It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we agree that Bush was right? ...Finally?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
[
That's just like conservatives afraid of a litttle sex,sex,sex, SEX.

As a matter of fact I'm having sex with a girl right now, WOW! Great Fabulous ooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOh, YAHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO, SEX!

Kinda makes your blood boil, don't it?


[edit on 2/15/2006 by bodebliss]



Two questions, #1 Did you have to specify that you were with a girl? # 2 don't you take pride in your work? I mean if I was having sex with a girl I wouldn't be wasting my time typing a post on a web site.

Now don't try to deflect the questions by insulting me or by saying your just that good at what you do or something lame like that.

Your post reminds me of the nerd guy in the movie " Road Trip". Were he wakes up the next morning after he loses his virginity and he looks cool and tells his friends; "Guess what? I had sex ............. with a girl" and struts away.






posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

Freedom? The US has presently incarcerated 1 out of every 142 residents with a prison population exceeding 2 million. It must be because everyone is so EVIL.

usgovinfo.about.com...



Uhh, no just the people who break the law.


Actually, having been involved in the criminal justice system I feel comfortable saying that those in prison are those who have been convicted of violating statute. In many cases they are guilty of the crimes charged (or others). However, in too many instances convictions are gotten by using informants with an agenda or a dirty cop. Do you recall Republican Gov. Ryan of Illinois commuting the death sentences of all those on death row? The reason is that the Justice Project at Northwestern University Law School discovered evidence in several cases that exonerated those on death row. We can only wonder how many innocent mistakes and intentional frames are taking place out of those 2 million incarcerated and many more on probation or parole.

The system is flawed such that justice often is a happy surprise when it happens.


So what do you want us to do, let everyone do what ever the hell they want? Let people rape and murder, molest children ? Live it up guys. Enjoy yourselves. No accountability would just make things worse. With murder being legal, life expectancy would probably drop down to the mid 30's. At least the world wide population would drop from the 6 billion it is now since once the initial phase of the killing starts, it will be followed by a flood of revenge killings.


The melodrama is exciting but has little to do with the state of things. The Republican resurgance which started with Reagan relied heavily on casting Dem's as soft on crime. The public fell for it and we now have removed judicial discretion from judges and incorporate sentencing guidelines and other harsh laws like 3 strikes which take the human element out of the system completely.

The Republican mantra of fighting crime has also led to the failed drug war which has served to militarize the local cops who are now heavily invested in the War due to the windfalls they receive from both govt. and via forfeiture laws which legalize the theft of personal and real property with the booty going to the cops. If you don't like Big Brother you don't like the drug war. l believe in personal accountability which means that if people wish to consume narcotics or bleach it is their choice. We have criminal laws which will punish people who are drunk or sober or high for their negligent or criminal choices which harm others. The Drug War has led to 90% of our present problems as a society - the biggest of which is the dominence of the neocons.


Seattlelaw, if I wouldn't have used up all my votes "Way Above Votes" on the good Ideas I would have giving you one. On a more serious note, why don't they have "Way below Votes" that we could give to .......


Thanks. I appreciate the comments.


[edit on 16-2-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bpletcj


Uhh, no just the people who break the law. So what do you want us to do, let everyone do what ever the hell they want? Let people rape and murder, molest children ? Live it up guys. Enjoy yourselves. No accountability would just make things worse. With murder being legal, life expectancy would probably drop down to the mid 30's. At least the world wide population would drop from the 6 billion it is now since once the initial phase of the killing starts, it will be followed by a flood of revenge killings.



Ah, most of the increase in prison population is due to drug laws. Now I don't use them, but I don't know if we should be paying $30,000/yr to keep smalltime drug abusers in jail.

I don't think there is a big increase in theives and murders going to jail.

Because....you know.... Bush and Cheney are still running free



posted on Feb, 15 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss

People don't refer back to Clinton, only republicans do. It's because their 'hero' is such an inept loser, they have to try something.[/quote

ppl with brains refer back to Clinton
!!!





That's just like conservatives afraid of a litttle sex,sex,sex, SEX.

As a matter of fact I'm having sex with a girl right now, WOW! Great Fabulous ooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOh, YAHHOOOOOOOOOOOOO, SEX!

Kinda makes your blood boil, don't it?


not at all...in fact I pitty you ...that girl must not be doing much of a good job if you are actually typing during sex...you should pick your dates better


what a waste of a date ... well there is also the possiblity that the problem is not with the girl... but thats really not my business



BaastetNoir,
Well you know from my post on the last page Bush knew all about the threat of Bin Laden , but refused to act (for 9 months)because he was more interested in exacting revenge by attacking Iraq for his daddy's honor(a kinda 'Blood Feud"). all this with the people's pocketbook(hundreds of billions of dollars which are not his, YA KNOW?) and at the expense of American lives and Iraqi civilian lives(who were real live people not plastic toys).

My Post proves Bush is a criminal, a BIG criminal!

Deny Ignorance.

The final report on Bin Laden's importance did not come in till the closing months of the (good) Clinton admin. That report was given to the Bush admin and they threw it in the garbage, dropped the ball, caused the calamity of 9/11.


your reporst only proove that you are a brain washed member of demoncrat propaganda... I'm very sorry for you... all of you that claim to be "free thinkers" and have "their eys opne"... are actually so deep into the "pupets hands" you dont even think by yourselves anymore...

maybe thats why that sex of yours sucks ..LOL ... no pune intent.
well... maybe just a litle



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
I love the way the apologists always refer back to the Clintons, their favorite punching bags, when their own flacid excuses spring leaks. Let me tell you folks something about accountability: if Clinton were in office on 9-11 you would have been the first to hang him in effigy.



Originally posted by BaasteNoirPeople refer back to Clinton, because he was the one who screwed it all for the rest of us... the 9/11 attack was planned for at least 5 years of Clinton, the outsorcing of jobs began under Clinton...


I feel your pain ...

But seriously, your anger at Clinton is amusing. The history is that, following the embassy bombings on August 7, 1998, Clinton's response to Sandy Berger's recommendation to attack al Qaeda was,

"[l]isten, retaliating against these attacks is all well and good, but we gott get rid of these guys once and for all, you understand what I'm telling you?"

Against All Enemies p. 185, Richard Clarke.

Clinton sent in a cruise missile to hit bin Laden and the al Qaeda leadership but "bin Laden was not killed in the raid." p. 189.

"Clinton left office with bin Laden alive, but having authorized actions to eliminate him and to step up the attacks on al Qaeda. He had defeadted al Qaeda when it had attempted to take over Bosnia by having its fighters dominate the defense of the breakaway state from Serbian attacks. He had seen earlier than anyone that terrorism would be the major new threat facing America, and therefore had greatly increased funding for counterterrorism and initiated homeland protection programs. he had put an end to Iraqi and Iranian terrorism against the United States by wuickly acting against the intelligence services of each nation." p. 225.

The Repub's responded to his bombing al Qaeda by accusing him of 'wag the dog' politics to divert attention from a blow job scandal. Once again, the libido-less Repub's had their heads up their asses.


CLINTON IS THE ONE TO BLAME ... BECAUSE HE IS THE ONE UNDER WHOM 9/11 WAS PLANNED.


Under whom? Does that mean Monica planned 9-11? Wow., she is talented.

BTW, Gore didn't lose the election. He won. Bush was appointed by the Republican members of the Supreme Court in a bloodless coup.

rawstory.com...

One more quote from the Preface on page x, "George W. Bush, who failed to act prior to September 11 on the threat from al Qaeda despite repeated warnings and then harvested a political windfall for taking obvious yet insufficient steps after the attacks; and who launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terorrist movement worldwide."

Hey man, I wasn't there, but this guy was - for thirty years. Believe it!



[edit on 16-2-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss

Ah, most of the increase in prison population is due to drug laws. Now I don't use them, but I don't know if we should be paying $30,000/yr to keep smalltime drug abusers in jail.


I guess that goes to show that if you look long enough you can find something that both sides will agree on. I too think that we (the people) have out prioraties wrong. We shouldn't have to pay so much to take care of people that get convictied of drug crimes. Thats alot of money to pay for one person to be jailed for something such as this. It might be differant if they were able to help rehabilitate them so when they came out the could stay off drugs, but even that is tough because you can't help some one change if they don't want to change themselves.

I have a cousin that was put in jail for a couple of years because of a drug felony in Arizona, good ole boy Joe Arpyo just started his little concentration camps out in the dessert. It was in the middle of summer (125 degrees out) and the guards made him run for several hours with out a break and no water.

When they finally let him stop to get water he was shaking and trying to get a drink but was spilling much of the water so the guards made him stop drinking, he was then beaten and cuffed to the fence. His body temp shot up to 110 or so ( don't flame me because I might be a little high on the temp and I know the human baody can't live at high temps). He then had a seziure and nearly died.

He is permanetly handicapped, can't walk slurred speech and unable to process info very fast.

His family sued the state of AZ and was awarded several milliion dollars for the abuse, but he will never be able to have kids or live on his own.

So I guess I would agree with you, and I must say even if he was a rapist or murderer he still shoudn't be abused or tourtered.

If some one is sentenanced to death, then kill them (letal injection) not tourter them. (sorry for the bad spelling my spell checker is not working)




I don't think there is a big increase in theives and murders going to jail.

Because....you know.... Bush and Cheney are still running free




And Clinton and Bush SR and Carter and Nixion and ............................... you get my drift.

Is there any President that served and never had an knid of conflict ?



posted on Feb, 16 2006 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Oh I agree with you on that last statement. Anyone who is President is a killer if not murderer.

I think you would get a kick out of this thread:

Thread



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   

BTW, Gore didn't lose the election. He won. Bush was appointed by the Republican members of the Supreme Court in a bloodless coup.

Then we should blame Al Gore and the Democrats for masterminding the 9/11 attack? Surely, They're the ones who had nothing to lose, and everything to gain! They also wielded the most power in every house of Government, while Al Qaida laid their plans. Also, it seems Ben Laden owed Clinton one for his NOT having Sudanese warlords "take him out" while his organization was based there.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Toelint
BTW, Gore didn't lose the election. He won. Bush was appointed by the Republican members of the Supreme Court in a bloodless coup.



Then we should blame Al Gore and the Democrats for masterminding the 9/11 attack? Surely, They're the ones who had nothing to lose, and everything to gain!


And what, exactly have they gained?


They also wielded the most power in every house of Government, while Al Qaida laid their plans.


Really? Because I thought that the Senate was split evenly and the House had been taken over by the Contract With America jackasses like Newt Gingerich? Am I wrong?

If Gore had taken his rightful position as # 43, 9-11 would probably have been avoided because he and Clinton were working hard on the al Qaeda mess before Bush stole the office and ignored the advice of those sounding the al Qaeda and OBL alarm. Hey, neocon apologists, you can't change history although you continue to try. Read the necon manifesto Project for a New American Century, which calls specifically for a "new Pearl Harbor" type of event which would give them the power to do as they wished by uniting the public in patriotic fervor.

www.americanfreepress.net...

Listen, if Clinton or Gore were pulling this crap I'd be just as pissed off. take off your goggles fogged over with partisan enmity and SEE what is actually going on - with your blessing. It is nothing less than the end of this democracy. WAKE UP PEOPLE!

[edit on 17-2-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw

But seriously, your anger at Clinton is amusing. The history is that, following the embassy bombings on August 7, 1998, Clinton's response to Sandy Berger's recommendation to attack al Qaeda was,


distort whatever you want however you want ...9/11 was planned while Slick willy Clinton was President....he had over 7 years to stop it and didnt...

Monica is only an example of how busy he was... LOL


[edit on 17-2-2006 by BaastetNoir]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Yeah pal, it's all just me and a few dudes with nothing better to do than stroke ourselves by beating up on a few poor helpless friendly neocon pol's trying to do the right thing.

But if you ever think you want a reality check, read what your boys Bush and Cheney sat on for weeks immediately before September 11, 2001. HOW ABOUT SOME ACCOUNTABILITY NEOCONS!


The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

So why did your boys tell Clarke and everyone else that bin Laden and al Qaeda were non-starters? Nothing to worry about?

[edit on 17-2-2006 by seattlelaw]



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Clinton has already admitted he made a mistake in not killing Bin Laden. It was the end of his term and he did NOTHING after the Cole bombing. Nothing. However, he had his entire presidecny to do something. After the 93 WTC bombing, plans were already bieng made to bring down the towers. That is why when I read this false flag bs it drives me crazy.

They struck the heart of the financial corridor for one of the largest countries in the world, and on that day pur nation was more concerned about finding a missing jogger and a US politician then anything else. Interdepartmental conflict and political bs kept 9/11 from bieng prevented, plain and simple. Read the reports of the men who knew something was coming, but did not know how to stop it.

