posted
George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids to get a little PR. After his talk he offers question time. One little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.
"Stanley," responds the little boy.
"And what is your question, Stanley?"
"I have 3 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? And third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?"
Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies that they will continue after recess.
When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right question time. Who has a question?" Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him his name.
"Steve! ," he responds.
"And what is your question, Steve?"
"Actually , I have 5 questions. First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden? Fourth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I don't want to ruin the lightheartedness of this thread but it is becoming increasingly odd to me that liberals question the intelligence of President Bush someday's and other days make him into the mastermind behind every conspiracy known to man. Heck some on your side even said he was sharp enough to cause a Tsunami. Just dumb enough to be the most powerful man on earth. PS- where did you guys find the X-ray of my head?
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't it amazing how people can twist what others say into some skewed misrepresentation and claim it supports their agenda.
That dubya is responsible for the whole and substance of this Administration and its anti-american assaults on the Constitution. That is no more a voice speaking of him as being intellegent than is noting the responsibility of a drunken driver that killed a baby in a parked car he crashed into a praise of his action and his brilliance.
As a person of brilliance, dubya is now, always has been, and always will be like a a birthday candle showing against a backdrop of searchlights in the night sky. It's in the genes, no doubt.......papa wasn't more than a two cell flashlight with discharged batteries, himself (but at least not a draft dodger).
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know. Bush is dumb, his dad was dumb Reagan was dumb. Gee I can't figure out why dem's keep losing elections. Keep saying everybody is dumb fellas, that campaign line has worked real well for you. And meanwhile President Clinton, who I cannot argue was a very smart man, was just dumb enough to get impeached.
-------------------- Thanks Matto. Thanks Juice. Posts: 2945 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You write the truth bdgee. Refer to Johnwayne's post above for a real-world example of your thesis.
Another thing. While I'm no great fan of Clinton, I find it interesting to note that while Clinton was busy being a successful attorney, Bush was busy being a drunk.
And last (and least), the fact that more Americans voted for Gore than for Bush greatly diminishes the strength of your argument, Mr. Wayne.
See you after the Midterm Elections!
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Johnwayne: I know. Bush is dumb, his dad was dumb Reagan was dumb. Gee I can't figure out why dem's keep losing elections. Keep saying everybody is dumb fellas, that campaign line has worked real well for you. And meanwhile President Clinton, who I cannot argue was a very smart man, was just dumb enough to get impeached.
Because, firstly, their campaigns are paid for by the very very wealthy whose intent is to foster the very wealthy, not the United States of America. They control the media and provide opportunities to the republican machine so that any contrary opinions or facts are belittled, while the republican view is championed 24 hours a day. Secondly, because they rig elections.
Clinton didn't get impeached by any democratic process, but by a crooked prosecuter that rigged a Court hearing that he had no proper function even knowing about and a partisan republican majority in the House. By ethical and legal standards, he should have been disbarred for injecting his "interest" into those procedings. By honorable standards, those republicans in the House that put the Party before the Country, thus aiding and abbeting the propaganda efforts of enemiews of this Nation should be tried for treason.
You need to remember, your prosecuter was willing to try to derail the impeachment of Nixon, but failed. He had a score to settle, he thought. Biased? Dishonest? Unethical? INDEED! And note that Clinton won the impeachment, even though the republicans in the senate voted as a block, for political advantage, ignoring the facts and the intent of the Constitution. The impeachment itself, was purely a political effort by a House of representatives that ignored their sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and injected party politics into what the Constitution never invisioned as political. In no way is any person's private amorous activities that invloved no illegal actions any place for a federal prosecuter to be investigating as a "high"" crime" or misdemeanor and NEVER should one sworn to uphold the Constitution as a federal prosecutor be allowed to inject himself or his investigative powers into a civil action!
Prior to the violations of the Constitutional precepts by the Republican Party through the failed attempt to impeach, for his private life, a sitting president for political reasons, I was a very harsh critic of the Clintons. I remain a very harsh critic of most of their political positions. But the assault on the Constitution by the republican machine was so egregious, damaging to the Nation, and dishonorable, I cannot condone the Republican Party any longer. Until they have corrected their course, I cannot support any effort they may come up with, as I know it will end up an assault on the Constitution. I hope that some day, the Republican party may right itself and recall that is bound by the Constitution and supporting anything that doesn't hold first and foremost the precepts of that document is, by definition, unamerican. (I might add that includes stacking the Courts with political wienies that will discount the Constitution to support republican attacks or whims). I keep hoping that one day I will find the Republican Party has returned as an honorable and respectable participant in a Constitutional America and again assume a stature that I can admire, but that day clearly hasn't arrived. It will not so long as it adheres to a tactic of Party first. (We are seeing now, in the near east, some of the spawn of that antiamerican Party first attitude by the republicans.)
