 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected.....
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Bobert Date: 01 May 04 - 09:20 PM Hey, folks... Lets get real here! Look around at the mess that greed and stdpidity has created for the US and the rest of the world over the last 3 years.... Why should Bush and his crook frineds be let off the hook? I'm sayin' that it wouldn't hurt my feeling to have a replay when his daddy's Supremes appointed him for another 4 years because I firmly believe that another 4 years of this crap will kill off the conservative movement for a long, long time leaving the '08 election to be fought out between centrist Dems and progressives with the progressives probably be the ones to be reckoned with... Reminds me of a time when leeches were a medical alternative. Bring 'um on... America needs to have a real good look at what compassiionate conservatisn is all about: theft, lieing and getting the US in bad situations to support the lieing and theft. Four more years... Hey, America survived Pearl Harbopr. It certainly can survive Bush and his thievin' compassionate conservatives... BObert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Ebbie Date: 01 May 04 - 09:31 PM Disagree vehemently, bobert. I don't want to live in the world he and his cronies are creating. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Amos Date: 01 May 04 - 09:44 PM I'm too centrist to want to share that vision, Bobert, even though I understand the reasoning. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Peace Date: 01 May 04 - 09:54 PM Four more years of Bush and we may not HAVE a world to worry about. If we do, we may not have the freedom to speak/write/talk about it. This ain't your best thinking, good buddy. But I know how you feel. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah Date: 01 May 04 - 09:57 PM Bush should not be re-selected, he should be deep-composted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: LadyJean Date: 01 May 04 - 11:01 PM Bush hasn't hurt the conservative movement that much. Worse luck! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Peace Date: 02 May 04 - 11:37 AM LadyJean, That is a very clever remark. No, Bush hasn't hurt the conservative movement. That's an even scarier thought than four more years of Bush. Lets us know that people are expendable items on a world market; labour will be delegated and pay will be controlled. We will all go to the church of the government's choice and--I take it you've read 1984? Jaysus! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 May 04 - 11:47 AM One thing, if Bush doesn't get put back in the White House, Bin Laden is going to be really pissed off, because he needs him there. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: dianavan Date: 02 May 04 - 12:10 PM Bobert, Until recently, I thought so too. Now I've changed my mind. What is scarier than Bush? Bush and Harper (running for PM in Canada). Harper is ultra, right wing conservative. If that were to happen, we would never be able to dig our way out. Joe Clark (a well respected conservative with years of political experience) has stated that Harper is a dangerous man. Martin (Canada's PM) is not quite as bad. At least he has a brain and has stated that he believes a healthy economy is dependent on a healthy environment. Martin is a shrewd businessman. Martin and Kerry might be able to turn things around. The other possibility is Nader and Layton (Canada). Unfortunately, I'm afraid neither one has a ghost of a chance. Even if they did, I'm not sure they are up to playing with the big boys. I'm not sure Americans are aware of Canadian politics but I am aware of both and see how the policies are intertwined to produce a healthy or unhealthy economy. Kerry and Martin are our only hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Bill D Date: 02 May 04 - 12:20 PM the conservative movement is SO adamant that it MUST have the power, that it will accept almost anyone at the top who makes the right appointments, no matter how off-the-wall they seem! They have learned to 'see' the Emperors clothes, no matter how naked he is. There are Republicans who might be better (and that we Liberals could even stomach), but dumb ones like Bush can be manipulated more easily by the ultra-conservatives, and we aren't likely to see the better choices soon. Taking a chance on 4 more years of this insanity could very well result in a setup where no more choices are easily made. I have said it before, and I repeat....the (ultra)Republicans are trying to produce, I would hope we will elect Kerry, even with HIS imperfections, and break this stranglehold on power.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: robomatic Date: 02 May 04 - 03:49 PM I've been wondering if, presuming Bush were elected this year, he couldn't run in '08 based on the Supreme court reversing itself and maintaining that he shouldn't have been elected in '00, hence it was all a 'horrible mistake' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Ebbie Date: 02 May 04 - 04:21 PM GOOD GOD, robomatic!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: annamill Date: 02 May 04 - 04:27 PM Am I the only one who realizes Bobert is being sarcastic?? At least, I hope he is! Love, Annamill |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Peace Date: 02 May 04 - 05:20 PM Back to you, Bobert. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 04 - 05:28 PM I think Bobert is right about the nation needing four more years of Bush to boomerang us out of this pseudo-conservative rut we are in. Democrats are becoming increasingly bellicose with the thought of remaining out of power for yet another four years. That is indicative to me of nothing more than their shock and awe at losing power after nearly a century of having a a near monopoly on political power in Washington and in the majority of state capitols. Those DLC Dictator Dems (that is the DDD, the Democratic version of the KKK) sure are looking more and more hysterical by the day, ain't they Bobert? For the life of me, I don't understand why these "centrist Democrats" are so intolerant. So what if we have four more years of Bush and the conservatives. We lived with them for this long, and the planet didn't explode, nor did the sky fall. I am about as left as leftists come, but I do have more than a few conservative family members and friends. When you start talking work colleagues, I have plenty of conservative company in my life. Something tells me Democratic liberal centrist whatever word you want to use for the bland, pablum eaters in the DDD, don't get out in the real world much, where many of us have been living side by side with conservative people our whole lives long. Is there supposed to be something inherently deficient about people who are politically conservative? I mean, when we find ourselves sitting next to a conservative at a church supper or business lunch, are we supposed to pick up our plates and move to another table? Are we supposed hit them? Spit on them? Just what is the protocol on this anyway? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Ebbie Date: 02 May 04 - 05:35 PM bobert, is this the company you want to keep? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 04 - 06:04 PM I keep waiting for all these Nader bashers and Democratic nice people to sing the praises of John F Kerry to the Mudcat forum, but you know what? I can't seem to find any threads that do that, or that get started by people who JUST LOVE JOHN F KERRY! Wonder why? Kerry's supporters are spending all their time attacking the other candidates, so I guess that must mean there isn't much to recommend about their boy, except he isn't Bush. Now, I have recently seen a revival of the 1988 bumper stickers that read "Nobody for President in 2004" on a few beat up old Toyotas in the parking lots at progressive gatherings in my neighborhood of late. What do you suppose that is all about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Amos Date: 02 May 04 - 09:59 PM I'll say one thing in support of John Kerry -- he sounds intelligent. More so than Reagan, either Bush, or even Clinton. he sounds like he is alert and thinking about what he sees. All by itself this is a refreshing and valuable change., |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Bobert Date: 02 May 04 - 10:12 PM Ebbie, et al: No, this is not the company I *want* to keep but it is very much the hand that I've been dealt. Like GUEST, I've had to so-mingle with Bush conservatives... Hey, it is the real world... I'm even part of a "Mainstreet" program, sit on the board and organize stuff with Bush conservatives... But that's what activists do.... Do I like it? Well, it'd be a lot more fun with progressives, that's fir sure... But I am perfectly serious in thinkin' that the best way to expose the falwed policies of these radical neocons is to let their extremely messed up policies to run their course and then, and only then, will America (an Canada) swear off them for 20 or 30 years and at least give us a little time to restor logic and pragmatism before another batch of them knotheads wrestle control... And I am being perfectly srious here. Four more year of Bush is what the US seems to need. Just like a bad kid needing a whoppin'.... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: dick greenhaus Date: 02 May 04 - 10:20 PM Bobert- If he's good enough for God, why isn't he good enough for you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST,TIA Date: 02 May 04 - 10:29 PM Remember when Reagan was president? All the ills of the world were the fault of the Democratic Congress. Then, when Clinton was president, all the ills of the world were the fault of the Democratic president. Then the Republicans got the white House AND the Congress, and I said "good, now America will see whether the Republicans can really live up to all the years of finger pointing." I'll be damned if they don't have more fingers to point than the world has problems! Now, everything is Al Quaeda's fault, and Saddam's fault, and public school teachers' fault, and, of course, still Clinton's fault, and __________'s fault. Apparently, they can't make a sh_t's worth of difference no matter what level of power they hold, and John and Jane Q. Public buy every f_ckin' word of this horse pucky (credits to DougR), and believe that if we only elect them to _____ (fill in the blank) all our problems will be solved. I'm with bobert on this one. PLEASE, elect the f'ers to every goddam position they can hold.... but just be sure to beam my boney (actually it is rather boney) Pennsylvania/New Jersey/New Hampshire/What the Frug butt up!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 02 May 04 - 10:46 PM Hell Robert, I've sat beside Birchers, the Posse and Lyndon La Rouche Libertarians on different projects over the years. If you are an long time activist, you pretty much know everybody in your area, and what their letters to editor will say before they write them. The thing that matters on the ground is making deep change--from the roots of the grassroots. Putting war president Bush out the back door, and bringing war president Kerry in the front won't change a thing. Voting for Nader may not change a thing either, but of the three choices available to me for the presidential race, it looks to me like voting Nader has the best chance of shaking the Republicrats to the core, while the right disintegrates and collapses due to infighting. That is the cycle of political power, people. The only reason the DDD Repblicrats are all hysterical is because they're losing, not because the world as we know it is going to end. Whether we want "four more years" or not, we're gonna get just that, whether it is Bush or Kerry sitting in the Big House. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Amos Date: 02 May 04 - 10:55 PM I disagree; while I can't predict the future I believe there are substantial and important differences between Bush and Kerry and ir is disinegenuous to lump them together by a made up group name. I have listed the differences elsewhere. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: M.Ted Date: 03 May 04 - 12:28 AM You're crazy, Bobert-- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Ebbie Date: 03 May 04 - 01:37 AM bobert, I hate to get all official here but SHAPE UP. You may recall that I'm your Secretary of the Interior- and if you follow those people over the cliff there ain't gonna be no interior to secretate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 03 May 04 - 07:43 AM Bobert's gonna vote Nader and the sky is falling! The sky is falling! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST,Larry K Date: 03 May 04 - 11:43 AM Bush certainly didn't hurt the conservatives in the 2002 elections. As I recall, the Republicans kept control of both houses and picked up some seats. Very unusual for a mid year election. The Republicans are also poised to pick up more seats in the 2004 election. They have less seats to defend in the Senate (15 vs 19) and 4-5 Decocrats are retiring. (4 in southern states) Due to redistricting (shame on both parties) republicans will pick up more seats in the house. 90% of the house races won't even be competitive. The democrats went along with this idea for the safety of keeping their existing seats. Many predict it will be 10 years before the democrats can begin to take bake the house. I don't know if the election of Kerry would change anything. With Kerry in the white house, and a republican congress- each would blame the other and nothing would change. I detest Nader, but I would love for a viable third party. I don't care if the third party is Green, Independent, Conservative, or anything else. I think the country would be better served with more viable choices. (Wouldn't a McCain/Bill Bradley ticket be interesting or at least worth considering) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Chief Chaos Date: 03 May 04 - 12:40 PM I've followed the blame cycle myself and wondered where it's going to end. The pubs don't have the senate by a few and it looks like they may claim it this time. With four years under President Bush if he should be re-elected then who are they going to blame for what? They'll have all three branches sewn up. No need for further elections thanks, we'll just select our replacements. There is a war on you know! And there is precedent in that FDR held the position through four terms. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Peace Date: 03 May 04 - 01:54 PM GUEST: You are a troll. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 04 May 04 - 12:41 PM Those of us a little long in the tooth remember: Nixon and Watergate; Ronnie Raygun and the Star Wars fiasco; George, Sr. and Irangate. (the faux pas mentioned aren't necessarily all-inclusive) What do you suppose four more years with George Jr. is gonna teach us that we don't already know? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: DougR Date: 05 May 04 - 11:21 AM Bill D.: the conservatives are so adamant about retaining power? And your group is not? Bobert: I'm glad you are coming out of the closet. I always suspected you were REALLY a Bush supporter. I support your suggestion, though I do not agree with your logic. Many of you folks seem to believe that those with a conservative viewpoint have it because of some gigantic plot on the part of the government (or somebody or some thing). Not so. We just did not all receive our educations from "lefty thinking" teachers, or arrived at our conservative stances indepedently. Electing Kerry will not eradicate the conservative movement any more than it will strengthen the "progressive" movement. Rather than concentrating your efforst on defeating Bush, you might be better served by seeing to it that more people sharing your viewpoint are elected to the House and Senate. I predict that the Republicans will increase their majority in both houses and Bush will be re-elected. Electing an anti-war person as president while the country is at war is pure lunancy. It makes no difference that Kerry was a Vietnam war hero (and I think he was), then was then, and now is now. He would not be governing with the same mind-set that he had when he was a hero, he would be governing as a peacenik. Might as well appoint Usama Ben Laden as Secretary of State or Defense or whatever post he wants if Kerry is elected. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: GUEST Date: 06 May 04 - 01:41 AM horse pucky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Why Bush Must be Re-selected..... From: Amos Date: 06 May 04 - 01:44 AM The country is not, technically speaking, at war. The ground truth is we are in an undeclared quagmire. Much like Vietnam, now that I think of it. If W's secret ambition was to emulate the asininity of LBJ, he has succeeded. A |
