone i've left hanging. it's tough when you are trying to defend your posts from about ten different angles.

i thought i'd post this site, since it seems like many forgot about what bush promised when he took (haha) office in 2000. enjoy!

For god's sake man, you are taking us to a blog of left wing blogs. Be done with it and send interested members to: www.democraticunderground.com Of course, with most of the members, they will be blocked with their first post. Due to the real belief in the 1st amendment practiced there! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

 

[spillmind]

Kerry's foolishness, lies, and idiocy on a daily basis make this election decision a no brainer for anyone with a brain. Broken promises? You're soaking in it!

foolishness? lies? idoicy?

that's nothing but a bunch of baseless right wing propaganda!

here's kerry's legislation record:

http://kerry.senate.gov/low/atwork_legislation.html#

meanwhile, you haven't defended ANY of the points from this site i just posted, just dismissed it all out of apathy or ignorance! because it makes you feel better about your failure LIAR of a president! oh that's right, bush doesn't take oaths! you better believe he doesn't because he never would last eight years before he's impeached!

i expected nothing less

 

[spillmind]

For god's sake man, you are taking us to a blog of left wing blogs. Be done with it and send interested members to: www.democraticunderground.com Of course, with most of the members, they will be blocked with their first post. Due to the real belief in the 1st amendment practiced there! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

don't use god's name in vain when your boy commissions death on a daily basis. you don't want the judgement that is coming for shrub targeted at yourself. a little advice, take it for what it's worth.

the links are ALL VALID, and the points are very well made. unless you can dispute the nature and the disparity between ANY of them, i'll assume you see my point and are just too prideful to actually post in agreement or at least concession to the truth.

i'll just guess this will be the same as the michael moore bibliography. only half spins on a couple points, while scores others go unnoticed and dismissed. selective ignorance seems to be the re-curring trend in bushies.

just put those blinders on and dismiss it all as left wing bias. i'm sure your cronies would love to see that old recycled act!

nobody will be disputing anything, and i love it! bring on the tangents!

 

[Annie]

don't use god's name in vain when your boy commissions death on a daily basis. you don't want the judgement that is coming for shrub targeted at yourself. a little advice, take it for what it's worth.

the links are ALL VALID, and the points are very well made. unless you can dispute the nature and the disparity between ANY of them, i'll assume you see my point and are just too prideful to actually post in agreement or at least concession to the truth.

i'll just guess this will be the same as the michael moore bibliography. only half spins on a couple points, while scores others go unnoticed and dismissed. selective ignorance seems to be the re-curring trend in bushies.

just put those blinders on and dismiss it all as left wing bias. i'm sure your cronies would love to see that old recycled act!

nobody will be disputing anything, and i love it! bring on the tangents!

Spilly, you don't win any awards cause you do keep us laughing.

 

[spillmind]

Spilly, you don't win any awards cause you do keep us laughing.

it's much easier to insult me and treat me like i am not deserving of any of your 'awards' than it is to deal with the TRUTH, let alone debate anything.

and here i thought more of you guys.

 

[Annie]

it's much easier to insult me and treat me like i am not deserving of any of your 'awards' than it is to deal with the TRUTH, let alone debate anything.

and here i thought more of you guys.

spilly, look at what you posted and the site I also posted. then laugh.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Kerry doesn't know where he stands moment to moment on any issue. He just goes whichever way the wind blows.

To imply that he is somehow a firm decisive leader in any respect compared to bush just doesn't even merit any serious consideration. The man is a waffling, antiamerican joke. This discussion warrants no serious effort. Your points are prima facie ridiculous.

 

[spillmind]

spilly, look at what you posted and the site I also posted. then laugh.

hilarious. too bad i don't see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

 

[Annie]

hilarious. too bad i don't see how that has anything to do with the topic at hand.

Spilly it does, indeed. The results of your post are found here at www.democraticunderground.com

 

[spillmind]

Kerry doesn't know where he stands moment to moment on any issue. He just goes whichever way the wind blows.

To imply that he is somehow a firm decisive leader in any respect compared to bush just doesn't even merit any serious consideration. The man is a waffling, antiamerican joke. This discussion warrants no serious effort. Your points are prima facie ridiculous.

and that is different from bush... how? so bush can firmly lead our country off the cliff?
firm decisive leader? when did i imply that? or when did i say that was paramount over all else, including underestimating the war, being fiscally irresponsible, and not address many important domestic issues?

before you have any 'reputation' or credibility, i challenge you to debate any ONE of the points on there, to give yourself a good reason to dismiss them all (all from reputable news sources) as ridiculous.

*you*, my friend-look far more ridiculous throwing around character assassinations and slandering with no basis.

 

[Annie]

and that is different from bush... how? so bush can firmly lead our country off the cliff? firm decisive leader? when did i imply that? or when did i say that was paramount over all else, including underestimating the war, being fiscally irresponsible, and not address many important domestic issues?

and we are looking you as the final arbitar of what? Spilly, you can throw around incompetant or shallow, but 'indicisive?' I don't think so.

before you have any 'reputation' or credibility, i challenge you to debate any ONE of the points on there, to give yourself a good reason to dismiss them all (all from reputable news sources) as ridiculous.

daily kos? lol reputable? double

*you*, my friend-look far more ridiculous throwing around character assassinations and slandering with no basis.

You're opinion perhaps, but not sourced.

 

[spillmind]

Spilly it does, indeed. The results of your post are found here at www.democraticunderground.com

sorry, you're going to have to hold my hand through that one. i don't frequent that site, and it looks like it may lean to far to the left for me.

are we ever going to get to ONE SINGLE POINT of the topic at hand?

if there's something you want to cut and paste from a thread that was started there over this web page i just posted, feel free to do so.

but if this is some attempt at labeling me and totally ignoring the post and the site's content altogether, let's call a spade a spade. i'm a bit tired of the old 'liberate the iraqis but then we carpet bomb them' schtick. enough beating around the shrub.

 

[Comrade]

i know i haven't had a lot of time to frequent the board as of late... and apologies to anyone i've left hanging. it's tough when you are trying to defend your posts from about ten different angles.

i thought i'd post this site, since it seems like many forgot about what bush promised when he took (haha) office in 2000. enjoy!

It's all a list of tomfoolery. Who'd want to go through the entire tirade?

French President Chirac is NOT welcome to the (Texas)
ranch

[Bush on French President Chirac]: "...As Washington's
anti-French rhetoric reached a particularly acrimonious
pitch this year, Bush was characteristically blunt about
the chances of French President Jacques Chirac making it to
Crawford. "I doubt he'll be coming to the
ranch any time soon," said Bush in a television
interview last month..."

If this twisted, contorted logic arrives at one completely unfounded conclusion why look further?

 

[spillmind]

and we are looking you as the final arbitar of what? Spilly, you can throw around incompetant or shallow, but 'indicisive?' I don't think so.

daily kos? lol reputable? double

You're opinion perhaps, but not sourced.

i'll admit, bush is an unwavering, stubborn, alienating leader. look at all the support from other nations in iraq. but i don't see how this has to do with campaign promises.

daily kos? lol reputable? double you are speaking in tounges. and i'm going to cry if i don't get good reputation points here BOO HOO

and yes, it is my opinion. maybe if you didn't have such a skewed partisan bias, you might even see what others see occaisonally. *GASP*

explain to us why all of our NATO allies' people overwhelmingly support kerry over bush?

''Among Washington's traditional NATO allies, Kerry was strongly preferred over Bush. The biggest margin was found in Norway -- 74-7 percent; in Germany, its was 74-10 percent; in France 64-5 percent; the Netherlands, 63-6 percent; Italy (whose prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has been a staunch Bush advocate), 58-14 percent; Spain, 45-7 percent; and Britain, 47-16 percent.. ''

''In Canada, Kerry was preferred by 61 percent to 16 percent, and in Japan, the margin was a closer 43 percent to 23 percent. In traditionally neutral Sweden, the margin was 58 percent to ten percent.''

'' Brazil (57-14 percent) and the Dominican Republic (51-38 percent). In the rest, he scored strong pluralities, including Venezuela (48-22 percent), Colombia (47-26 percent), Argentina (43-6 percent); Mexico (38-18 percent), Uruguay (37-5 percent), and Bolivia (25-16 percent).''