Yes, Reagan and both Bush's belong to the class of intellectual dodos and mental migets. Sorry, but it is true. The sad thing is that the republican party is of an intellectual calibur that cannot recognize that.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
REPUBLICANS AGAINST GEORGE BUSH Posted on 01/21/2004
1. Who are we? We are Americans. We believe in small government, America first, the Constitution, the rule of law, secure borders and competitive capitalism that favor the needs of the average American over the rest of the world.
2. Why are we against President Bush? Chairman of the GOP Gillespie has stated that the GOP does not stand for limited or smaller government and President Bush is acting accordingly. Cutting taxes is a good thing, but not when cutting a single program or entitlement hasn't even been proposed. The opposite is true. New or expanded programs are constantly being proposed by the Bush administration. Since the advent of the Bush administration, government has become a larger and even more intrusive force in our lives. In addition, continued free trade overtures threaten to destroy the economic viability of the average citizen of the United States.
3. What do we want? We want likeminded Americans to vote for the Reform Party candidate for President of the United States and for Republicans in the congressional races? We think that enough people voting for the Reform Party in the presidential election, and doing so publicly AS REPUBLICANS, should cause President Bush to lose. This in turn should create a demand within our party for a President more in line with our principles. If we do this, we must make sure that OUR Republican party hears our message. This makes it twice as important to get every Republican voter that we can get publicly behind this. They must not stay at home for the election. I hope to be able to point to the numbers of people who vote for the Reform Party candidate and tell our Republican leadership that we are the party of small limited government, strong national defense, individual rights, a rule of law and sound economic policies.
4. Do we mean for the Reform Party candidate to win? This is not a goal of this group. We want to create a public demand for a small government GOP without leaving the party.
5. Does this mean that we approve of Dean or any of the other Democratic nominees? No! We explicitly reject the Socialist /Democrat party and think that their actions are causing the decline of this great nation. It is because our beloved GOP is becoming indistinguishable from the Democrats in other than foreign relations arenas that we are undertaking this action.
6. Are there any up-sides to this action in the 2004 election? It is likely that there are many Republicans that are disillusioned with the current administration and Jim Gillespie’s leadership. The likely result is that many will stay home. This could cost us seats and/or control of the House or Senate. If enough people turn out to register this protest vote, we could increase our majority.
7. Do we have any specific long term goals? If President Bush loses due to our efforts, it is our hope that our party leadership will enact a platform more in line with our traditional Republican principles. The next candidate should also be more concerned with sound domestic policies.
8. How many people would it take to accomplish our objective? According to recent election results, a few thousand in just a few states could change the result of a presidential election.
9. What happens if we do not succeed? If Bush wins in 2004, after eight years of growing government and spending, the average Republican will be dispirited and stay away from the polls just like what happened to his father. Also, the people will be tired of a war on terrorism that can’t end and the strength of foreign policy will not sustain the next candidate either. (Remember; “Its the economy stupid” ?) Facing increasing debt, a lack of meaningful employment, and a dispirited/divided Republican Party, Hillary/Bayh will likely be elected. Strengthened by eight years in opposition, the Democrats will be united and will show up to the polls for Hillary/Bayh. To those who claim that it can't happen, I would refer you to those of us who said Bill would never get elected or reelected and those who said that New York would never elect Hillary. Does it still seem so far fetched? How many Republicans have you met who are really excited about the direction of Bush's domestic policy?
10. What’s in it for R.A.G. BUSH? When we pledge allegiance to the “Republic”, we do so not to any politician or party, but rather to the republican system of limited government set up in the Constitution. We consider socialism and tyranny in all of its forms an enemy to be conquered and not one to compromise with. We get to do something to try to keep freedoms lamp lit in America. We want our children to know the greatness of the United States, not experience its decline. Enough people talk about all the things that are wrong, let’s do something. In 2008, we want to help elect a strong Republican president who stands for the things that we value and who will face the ineptitude of one of the eight candidates that are currently contesting the Democratic nomination. We have faith in our fellow Americans. If our purpose is righteous and Americans united, who can stand in our way?
"This idea that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path." Reagan (1964)
-------------------- "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin Posts: 3898 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
