|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 17, 2007 4:10:42 GMT -5
yea, i figured i gotta make it fair
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Jun 17, 2007 11:42:54 GMT -5
You forgot to add Osama Bin Ladin on that poll, but I guess that could be the "other"...so I picked that one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 18, 2007 18:47:56 GMT -5
How can anyone not vote for John Edwards?? He claims he'll be en elite armwrester in 4.75 years...  |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 18, 2007 19:22:39 GMT -5
LOL, I live in NC and train with Johnny, and never even made that connection.
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Jun 18, 2007 20:44:44 GMT -5
Leave it to Bob to seek out the details. He's my hero.
Hi Bob!
Where have you been?
|
|
|
|
Post by Robert Bishop on Jun 18, 2007 20:58:21 GMT -5
I wouldnt vote for any of them but Barach is the least anoying of the current contenders
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Jun 19, 2007 5:04:33 GMT -5
to vote for the least anoying would be really tough i must say.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 19, 2007 6:09:20 GMT -5
Not to stick up for this batch of options (I'm not very fond of any of them myself), but I find it ironic that you call them all annoying but probably voted for the cockiest, airheaded cowboy last election. Yeah, he's not annoying at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toddzilla on Jun 19, 2007 6:47:12 GMT -5
That cowboy lead us out of a recession, lowered unemployment, lowered taxes (the rich got richer and the poor got richer) and led America through 6 years of no additional terrorist attacks in America.
Can your rock star from the previous administration claim such a record?
- largest tax increase in history, actually taxed Social Security benefits.
- terrorist attacks on World Trade Center 1993, no response
- terrorist attacks on military in Riyadh Saudi Arabia 1995, no response
- terrorist attack on Khubar towers 1996, no response
- terrorist attack on emabassy in Tanzania 1998, no response
- terrorist attack on embassy in Kenya 1998, no response
- terrorist attack on USS Cole 2000, no response
- caught having sex with intern, lied and perjured himself then responded by killing a camel and a janitor in Iraq with a cruise missile
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 19, 2007 7:29:32 GMT -5
^outstanding rebuttal. And proof that we as voters should be thinking a little bit deeper than whether or not our options are "annoying".
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Jun 19, 2007 8:45:59 GMT -5
Todd, You forgot to mention the genocide of Rwanda where 800,000 -1,000,000 people were slaughtered. Clinton was, and still is, forgiven for not interceding then. Clinton provided Iran with nuclear technology. Clinton provided China with nuclear technology. Clinton provided North Korea with nuclear technology. Clinton supported Arrafat in his terrorist attacks against Israelis. Just under this one president has he assisted the world to the world's insecurity. Should we put yet another Clinton in office? To be more specific, should we put another Democrat in office?  |
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 19, 2007 8:55:56 GMT -5
Is this really going to turn into a Clinton bashing session? Is this a form of therapy for the guilt that must be associated with tearing Iraq to pieces while ignoring Darfur? I'm not a Clinton apologist by any means, but people in glass houses...
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Jun 19, 2007 9:16:32 GMT -5
Why not turn it into one? Everyone seems to find glee in their mission against Bush. You bring up Darfur as I knew you would.
Bush has been ridiculed for not interceding in that conflict, but what makes it any different than us going into Iraq?
Please don't come back saying it was due to failed intel. History proved itself once...twice...with Saddam. What would have happened if we didn't intercede then as well? I forgot they, and we, must be killed before we protect ourselves. Not to mention the rest of the world we are expected to defend.
No glass house dweller here friend.
What Todd and I are saying is no different than one another, but you seem to have a problem with my facts. Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Erick "Zap" Szczap on Jun 19, 2007 9:28:17 GMT -5
Just to make sure we're straight, Clinton should be attacked for his mishandling of Rwanda, Somalia, and pretty much every other foreign affair he dealt with, but Bush should be commended for his handling of Iraq, Darfur, and pretty much every other foreign affair he's dealt with?
|
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Jun 19, 2007 9:56:06 GMT -5
Where did I say Bush should be commended for his mishandlings? I am asking why is he the bumbling idiot when the one preceding him was worse and it all gets swept under the rug?
I will direct the glass house analogy to the Dems.
|
|
