Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 i beg to differ. they didn't have a viable agenda in 2004. They had a Plan! 715029[/snapback] Well...they planned on having an agenda. You've got to start somewhere... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Good gawd, instead of b*tchin and moaning about the current occupant of the White House wouldn't it be more productive to formulate an viable agenda and try to win it back in 2008 715002[/snapback] At Dubya's rate, he could change, nullify and/or ignore almost 300 more laws in his remaining two years. You don't care, but I do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 i beg to differ. they didn't have a viable agenda in 2004. They had a Plan! 715029[/snapback] Excellent. Another substantive knee-slapping post from a GOPPP sycophant. Well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 At Dubya's rate, he could change, nullify and/or ignore almost 300 more laws in his remaining two years. You don't care, but I do. 715031[/snapback] again i beg to differ. i do care, however you are kinda blowing things outta proportion. You're acting like he just executed Order 66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Excellent. Another substantive knee-slapping post from a GOPPP sycophant. Well done. 715035[/snapback] GOPPP sycophant? Show me one post where I identify myself as a Republican Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 27, 2006 Share Posted June 27, 2006 Excellent. Another substantive knee-slapping post from a GOPPP sycophant. Well done. 715035[/snapback] And you can point to a coherent Democratic Party platform that belies his observation? Didn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 And you can point to a coherent Democratic Party platform that belies his observation? Didn't think so. 715044[/snapback] Their coherent platform is Bush is wrong about everything! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Their coherent platform is Bush is wrong about everything! 715097[/snapback] Enter stage right, GOPPP sycophant. Right on time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IBTG81 Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I'm shocked I haven't seen the following: Bush bad, flight suit, Haliburton, nose pick, Cheney, quail hunting, mission accomplished, and My Pet Goat. Did I leave one out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 What a thread....nothing but pointless bickering and inane name calling with both sides sounding like complete idiots. Nice imitation of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 What a thread....nothing but pointless bickering and inane name calling with both sides sounding like complete idiots. Nice imitation of Congress. 715131[/snapback] I particularly liked PastaJoe's contribution. One of his finer posts. Now let's really send this thread straight to the crapper and pick on Simon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Their coherent platform is Bush is wrong about everything! 715097[/snapback] Check this bush video out.. Is he for the constitution before he's against the constitution http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...206bushlies.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Man, check this one out.. Powell and rice in feb-july 2001 telling the world that saddam is controllable and has no wmd's ..So they were for saddam before they were against saddam http://thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Check this bush video out.. Is he for the constitution before he's against the constitution http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/febru...206bushlies.htm 715185[/snapback] No, he's always been against the Constitution. He's just weasely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Avenger Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I never heard of these signing statements before and assumed that the article was talking about executive orders. Figured they changed the name to hide the fact tht Clinton signed a record #. 714913[/snapback] How did Clinton sign a record number if Reagan signed more than he did and they both served 8 years? It may only be a few more, but it ceratinly robs one of a tasty soundbite when they can no longer say "CLINTON signed a RECORD number". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 How did Clinton sign a record number if Reagan signed more than he did and they both served 8 years?715342[/snapback] There's a very easy explanation. Wacka's a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I've got better things to do than call people names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 I've got better things to do than call people names. 715450[/snapback] Yeah, you're too busy casting aspersions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Man, check this one out.. Powell and rice in feb-july 2001 telling the world that saddam is controllable and has no wmd's ..So they were for saddam before they were against saddam http://thememoryhole.org/war/powell-rice-wmd.wmv 715187[/snapback] Ok, so when bush is weasley, when he's for the constitution before he's against the constitution. What does this video have to say about powell and rice claiming in feb and july 2001 that saddam is controllable and has no wmd's.. Where the whole bush administration claimed he had nuclear component's, unmanned vehichles that could attack, and all the other statement's they made just month's later... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 28, 2006 Share Posted June 28, 2006 Ok, so when bush is weasley, when he's for the constitution before he's against the constitution. What does this video have to say about powell and rice claiming in feb and july 2001 that saddam is controllable and has no wmd's.. Where the whole bush administration claimed he had nuclear component's, unmanned vehichles that could attack, and all the other statement's they made just month's later... 715530[/snapback] 9/11 happened, and this policy was formulated, which resulted in a complete change of the policy towards Iraq. Note that it also resulted in a change of policy towards Iran, Syria, Libya, and North Korea...none of which anyone pays attention to. If people would, then how the administration formulates policy would be much clearer...which is the real argument here. Changing our foreign policy after 9/11 was not being weaselly...far from it, it was as logical a step as Roosevelt abandoning the trappings of his faux-isolationist policy after Pearl Harbor. The drastic change of policy across extraordinary events isn't inconsistent...it's natural, even necessary. This administration, however, has never been one to support Constitutional protections or separation of powers, before or after 9/11, except when such Constitutional powers suited it. On that single matter alone - failing to uphold his oath of office to defend the Constitution - I would have voted against Bush in 2004...except that Kerry's record on Constitutional matters was actually worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts