Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MindFad · Jun 27, 2004, 02:07 AM

So, what's it going to be? Invade Cuba? Bush pulls Osama out of his cap just before election? Let's hear 'em.

Big money! [/Cheney]

zachs · Jun 27, 2004, 02:11 AM

The "Bush/Cheney" ticket will be no longer.

Cheney's kicking Bush off.

Atomic Rooster · Jun 27, 2004, 02:16 AM

My bling-bling goes on Barbera Bush announcing she's...

Going to tour with Gladys Knight and the Pips.

Millennium · Jun 27, 2004, 06:54 PM

My guess: Cheney bows out and Bush brings Giuliani aboard as running mate.

Frankly, that's one I wouldn't mind, anyway. Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but by himself he's pretty harmless. It's his Administration "teammates" who are really dangerous, and three members thereof in particular: Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Any of those three going down is a massive victory for America, and all three would be even better. A Bush would be almost inconsequential except that these three lunatics would go down.

Ω · Jun 27, 2004, 07:32 PM

I thought the same when I heard Powell was part of his administration, that maybe some sanity might prevail in the White House....

nredman · Jun 27, 2004, 07:42 PM

i was hoping for a kerry/mccain ticket. probably wont happen though

chabig · Jun 27, 2004, 08:32 PM

I think the October surprise will be John Kerry promising to join Alec Baldwin and B.S. in France if Bush gets elected.

One can only hope...

Chris

macvillage.net · Jun 27, 2004, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
My guess: Cheney bows out and Bush brings Giuliani aboard as running mate.

Frankly, that's one I wouldn't mind, anyway. Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but by himself he's pretty harmless. It's his Administration "teammates" who are really dangerous, and three members thereof in particular: Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Any of those three going down is a massive victory for America, and all three would be even better. A Bush would be almost inconsequential except that these three lunatics would go down.

That's not far fetched. Very possible.

I'd bet on a large troop deployment in October. Get some more soldiers deployed in time for that last minute reiteration of Bush's "wartime president... support me and the troops, or spit in a soldiers fce" campaign.

I wouldn't be suprised if it's a buildup around Iran, or some other nation. Just to keep tensions high. I'd bet Iran over NK, just because of logistics. Naval deployment would be costly, and that would be essential for NK. Iran the logistics are somewhat in place already.

Then we hear about how Bush is keeping the heat on terrorists, and how the 9/11 hijackers weren't really saudi but Iraqi's and Iranian's.... bla bla bla... typical Bush BS... then we hear him say he was 'misinformed' by the intelegence agency which never told him anything of the sort.

dreilly1 · Jun 27, 2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
My guess: Cheney bows out and Bush brings Giuliani aboard as running mate.

I always thought that Bush should pick Condi Rice as his next running mate. Giuliani would never accept being second banana. Could you imagine how pissed off the Democrats would be if the first female VP (and the first black VP) was a Republican?

zachs · Jun 27, 2004, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I always thought that Bush should pick Condi Rice as his next running mate. Giuliani would never accept being second banana. Could you imagine how pissed off the Democrats would be if the first female VP (and the first black VP) was a Republican?

Could you imagine how pissed off the wingnuts would be if Bush loses this November?

Guess we're gonna find out...

BlackGriffen · Jun 27, 2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
My guess: Cheney bows out and Bush brings Giuliani aboard as running mate.

Frankly, that's one I wouldn't mind, anyway. Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but by himself he's pretty harmless. It's his Administration "teammates" who are really dangerous, and three members thereof in particular: Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Any of those three going down is a massive victory for America, and all three would be even better. A Bush would be almost inconsequential except that these three lunatics would go down.

Throw in Karl Rove, and you may be on to something. As long as there are assurances that he won't pick another wack-o for the positions (he has a bad track record for picking them).

You've gotta throw in the EPA as a gimme, too. I'm personally ambivalent to Mike Levitt, but it would be nice to see the EPA actually doing its job.

BlackGriffen

Lerkfish · Jun 28, 2004, 01:09 AM

I'm still putting my money on any of the following (in order of likelihood:

1. Osama gets trotted out...as captured or dead. But it has to be within 6 weeks of the election or it will do no good to the popularity polls.
2. Invasion of another ME country. We'll know if this is the case because we'll start getting increasing rhetoric about them harboring terrorists. My guess is Syria, if for no other reason than that strategically they are in the way for the pipeline running from Baghdad to Isreal.
3. Since Rove is in the picture, a particularly nasty whisper campaign against Kerry, like they did to McCain. Look for it to be lower than whale dung in terms of the viciousness of the rumor, requiring Kerry to spend way too much time and effort on damage control.
4. Heightened Homeland security alert colors, a HUGE plot will be thwarted, publicly, and conveniently within 6 weeks of the election.
5. OR, a terrorist attack occurs in great scale, and martial law is announced, with elections either being suspended indefinitely or polling places being patrolled by militia.
6. Diebold and other election machine companies jiggering the software to hand Bush the election, regardless of the public's wishes. Of course, if this happens, we'll not know about it.

Millennium · Jun 28, 2004, 06:48 AM

Originally posted by dreilly1:
I always thought that Bush should pick Condi Rice as his next running mate. Giuliani would never accept being second banana. Could you imagine how pissed off the Democrats would be if the first female VP (and the first black VP) was a Republican?

That's the other major possibility. If they do this, then I can even see them grooming her to be the next big Republican candidate after Bush himself.

No, seriously. The idea of Hillary running as a Democrat in 2008 is a no-brainer, even if Kerry wins this time (enough people are only voting for Kerry because he isn't Bush that a 2008 victory for him would be far from certain). Given the raw political correctness of this, there are only two people the Republicans could field with any hope of actually beating her: Powell and Rice. Powell won't run; that much is obvious, which leaves Rice. The only way to negate Hillary's political-correctness advantage of being female is to run another female against her, and Rice's race then reverses the advantage over to the Republicans.

The good news is, this means that either way we will almost certainly have a female President in 2008. The bad news is that this race will be run on political correctness rather than the merits of either candidate -neither of whom has particularly good ideas for America at this point in time- and this may end up proving a major obstacle to female candidates in the future.

Millennium · Jun 28, 2004, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
6. Diebold and other election machine companies jiggering the software to hand Bush the election, regardless of the public's wishes. Of course, if this happens, we'll not know about it.

And naturally, this is what liberals will accuse Bush of doing whether or not this is true, because of course no rational person would vote for him, am I right?

effgee · Jun 28, 2004, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by MindFad:
So, what's it going to be? Invade Cuba? Bush pulls Osama out of his cap just before election? Let's hear 'em.

<wish>
The polls showing that a considerable majority of the American people realize just how badly they've been shafted since 2000 ...
</wish>

Now that would be a start.

effgee · Jun 28, 2004, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
..., because of course no rational person would vote for him, am I right?

Right you are.

Lerkfish · Jun 28, 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
And naturally, this is what liberals will accuse Bush of doing whether or not this is true, because of course no rational person would vote for him, am I right?

no, there is actually a great deal of weight to that concern, I wasn't criticising people who would decide to vote for Bush at all, rather the voting machine manufacturers:

http://www.diebold.com/whatsnews/int.../executive.htm

(from diebold's own website)

http://www.motherjones.com/commentar...03/03_200.html

and a more balanced view:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in583042.shtml

MindFad · Sep 10, 2004, 06:12 PM

Word has it the surprise might be to relieve Tom Ridge of his position and replace him with Giulliani.

That is all.

macvillage.net · Sep 10, 2004, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
My guess: Cheney bows out and Bush brings Giuliani aboard as running mate.

Frankly, that's one I wouldn't mind, anyway. Bush isn't the brightest bulb in the box, but by himself he's pretty harmless. It's his Administration "teammates" who are really dangerous, and three members thereof in particular: Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld. Any of those three going down is a massive victory for America, and all three would be even better. A Bush would be almost inconsequential except that these three lunatics would go down.

