Ahem...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><blockquote>"... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief..." - George W. Bush, 10/27/2004</blockquote></center>

For your enlightenment and edification:

<center><h2><a href=http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000642.php>31 Conclusions Jumped to by the Bush Administration</a></h2></center>

Everytime Dubbyuh opens his mouth, he inserts his foot and chews vigorously.

 

[lolita715]

<center><blockquote>"... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief..." - George W. Bush, 10/27/2004</blockquote></center>

For your enlightenment and edification:

<center><h2><a href=http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000642.php>31 Conclusions Jumped to by the Bush Administration</a></h2></center>

Everytime Dubbyuh opens his mouth, he inserts his foot and chews vigorously.

eye opening, but not shocking.

 

[drowe]

<center><blockquote>"... a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief..." - George W. Bush, 10/27/2004</blockquote></center>

For your enlightenment and edification:

<center><h2><a href=http://www.politicalstrategy.org/archives/000642.php>31 Conclusions Jumped to by the Bush Administration</a></h2></center>

Everytime Dubbyuh opens his mouth, he inserts his foot and chews vigorously.

Sounds like this should be titled "31 Things The Kerry Campaign Has Told Me To Believe".

Here's what I want to see, and maybe you can tell me because you are obviously Pro-Kerry and I assume you have looked into who you are voting for. Have you seen or know about any of Kerry's 20 or so plans for "saving the country"? I would really like to know your perspective.

 

[insein]

Sounds like this should be titled "31 Things The Kerry Campaign Has Told Me To Believe".

Here's what I want to see, and maybe you can tell me because you are obviously Pro-Kerry and I assume you have looked into who you are voting for. Have you seen or know about any of Kerry's 20 or so plans for "saving the country"? I would really like to know your perspective.

I dont think you'll get an iuntelligent conversation form Bully, drowe. He's a troll with hard-on for bashing Bush. And lolita is his unwitting kool-aid accomplice now.

 

[nakedemperor]

I dont think you'll get an iuntelligent conversation form Bully, drowe. He's a troll with hard-on for bashing Bush. And lolita is his unwitting kool-aid accomplice now.

Pretty much all of the conclusions jumped to by the administration outlined in the webpage are pretty black and white; they show an administration which sought intelligence to support doctrine, not base doctrine on intelligence; made rash decisions on numerous occasions relying on shaky or very little evidence, etc. etc. I wouldn't call it Bush-bashing-- critiquing what the incumbenent has done right and wrong is a huge portion of what you base your decision to keep him or not on.

That being said I believe John Kerry has spent a little too much time concerning himself with what the president has done wrong (the list is long). I disagree when people say he 'doesn't have a plan', just complaints. Well, complaints have been and always will be the majority of the rhetoric of the challenger. 'He did this wrong, here's what I'm going to do better'. When you get down to the wire though (the last few weeks), what you're going to do doesn't get you as far as what the incumbent has done wrong, and to criticize him of this tactic is to have political tunnel vision-- its just what the challenger does.

 

[drowe]

Pretty much all of the conclusions jumped to by the administration outlined in the webpage are pretty black and white; they show an administration which sought intelligence to support doctrine, not base doctrine on intelligence; made rash decisions on numerous occasions relying on shaky or very little evidence, etc. etc. I wouldn't call it Bush-bashing-- critiquing what the incumbenent has done right and wrong is a huge portion of what you base your decision to keep him or not on.

That being said I believe John Kerry has spent a little too much time concerning himself with what the president has done wrong (the list is long). I disagree when people say he 'doesn't have a plan', just complaints. Well, complaints have been and always will be the majority of the rhetoric of the challenger. 'He did this wrong, here's what I'm going to do better'. When you get down to the wire though (the last few weeks), what you're going to do doesn't get you as far as what the incumbent has done wrong, and to criticize him of this tactic is to have political tunnel vision-- its just what the challenger does.

What is kerry's plan though? I have not seen it anywhere.