Bush has stood since that day and stated that we will not stop until terrorism is gone. To win the war, you have to lose a few battles, and if world history has taught us anything, it is that this is a Holy war dating back to 600 AD. We are fighting right now in what used to be the center of the world, before the Moslems were invented by Mohammed.

Gore did not win any elections and Bush did not steal it, a new reporter spoke to soon. Very different things.....You could have put Dan Quayle in office and 9/11 would not have ben prevented. Howver, DHS can make sure it never happens again with support.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Forecast: You guys will blame Clinton when the economy takes a total nose dive and tanks after all the free-wheel spending of Bush-Cheney. A trillion $ gone from the Pentagon and no one seems to mind. A billion $ a day stuck in a quagmire that does no good for anyone. Deregulation of business and Enron, WorldComm, et al., must be Clinton's fault too.

But these fiscal non-policies, these handouts to the rich that cause our economic downfall you will ultimately blame on Clinton. Your arguments will again be without merit, but you will make them.

And yeah, Katrina has me all warm and fuzzy about DHS protecting us all.




posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   
No, actually Clinton rode the Internet boom and alot of people made money. Life was good and the US became complacnet to foriegn policy. The only one to blame now is Greenspan if he keeps raising the interest rates.

Iam also not laying blame, I am stating facts. big difference.



posted on Feb, 17 2006 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Forecast: You guys will blame Clinton when the economy takes a total nose dive and tanks after all the free-wheel spending of Bush-Cheney. A trillion $ gone from the Pentagon and no one seems to mind. A billion $ a day stuck in a quagmire that does no good for anyone. Deregulation of business and Enron, WorldComm, et al., must be Clinton's fault too.


actually Enron started crumbling down "under" Clinton and finally crashed under "bush"...so the process had begun alreayd... and you can't really balem any President for what company owners do behind everyones back ..



But these fiscal non-policies, these handouts to the rich that cause our economic downfall you will ultimately blame on Clinton. Your arguments will again be without merit, but you will make them.


You mean Clinton didnt butter rich ppl's hands ???
hhmmm...ok.... if you say so... must be the charm of his white hair Hollywood loves so much ...



And yeah, Katrina has me all warm and fuzzy about DHS protecting us all.



Well..Clinton was lucky enough he didnt have a Katrina, but he did have other natural disasters, just not as bad... the ba$tard was even lucky on that one.



posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
"Well..Clinton was lucky enough he didnt have a Katrina, but he did have other natural disasters, just not as bad... the ba$tard was even lucky on that one. "

I thought this thread was about that loser President Bush and not one of our greatest Presidents, President William Jefferson Clinton.



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Forecast: You guys will blame Clinton when the economy takes a total nose dive and tanks after all the free-wheel spending of Bush-Cheney. A trillion $ gone from the Pentagon and no one seems to mind. A billion $ a day stuck in a quagmire that does no good for anyone. Deregulation of business and Enron, WorldComm, et al., must be Clinton's fault too.

But these fiscal non-policies, these handouts to the rich that cause our economic downfall you will ultimately blame on Clinton. Your arguments will again be without merit, but you will make them.

And yeah, Katrina has me all warm and fuzzy about DHS protecting us all.



Well, let's think about this a minute. The Democrats are FOREVER Cheering Clinton when the stock market hit 12,000 shares traded...yet say NOTHING when the .Com bubble pops. You mean the "cooked books" of virtually every trading company on Wall Street had nothing to do with that? Maybe THIS is the Conspiracy of the Century!

You should be JUST as quick to blame Clinton for WorldCom as you are to blame Bush for Enron. To add insult to injury Clinton gave the salvage rights of WorldCom's undersea fiber optic network to...guess who? A Chinese salvaging company, of course! Now China has an undersea fiber optic network...and all they had to do is literally drop an anchor on top of it!As for the Trillion dollars you say left the Pentagon (are you sure you don't mean money sent TO the Pentagon?) I can only say...SHOW ME THE NUMBERS.

You don't want a billion dollars a day dumped into a aligorical quagmire like Iraq...but say nothing when TWO Billion a day is dumped into a literal, physical quagmire called New Orleans?? The fact that N.O. was under water for TWO STRAIGHT WEEKS is proof to me that Levies or not, that city is a sink hole waiting to happen. The simple fact is, that city CANNOT handle a direct hit from a catagory 3 hurricane!

Now, concerning Bush's spending habits...yeah, I GOT A PROBLEM WITH 'EM! You Happy?

But I just consider how this past special election went, here in good ol' California. We had a shot at actually stopping a LOT of financial abuses...and all five Propositions got shot down. "Why?", I've asked again and again. Then it dawned on me. The people seriously don't care. IF they did, no amount of whining, no amount of ad money and certainly no amount of "Governah Ahhnold" jokes or jabs would stop good policy from becoming Law. Make the people care FIRST ABOUT BALANCING THE BOOKS, after that, who knows what good can be done??



posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
A Neighborhood Of Stones And Glass Houses


Originally posted by Toelint

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Forecast: You guys will blame Clinton when the economy takes a total nose dive and tanks after all the free-wheel spending of Bush-Cheney. A trillion $ gone from the Pentagon and no one seems to mind. A billion $ a day stuck in a quagmire that does no good for anyone. Deregulation of business and Enron, WorldComm, et al., must be Clinton's fault too.

Well, let's think about this a minute. The Democrats are FOREVER Cheering Clinton when the stock market hit 12,000 shares traded...yet say NOTHING when the .Com bubble pops. You mean the "cooked books" of virtually every trading company on Wall Street had nothing to do with that? Maybe THIS is the Conspiracy of the Century!

This sort of back-and-forth is why I have so little respect for partisan finger pointing. Note that toelint doesn't seem to be impressed with any flavor of kool-aid being offered, either.

I can speak only for myself, but I think I have a pretty good idea why toelint and others are so inclined, because I have a similar aversion.

Democrat and Republican evangelists alike have no problems hurling bitter accusations at one another, but are seemingly allergic to taking responsibility for the negative consequences of their own misdeeds.

I mean no personal offense to any ATSer, but the word that comes to my mind when I see this sort of behavior is “infantile”.

It's a mindset that is founded on the notion that one's party and its deities can do no wrong, while those outside the ideological herd can do no right.

It's a distorted, pathological and dishonest way to look at the world, which is why I want no part of it.

Lies And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them

People say “Bush Lied!”, while spewing hateful lies of their own.

Try to honestly examine these claims, and this happens. This was one of the first threads I started on ATS – the fourth one, in fact.

I recommend reading the last post I made to that thread over a year and a half ago. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since then – except that I find myself slogging through the mud more than I resolved to (here I am in the Slug-Fest forum), for which the shame is mine alone to bear.

I still, to this very day, lament the loss to partisan martyrdom of what could have been an excellent member.

But my experiences in this sordid arena raise a compelling question: Why the bloody hell should I trust people who are so obviously committed to lying to me?


The blindness to self this sort of insanity exposes is embarrassing to watch, let alone display.

A classic -- but by no means close to unique – example of this sort of thing was brilliantly (if we could call it that) illustrated in this thread:

For those ppl who ask where the Bush cabal funding comes from

Making The World Safe For Hypocrisy

The fact that so many of Bush's detractors are scoundrels does not mean that Bush is a paragon of virtue. There is no shortage of sin in American politics.

But if either major party wishes to claim the moral high ground, they would be well-advised to at least start acting like they belong there.

Based on what I'm seeing, however, there is no danger of that happening anytime soon.
:shk:





P.S. For those who may still be wondering where I stand on all this, a good example of my screed can be found here: The REAL Reason Bush Won. This thread advertisement was brought to you by the letters “D” and “R”, and my tendency to try to avoid repeating myself too much, too much.



Edit: Fixed link.

[edit on 2/19/2006 by Majic]



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
Whilst I don't share your view, I did find something you touched on quite interesting. It is so frustrating that oppposing political parties seem to go out of the way to ensure they disagree with any view that the opposing party raises, regardless of it's merit. It seems that the only pre-requisite to being in the opposition is to hold the complete opposite view of everything your opponent stands for. The well-being and best interests of the people takes a back seat. It would be nice, even occasionally, to hear bth parties agree on something that truly shows merit, rather than disagreeing for the sake of it.



posted on Feb, 20 2006 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Well Majic,

I've given up GameBoy for playing with my latest aquisition:

A G W Bush VooDOO Doll:

Pres. G W Voodoo Doll

www.billmon.org...




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join