I don't think Cheney is nearly as big of a threat as Ashcroft and Rumsfeld.

Bush has Cheney on a chain tied to a tree in the backyard. Cheney is well trained to sit and watch for anyone approaching the property.

Ashcroft on the other hand, really runs the administration based on what whitehouse staffers say.

Don't know if you noticed but Cheney's been in a lot of disagreement with Bush/Ashcroft lately.

IMHO Ashcroft is #1 threat to america right now. Wish someone would kick him off the ticket. The last person to be nearly as much of an extremist in our government was the infamous Joe McCarthy. The difference is Joe was more talk than anything else.

deedar · Sep 10, 2004, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
...of course no rational person would vote for him, am I right?

At least that part is right.

ringo · Sep 10, 2004, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
And naturally, this is what liberals will accuse Bush of doing whether or not this is true, because of course no rational person would vote for him, am I right?

Conservatives should be equally concerned, Diebold machines use a freakin' Microsoft Access database to store vote records, and the tabulation machines have a two button code built in that will create a second set of votes that can be edited and counted in the place of real votes. Electronic records would also be much harder to audit compared to other systems. Leftie or Rightie, electronic voting is a terrible idea when it's implemented this way: Read More

macvillage.net · Sep 10, 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by ringo:
Conservatives should be equally concerned, Diebold machines use a freakin' Microsoft Access database to store vote records, and the tabulation machines have a two button code built in that will create a second set of votes that can be edited and counted in the place of real votes. Electronic records would also be much harder to audit compared to other systems. Leftie or Rightie, electronic voting is a terrible idea when it's implemented this way: Read More

MS Access is a very top notch product.

I would only trust mySQL or Oracle myself

Shaddim · Sep 10, 2004, 07:34 PM

I'm looking for a trifecta.

1.) They catch Osama (or fly him back to the M.E. from Langley).

2.) Cheney drops out and they announce Giuliani as VP.

3.) It'll be announced that Kerry's a transvestite, and pictures of him in a cocktail dress and pumps will circulate around the `net.

MindFad · Sep 10, 2004, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
3.) It'll be announced that Kerry's a transvestite, and pictures of him in a cocktail dress and pumps will circulate around the `net.

Hahahahahaha. I would absolutely pay to see that.

I'd almost vote for George to see that.

BlackGriffen · Sep 10, 2004, 07:40 PM

Scary thought - the election will be decided by which side has the best hackers in the right places....

BG

MindFad · Sep 10, 2004, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Scary thought - the election will be decided by which side has the best hackers in the right places....

BG

Made scarier since many precincts using these machines will dial in the results by modem to a number that is public.

OldManMac · Sep 10, 2004, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by ringo:
Conservatives should be equally concerned, Diebold machines use a freakin' Microsoft Access database to store vote records, and the tabulation machines have a two button code built in that will create a second set of votes that can be edited and counted in the place of real votes. Electronic records would also be much harder to audit compared to other systems. Leftie or Rightie, electronic voting is a terrible idea when it's implemented this way: Read More

Diebold honchos are also big contributors to the Republican machine. Hmmmmm.

stupendousman · Sep 11, 2004, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm still putting my money on any of the following (in order of likelihood:

1. Osama gets trotted out...as captured or dead. But it has to be within 6 weeks of the election or it will do no good to the popularity polls.

Are you kidding? The last "suprise" unleashed by the Democrats (Bush drunk driving) was like a week from the election and did some major damage. They could bring out Osama the week before the election and still score majorly.

Also...it's normally been the democrats who have created "October Surprises", Both reality based (GW Bush) and fiction based (G Bush). I think tthough that they shot their load on GW in 2000. They'll either have to invent stuff like they are doing with their forged documents (that will likely have little effect) or reguritate stuff like they are doing know. Poor souls.

3. Since Rove is in the picture, a particularly nasty whisper campaign against Kerry, like they did to McCain. Look for it to be lower than whale dung in terms of the viciousness of the rumor, requiring Kerry to spend way too much time and effort on damage control.