''The strongest negative views of U.S. foreign policy under Bush were found in Germany, where 83 percent of respondents said their image of Washington's role in the world had gotten worse. Others with similar perceptions included France (81 percent); Mexico (78 percent); China (72 percent); Canada and the Netherlands (71 percent); Spain (67 percent); Brazil and Italy (66 percent); Argentina (65 percent); and Britain (64 percent).''

i'm beginning to think that everyone here KNOWS that bush bushitted on all of these campaign promises, and no one has the balls to admit it.

instead, assassinate away my character, kerry's character, and totally avoid the topic. mad props, big ups and all that.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hey spillmindless, the EU idiots are just jealous of our ascendant status in the world. They do not want us to do what is in our best interest, and their envy is so extreme, they're willing to empower the evil enemies of civilization.

And remember, there were actually something like 35 nations in the coalition of the willing. Come on, now why don't you denigrate their contributions in that charming manner you libs have adopted as of late.

 

[spillmind]

It's all a list of tomfoolery. Who'd want to go through the entire tirade?

French President Chirac is NOT welcome to the (Texas)
ranch

[Bush on French President Chirac]: "...As Washington's
anti-French rhetoric reached a particularly acrimonious
pitch this year, Bush was characteristically blunt about
the chances of French President Jacques Chirac making it to
Crawford. "I doubt he'll be coming to the
ranch any time soon," said Bush in a television
interview last month..."

If this twisted, contorted logic arrives at one completely unfounded conclusion why look further?

oh, i'm sorry. i forgot you all spoke so highly of the french here. are you saying GW never said that? and if you admit he did, is he a flip-flopper now that chirac is welcome to crawford ranch? or does he still shun chirac? please be a bit more specific.


note his PROMISES about the economy and social security. i guess if he makes a campaign PROMISE and then fails in that PROMISE, he's not really lying, right? riiiiiiiiiiight.


2/27/01
Will protect Social Security surplus in its entirety

[Bush] "...To make sure the retirement savings of
America’s seniors are not diverted into any other
program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of
the Social Security surplus for Social
Security and for Social Security alone..."

10/3/00

A promise made on safeguarding Social Security
surplus will be a promise kept

[Bush]: "...The revenues exceed the expenses in Social
Security to the year 2015, which means all retirees
are going to get the promises made. So for those of
you who [Gore] wants to scare into the voting booth
to vote for him, hear me loud and clear:
A promise made will be a promise kept..."

3/22/01

Will never dip into Social Security Surplus to
finance spending

[Bush] "...For years, politicians in both
parties have dipped into the Trust Fund
to pay for more spending. And I will stop it..."


and then the reality:

not only did he not protect the Social Security surplus,
he has used up the surplus to finance gigantic budget
deficits due to massive tax cuts for millionaires
and massive spending.
[Daniel Gross]: "...In his first three budgets, Bush
(who had the good fortune to take office at a time
when the surpluses were growing rapidly) and
Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security
payroll taxes to fund basic government operations
—about $160 billion per year!
By so doing, Washington spenders have masked
the size of the deficit. For Fiscal 2004—which began
in October 2003—if you factor out the $164 billion Social
Security surplus, the on-budget deficit will be
at least $639 billion, rather close to the modern peak
of 6 percent of GDP. And according to its own projections
(the bottom line of Table 8 represents the Social Security
surplus), the administration plans to spend an additional
$990 billion in such funds between now and 2008. That year,
according to the Office of Management and Budget's
projections, the on-budget deficit will be about $464 billion.
Only by using that year's $238 billion Social Security surplus
does the administration arrive at a total, unified
deficit of $226 billion...."


you've really got to be incredibly bias AND partisan to not see the contradictions.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Not reaching a goal is not a lie you idjut.

 

[spillmind]

Hey spillmindless, the EU idiots are just jealous of our ascendant status in the world. They do not want us to do what is in our best interest, and their envy is so extreme, they're willing to empower the evil enemies of civilization.

And remember, there were actually something like 35 nations in the coalition of the willing. Come on, now why don't you denigrate their contributions in that charming manner you libs have adopted as of late.

here we go with the insults!

that didn't take long. i'm lucky i don't do the same thing you are doing, or i risk being banned from the board.


jealousy is a joke. DEATH is real. and bush getting money from oil contracts and defense contracts is REAL. the war in iraq going poorly is REAL. but don't take my word for it! ask colin powell:

and the whole world sees it. you, my friend, are sadly in the dark.