 

[Bullypulpit]

I dont think you'll get an iuntelligent conversation form Bully, drowe. He's a troll with hard-on for bashing Bush. And lolita is his unwitting kool-aid accomplice now.

Actully, old son, if Kerry is elected and screws up I'll give him the same short-shrift I give Dubbyuh. I don't give a shit about party affiliation, just whether or not the candidate is doing right by the citizens they are supposed to represent. Dubbyuh, from my own reasearch into his sordid and tawdry career, has never done right by the voters, only the folks who paid to put him in office. Were he worthy of the office, I would vote for him, but he...is...not...worthy.

So, why don't you start thinking for yourself, instead of munching down every last bit of excrement the administration spews forth and calling it manna from heaven?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sounds like this should be titled "31 Things The Kerry Campaign Has Told Me To Believe".

Here's what I want to see, and maybe you can tell me because you are obviously Pro-Kerry and I assume you have looked into who you are voting for. Have you seen or know about any of Kerry's 20 or so plans for "saving the country"? I would really like to know your perspective.

Well now, boyo, if you actually read the citations on the website, you would note that they all had documentation to back them up. The facts are there...Are you willing to see them though? Or would you rather just follow the maunderings of the Bush administration until, lemming-like, you plunge over the cliff and into the ocean below?

 

[Shattered]

Dubbyuh, from my own reasearch into his sordid and tawdry career, has never done right by the voters

Of course you're right.. That's why everyone wants him back for another 4 years? As punishment?

Crack is bad.

 

[Avatar4321]

Dubbyuh, from my own reasearch into his sordid and tawdry career, has never done right by the voters, only the folks who paid to put him in office. Were he worthy of the office, I would vote for him, but he...is...not...worthy.

Well you need to learn to do better research.

 

[Mr. P]

Actully, old son, if Kerry is elected and screws up I'll give him the same short-shrift I give Dubbyuh. I don't give a shit about party affiliation, just whether or not the candidate is doing right by the citizens they are supposed to represent. Dubbyuh, from my own reasearch into his sordid and tawdry career, has never done right by the voters, only the folks who paid to put him in office. ...

Well, I didn't pay to put him in office but he's served me well, so far.
I do like my tax cut. And I've dumped an inadequate health insurance policy
with a $940. month premium for a much better HSA with a premium of $465 per month.
In addition, W is standing up for the Country. It's about time we had a leader that did that. Eight years without one is too much.
Oh, I didn't mention he pulled us out a economic down slide that began in 2000
(pre Bush) and was accelerated by 911.

Damn...what do ya want in four years miracles? Ops don't look now.

 

[Avatar4321]

Damn...what do ya want in four years miracles? Ops don't look now.

Only if he has a D next to his name.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Of course you're right.. That's why everyone wants him back for another 4 years? As punishment?

Crack is bad.

No, they just don't pay attention.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Well, I didn't pay to put him in office but he's served me well, so far.
I do like my tax cut. And I've dumped an inadequate health insurance policy
with a $940. month premium for a much better HSA with a premium of $465 per month.
In addition, W is standing up for the Country. It's about time we had a leader that did that. Eight years without one is too much.
Oh, I didn't mention he pulled us out a economic down slide that began in 2000
(pre Bush) and was accelerated by 911.

Damn...what do ya want in four years miracles? Ops don't look now.

No, I just want Dubbyuh out of office. And, the only thing he's standing up for are his corporate pimps and johns.

 

[nbdysfu]

No, I just want Dubbyuh out of office. And, the only thing he's standing up for are his corporate pimps and johns.

Are they all hopped up on Goofballs, tiger? :alco:

 

[White knight]

Bully
Have you noticed that not one of his supporters will admit anything bad about him.
I don’t know if it is peer pressure or they have their heads so far up his bum hole they can’t even see the truth anymore, or what it is.
One thought that crossed my mine was that this site is really just a front, a boiler house for the RNC manned by volunteers.
Not one of them will even take up a legitimate topic of debate of his policy’s it always breaks down into your just wrong because I said so.
The guy earned C+s at Yale, he can’t talk proper English, has a record of poor performance in his public life, but dam he is the best dam President since G. W. #1 (first president)

 

[nbdysfu]

Bully
One thought that crossed my mine was that this site is really just a front, a boiler house for the RNC manned by volunteers.

Dude, you're just not thinking deeply enough, we are a massive team of genetically engineered chimps with prehensile thumbs, controlled by a computer at the Pentagon to release massive streams of noise into the web, debilitating the revolution. Bush is our chimp leader!

Not one of them will even take up a legitimate topic of debate of his policy’s it always breaks down into your just wrong because I said so.

We say fine. You bad listen. Monkey hate type. Bang. Bang. Bang. Graagh. Because I said so.

The guy earned C+s at Yale

he did fine in pilot training and he later went to harvard.

he can’t talk proper English

and yet somehow John Kerry can "Get [him] a hunting license in this here establishment." How absolutely splendiferous.

, has a record of poor performance in his public life,

sez you

but dam he is the best dam President since G. W. #1 (first president)

Yep, he ain't perfect, but he's better than Clinton.:usa::usa::usa:

 

[eric]

Well, unlike research and theory, I can speak from personal experience. Because of Bush's economic policies, including , but not limited to tax cuts, American employers are now able to expand and grow once again. It makes me laugh that people with little more than an economics class under their belt turn around and blame Bush for the jobs that were lost under his so called "watch", when in reality the stage was set during the Clinton years. The cost of doing business coupled with the per employee cost, limited ROI, and very little confidence that this would change, made it attractive, if not necessary to move many jobs overseas. This was a decision I personally struggled with for quite a while, but in the end, it was the best option for my company.

Now, Bush has turned the tables and restored the confidence of many corporations. This was in no small measure due to the tax cuts, coupled with sensible policies, and a realistic view of the needs of businesses. For too long were companies being choked by taxes, regulations, and one-sided pro labor thinking. Contrary to popular belief, most businesses in the US are not giants making outragous profits off the backs of their employees, but rather small to mid size companies making marginal profits trying to survive and grow. Of course these giants do exist, but to make policy for all based on a few is not only foolish, but most certainly counter productive. Also, contrary to the anti Bush verbal diarrhea we hear on a daily basis, he understands this concept and bases many of his economic policies on this.

Again I will speak from experience; we have now been able to move almost all of our overseas jobs back to the USA, and have added new jobs here on top of this.

So say what you may about GWB, but tell us what you base it on, other than the anti Bush rhetoric you read and see in the left leaning media. Things are not always as simple as they may seem on the surface, and to simply quote statistics without a true understanding of what they mean and what their root cause was, makes one look quite foolish.

 

[eric]

The guy earned C+s at Yale, he can’t talk proper English, has a record of poor performance in his public life, but dam he is the best dam President since G. W. #1 (first president)

Did you mean to say that he can't SPEAK proper english and that he is the best DAMN president since G.W. #1. Geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black !

 

[tim_duncan2000]

they show an administration which sought intelligence to support doctrine, not base doctrine on intelligence; made rash decisions on numerous occasions relying on shaky or very little evidence, etc. etc.

1) Explain this then:

Myth: Analysts were pressured to change judgments to meet the needs of the Bush administration.

The judgments presented in the October 2002 NIE were based on data acquired and analyzed over 15 years. Our judgments were presented to three different administrations and routinely to six congressional committees. And the principal participants in the production of the NIE from across the entire U.S. intelligence community have sworn to Congress, under oath, that they were not pressured to change their views or to conform to administration positions.

Myth: We buried divergent views and concealed uncertainties.

Alternative views presented by intelligence officials at the Department of State, the Department of Energy and the U.S. Air Force were showcased in the NIE and were acknowledged in unclassified papers on the subject. Uncertainties were highlighted in the key judgments and throughout the text.

http://www.cia.gov/nic/articles_wp_iraq_wmd.htm

2) If it was so obvious that they were seeking intelligence to support doctrine, then why did Kerry and other Democrats still vote to authorize war?

3) Were all the intelligence agencies from around the world tricked by Bush?