It's already there. Edwards is already calling on Bush to answer to 30 year old fables based on forged documents after expressing distaste at the actions of the Swifties who weren't REALLY being propped up by the RNC (neither they or Bush commented, unlike the DNC or Kerry campaign) who were doing the same thing that he and Kerry are doing to Bush.

Most of the undecided KNOW that Bush isn't bragging about his NG duty. On the other hand, Kerry blew his conrtributions WAY out of proportion and staked his candidacy on it by making it the feature of his convention. When it turned out that he lied about certain things, and campaigned for medals and an early withdrawal, it painted him as an even MORE phony guy than he already seemed. Now he's dipping....dipping...dipping in the polls. Poor guy. :lol

phoenixboy70 · Sep 11, 2004, 02:59 AM

1) the us constitution is abolished and america will henceforth be referred to as "the empire�"

2) john ashcroft starts wearing black frock and is referred to by bush and other neocons as "my master"

3) rumor starts circulating on the internet that michael moore is actually dubya's son...

Secret__Police · Sep 11, 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
IMHO Ashcroft is #1 threat to america right now. Wish someone would kick him off the ticket. The last person to be nearly as much of an extremist in our government was the infamous Joe McCarthy. The difference is Joe was more talk than anything else.

That man is a LUNATIC.
He wipes his A$$ with the Bill of Rights and cleans his feet with the Constitution.

Zimphire · Sep 11, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by zachs:
Could you imagine how pissed off the wingnuts would be if Bush loses this November?

Guess we're gonna find out...

Maybe in bizarro world. Not in this one.

Sorry zachs. It doesn't look good for your buddy Kerry.

ebuddy · Sep 11, 2004, 10:33 AM

Maybe in bizarro world. Not in this one.
Sorry zachs. It doesn't look good for your buddy Kerry.

You're exactly right Zimph. It looks dreadfully poor for Kerry right now. Now, any successes Bush has on the WoT will be viewed as black helicopter conspiracies. All you have to do is look at the imperialistic nature of the Clinton administration to know that foreign-policy acceptance and denial depends solely on whether there's a (D) or (R) after the name. I love to watch the hypocracy. I love to watch the Kerry campaign implode.

One minute, WHERE'S OBL? WHY CAN'T WE CATCH OBL? WHERE'S WMD?

The next minute, we're so in control of OBL and WMD that they're going to be pulled from Bush's cap maticulously planned for approx 6 weeks from election. I LOVE IT!!!

Zimphire · Sep 11, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by ebuddy:
You're exactly right Zimph. It looks dreadfully poor for Kerry right now. Now, any successes Bush has on the WoT will be viewed as black helicopter conspiracies. All you have to do is look at the imperialistic nature of the Clinton administration to know that foreign-policy acceptance and denial depends solely on whether there's a (D) or (R) after the name. I love to watch the hypocracy. I love to watch the Kerry campaign implode.

One minute, WHERE'S OBL? WHY CAN'T WE CATCH OBL? WHERE'S WMD?

The next minute, we're so in control of OBL and WMD that they're going to be pulled from Bush's cap maticulously planned for approx 6 weeks from election. I LOVE IT!!!

Yeah I got more of those for ya

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good... Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good... Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists - good... Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good... Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

Clinton commits felonies while in office - good... Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good... Most of the entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

No mass graves found in Serbia - good... No WMD found Iraq - bad...

Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good... Recession under Bush - bad...

Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good... World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good... Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good... Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good... Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

Milosevic not yet convicted - good... Saddam in custody - bad...

And the list goes on.

Krusty · Sep 11, 2004, 12:30 PM

Good points, all in all, Zimph (about Clinton's military actions). But you misrepresented a few things.

Clinton gets full approval and endorsement from UN for actions in Serbia. Bush thumbs his nose at UN and goes to war with a "coalition of the willing" whose membership was small and continues to drop --- Costa Rica (who sent no troops, I know) just informed the US gov't they're quitting the coalition too as of yesterday.

Most of world did NOT believe in WMD in Iraq (though most in the US did), Those who did believe in them did so because of false conclusions based on shaky evidence that WE presented as fact. It is now beyond dispute and fully admitted up and down the Bush admin that the WMD intelligence was wrong.

Clinton believes much of what Bush believed about Iraq and his WMD capabilities. Bush changes 50 years of containment policy for a policy of preemptive prevention. THIS is the critical point about Bush and why he is so roundly criticized. Preemptive war is illegal according the UN charter (that we are signatories to) except in case of imminent attack. It is crystal clear that no attack from Iraq on the US was imminent. Kosovo was never posited as a preemptive war but a humanitarian war. Iraq was posited as preemptive ... until it became clear there was nothing to preempt. Then it magically became a humanitarian war.

Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan originated in the Reagan/Bush era ... when we we're calling the Taliban the Mujahadeen and supporting them in their war against the USSR. Bush hosted several of the Taliban leaders at the White House in the summer prior to 9/11 -- they weren't "bad guys" to him either until post-9/11.

Clinton spends 77bln in Serbia and Bush 87blin in Iraq? Where black hole of news have you been residing in. 87bln was the initial request ... which has been supplemented to the tune of 100+ bln now. And there is absolutely no end in sight. The UN and Clinton's actions in Kosovo were to end a genocide that was occurring RIGHT THEN. They did it, and got out. Bush was about a decade too late to end the genocide that had occurred in Iraq.

And perhaps the most import issue in the Kosovo/Iraq comparison. In Iraq .. we WERE WRONG in the reasons we gave for going to Iraq. The reasons we went to Kosovo are beyond doubt.

-- All in all, good points though. I always wonder how either the Libs or Cons seem to try to paint the other side as drastically different on national defense issues. They really do act fairly similarly in most situations. Given your conclusions about the similarities between Clinton and Bush on foreign policy and Clinton's clear advantage in fiscal discipline with the budget ... it seems like Clinton would be a conservative's dream president. Militaristic but tight with the budget*

*please don't make me whip out the deficit charts again or point out the fact that Bush has increased the budget at a whopping 11.8%/yr average clip in his 3 years compared to Clinton's 2.4%/yr average. Even excluding military expenditures, Bush has more than doubled the pace of government growth over Clinton. Some "conservative"

Zimphire · Sep 11, 2004, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Krusty:

Clinton gets full approval and endorsement from UN for actions in Serbia. Bush thumbs his nose at UN and goes to war with a "coalition of the willing" whose membership was small and continues to drop --- Costa Rica (who sent no troops, I know) just informed the US gov't they're quitting the coalition too as of yesterday.

With Bosnia? Yes. When he attacked Iraq? No

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Most of world did NOT believe in WMD in Iraq (though most in the US did), Those who did believe in them did so because of false conclusions based on shaky evidence that WE presented as fact. It is now beyond dispute and fully admitted up and down the Bush admin that the WMD intelligence was wrong.

US presented said material. But it was mostly different countries THROUGHOUT THE WORLD that presented it to us.

Clinton believes much of what Bush believed about Iraq and his WMD capabilities. Bush changes 50 years of containment policy for a policy of preemptive prevention. THIS is the critical point about Bush and why he is so roundly criticized. Preemptive war is illegal according the UN charter (that we are signatories to) except in case of imminent attack. It is crystal clear that no attack from Iraq on the US was imminent. Kosovo was never posited as a preemptive war but a humanitarian war. Iraq was posited as preemptive ... until it became clear there was nothing to preempt. Then it magically became a humanitarian war.

Again nothing magically became anything. Kablooey just got smacked down in this thread For claiming such things.
Iraq was part of the war on terror because there WAS proof that Iraq had terrorist connections. Something the 9/11 commission said there was no doubt of.

Terrorist training camps in Afghanistan originated in the Reagan/Bush era ...

No, training armies was in the Reagan Bush era. The Tabliban didn't become a terrorist organization till a bit later. Fact is, in the 90s it was KNOWN what was going on. Clinton didn't want to do anything about it even after being attacked TWICE by the group.

Clinton spends 77bln in Serbia and Bush 87blin in Iraq? Where black hole of news have you been residing in. 87bln was the initial request ... which has been supplemented to the tune of 100+ bln now. And there is absolutely no end in sight. The UN and Clinton's actions in Kosovo were to end a genocide that was occurring RIGHT THEN. They did it, and got out. Bush was about a decade too late to end the genocide that had occurred in Iraq.

Ahaha yeah tell me about it. Bush Sr should have stopped it then. Clinton DID SQUAT! THAT is when it should have been dealt with.

And perhaps the most import issue in the Kosovo/Iraq comparison. In Iraq .. we WERE WRONG in the reasons we gave for going to Iraq. The reasons we went to Kosovo are beyond doubt.

There were MANY reasons from the beginning to go into Iraq. One of them we MIGHT be wrong in. That doesn't magically make the other reasons wrong. That there is leftist reasoning. Not rational reasoning.

Krusty · Sep 11, 2004, 01:19 PM

Re: your point on Clinton/Iraq bombing. Conceded. This is one of the many things in your original post that fall under the "Good points, all in all, Zimph" that began my post. If I didn't specifically disagree with a point you made, it probably means that I agreed with it or at least didn't oppose it, capiche ??

Re: Many reasons for going. The catalyzing element was WMD and imminent threat. Do you believe that if this one reason were not in the mix that we would've gone anyway? C'mon Zimph, without that reason, then Iraq becomes no different than numerous other countries in the world.

I'll address your other points later. My Kung Bo Gai Ding w/egg drop soup has just arrived at the door. Time for lunch ...

Zimphire · Sep 11, 2004, 01:23 PM

The reason Iraq is different than the other countries just like it is, it was too late. We already stuck our foot in that mess back in the early 90s. We made claims on what we wanted to do for the Iraq people back then. Bush Sr. made claims. Clinton made claims. And now Bush is doing something about it.

The VERY reason I DIDN'T Vote for Bush Sr the second time around is the very reason why I am voting for his son his second time around. Iraq. Finally, something is getting done with Saddam.

CreepingDeth · Sep 11, 2004, 01:29 PM

Kerry shows of his daughters' daughters. More booing and more stupidity.

j/k

Let's hope we bag bin Laden. That'll raise his approval to, oh, 60%. Not saying there's some conspiracy to put him out in October because we already have him, like Lerk would say, but just wishful thinking.

Cheney isn't leaving the ticket.

Atomic Rooster · Sep 11, 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The VERY reason I DIDN'T Vote for Bush Sr the second time around is the very reason why I am voting for his son his second time around. Iraq. Finally, something is getting done with Saddam.

I'm happy you were so concerned about Saddam. I couldn't sleep at night thinking he might creep into my room.

I have come to the conclusion that no republicans with any intelligence come to this forum. However there must be some out there...yes?...no? Are the intelligent ones reconciled to the fact that Bush is an indefensible moron. I have to say yes. The only ones here seem to be neo nazi skinheads who want to start a holocaust and dress up people in piggy jackets. They seem to think Bush is the one to do it. The only hope we have if Bush is elected is that 4 years isn't enuf time to destroy the U.S. beyond repair.

Now that he's freed the Iraqis...next will be...well I dunno there's so many countries that need freeing...Africa has a sh!tload and Asia still has Vietnam and Korea...it'll be a busy four years yes indeed.

CreepingDeth · Sep 11, 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Atomic Rooster:
he only ones here seem to be neo nazi skinheads who want to start a holocaust and dress up people in piggy jackets. They seem to think Bush is the one to do it.

This socialist board never ceases to amaze me.
When have I supported genocide, attack Israel and Jews, etc?
Neo Nazis are just the KKK in brown. They're idiots and they're a minority. White condescension is worse than racism. Besides, what skinhead like me and Zimph would ever want to free damn Arabs and keep the Jews alive?

Stop the ********, please.

Atomic Rooster · Sep 11, 2004, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
This socialist board never ceases to amaze me.
When have I supported genocide, attack Israel and Jews, etc?
Neo Nazis are just the KKK in brown. They're idiots and they're a minority. White condescension is worse than racism. Besides, what skinhead like me and Zimph would ever want to free damn Arabs and keep the Jews alive?

Stop the ********, please.

I never mentioned you personally and I never said anything about Jews or Isreal.

WTF?

Are you the darkside of Superchicken? Because your posts are just like his used to be. Incoherent to the point of total nonsense.

???

CreepingDeth · Sep 11, 2004, 02:41 PM

Being one of the biggest conservatives here, calling the conservatives on this board nazis attacks me, Zimp, Pac, etc.
Nazis hate Jews, and I don't.

Where would you guys be if you couldn't call us Nazis?

Atomic Rooster · Sep 11, 2004, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Being one of the biggest conservatives here, calling the conservatives on this board nazis attacks me, Zimp, Pac, etc.
Nazis hate Jews, and I don't.

Well I would hope you don't hate Jews...then you would be against you own people.

Shalom...

macvillage.net · Sep 11, 2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
That man is a LUNATIC.
He wipes his A$$ with the Bill of Rights and cleans his feet with the Constitution.

What's interesting is that he's said many times before taking office (subject to much controversy) he believes the constitution is immoral and fuels immorality in america.

His strict faith prohibits things such as music, dancing, etc. But he considers himself 'moderate'. Oh yea, his belief is also it's immoral (thus wrong) for non-christians to mingle with Chrisitans. Hmm... and his pledge was to bring morality back to the country. As if that isn't creepy.

The guy really is F***ing nuts. He makes Strom Thurman look liberal. Literally.

Toutgood · Sep 12, 2004, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
His strict faith prohibits things such as music, dancing, etc.

Kinda like the Dad from Footloose?

In light of North Korea's possible nukes, what's the over/under on an invasion, airstrike, war type scenario over thar?

spacefreak · Sep 12, 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by MindFad:
So, what's it going to be? Invade Cuba? Bush pulls Osama out of his cap just before election? Let's hear 'em.

(1) Democrats push and endorse the Bush-Cocaine-Affairs-Abortions smears made by such honorable people as Kitty Kelley.

(2) Democrats will irresponsibly release videos of Abu Ghraib abuse.

Cody Dawg · Sep 13, 2004, 10:39 AM

October surprise?

It will only be a surprise for Democrats (sorry, guys) when they watch their presidential candidate's approval rating slowly decline.

Just saw a new Bush advertisement on television and it's good. It gives a person a good feeling.

I know he may not be perfect and he may even be imperfect, but he projects a feeling of solidity and he's familiar and we know what to expect with him.

Kerry, he may have been a great president, but he never proved that. He doesn't project the same feeling, the feeling that we will know what to expect with him.

I vote the candidate, not the party, by the way. If Kerry had shown me that he stood for the things that I stood for then I would have voted for him.

He just didn't.

Zimphire · Sep 13, 2004, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I vote the candidate, not the party, by the way. If Kerry had shown me that he stood for the things that I stood for then I would have voted for him.

He just didn't.

dcmacdaddy · Sep 13, 2004, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Cody Dawg:
I vote the candidate, not the party, by the way. If Kerry had shown me that he stood for the things that I stood for then I would have voted for him.

He just didn't.

Actually, that is the reason why I AM going to vote for Kerry. He has
shown me what he stands for and I agree with most of his positions.

Cody Dawg · Sep 13, 2004, 04:51 PM

dcmacdaddy:
I agree with most of his positions.

It's hard not to, I suppose...I mean, he's adopted virtually EVERY single stance that there is: He wants to go to war, then he doesn't. He wants to ban firearms, then he's photographed happily waving around an assault rifle. He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq, then he says they should stay put.