George Bush would beat you in a debate - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

dig420 · 06-26-2004, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
First you state that members of both parties don't participate in this kind of telescopic blind, can't see both sides of the story thinking and then you go prove that they do!

Dig, I hate to say this but your reply on any political issue is 100% predictable. I knew almost exactly what your response would be. You know why? Because there are valid reasons both for and against nearly any point of view and as a Democrat, you present the Democratic side without ever saying "however", "but", or "here's something which might contradict what I am saying" though. You don't care about what is. You only care to show that Democrats are right 100% of the time and Republicans, 0. Oooh, the blame game.

I paint both sides with the same brush because they are. What? You think human nature doesn't apply to half of Amreicans?

and just how did I prove that they do? Because I said that this wouldn't happen under Clinton's watch? I have reasons for believing this is so. The Clinton administration understood the danger posed by AQ and they took it very seriously, unlike the Bush team whose pre-911 priority was online pornography, and whose post-911 priority was Saddam Hussein. The Clinton team was interested in generating and reacting to actual objective intelligence, the Bush team told the intelligence community what they wanted to hear and then ignored everything else until they heard it.

I'm sorry man, but the fact is that since the Gingrich-led 'Republican Revolution' the GOP has been led by regressive fanatical ideologues more interested in forcing an agenda of cultural devolution than they are in responsible government. They're incompetent and dangerous and I think it's past time that the Dems took the gloves off called a spade a spade. The Rush Limbaughs and Newt Gingriches of the world can only survive so long as they remain unchallenged.

The reasonable, more ethical GOP you're wishing for has been stolen and subdued by these people, and John McCain's are few and far between. Look at who your party nominated for President and tell me that's the best the Repub party has to offer, and I'll tell you it's a morally and intellectually deficient organization.

ADL Colin · 06-26-2004, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
I've never seen you make one post in defense of a liberal position or in defense of the Democratic party. I've seen you make several dozen in defense of the Repubs. What conclusion should a reasonable man draw from this?

Oh, come on Dig. Are you kidding?

Some recent examples.

1. I've said that I think the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton was shameful. A president should not be impeached for what happens in his personal life. The reasons given for impeachment in the Constitution were not, I believe, meant to be applied in such a way.

2. When Republicans like to say Clinton's economy was a "false economy" and that the March, 2001 recession was a result of that policy I always point out that it was real money and that Greenspan was increasing interest rates all throughout the mid and late 1990s which was probably the real cause of the recession. Not Clinton.

3. I've stated that the Clinton years were one of the best periods economically for the country in nearly every way.

4. I've pointed out Clinton's role in those good economic years in securing a large number of free trade agreements and lowered tariffs.

dig420 · 06-26-2004, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Oh, come on Dig. Are you kidding?

Some recent examples.

1. I've said that I think the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton was shameful. A president should not be impeached for what happens in his personal life. The reasons given for impeachment in the Constitution were not, I believe, meant to be applied in such a way.

2. When Republicans like to say Clinton's economy was a "false economy" and that the March, 2001 recession was a result of that policy I always point out that it was real money and that Greenspan was increasing interest rates all throughout the mid and late 1990s which was probably the real cause of the recession. Not Clinton.

3. I've stated that the Clinton years were one of the best periods economically for the country in nearly every way.

4. I've pointed out Clinton's role in those good economic years in securing a large number of free trade agreements and lowered tariffs.

I stand corrected, but you know what I meant. And you know I'm right

ADL Colin · 06-26-2004, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
and just how did I prove that they do? Because I said that this wouldn't happen under Clinton's watch? I have reasons for believing this is so. The Clinton administration understood the danger posed by AQ and they took it very seriously, unlike the Bush team whose pre-911 priority was online pornography, and whose post-911 priority was Saddam Hussein. The Clinton team was interested in generating and reacting to actual objective intelligence, the Bush team told the intelligence community what they wanted to hear and then ignored everything else until they heard it.

Well ok. Considering that Osama "declared war" on the US in 1998 what did the last administration do about it? You are saying they "understood the danger posed by AQ and they took it very seriously". So what did they do, sit down and talk about how much they took it seriously? What action did they take in 1998, 1999, and 2000 in response to Osama's attacks? A few missiles fired into Afghanistan and Sudan? There are whole books on the subject of "Clinton's deriliction" just as there are on Bush's. The crux of the matter is that Osama "declared war" on America 6 years ago and Clinton didn't do anything that worked and neither has Bush. Maybe the next guy will. Maybe Osama is more clever than all of them. Who knows?

ADL Colin · 06-26-2004, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
I stand corrected, but you know what I meant. And you know I'm right

That's a strange one.

Hey Dig, more news for you. I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and an atheist. I once applied for membership to the Conservative Party of America but they rejected my application!

ADL Colin · 06-26-2004, 12:29 PM

Dig,

I have to run. Catch ya later, friend. Didn't want to leave you here talking to yourself and without the search function I'll never make it back. ;-)

dig420 · 06-26-2004, 12:34 PM

That's alright, I have to take the neice and nephew to Disneyland anyways, should be a fun afternoon

I was just starting to get loosened up too ;)

Centurion · 06-26-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Bush was very honest in the debates!

LEHRER: Saddam Hussein, you mean?

BUSH: Yes.

LEHRER: You could get him out of there?

BUSH: I'd like to, of course.

Ah yes! I think this is the same Mr. Bush who said in one of the debates that the U.S. "can't be the world's policeman."

He's soooooooo damn honest!

Rich · 06-26-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Dig,

I have to run. Catch ya later, friend. Didn't want to leave you here talking to yourself and without the search function I'll never make it back. ;-)

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/newsearch.php

Centurion · 06-26-2004, 12:42 PM

I think the "winner" of Presidential debates depends more on style over substance. Gore was right on in most of the debate points, but came over as a stiff arrogant intellectual.

Poor Bush stumbled around, yet had that "folksy" charm that many Americans identified with (think about it, if any regular American was going to debate, do you think they would be as knowledgable as Gore was? no..that's why so many liked Bush from the debates). In other words, it's more important in how you say something as opposed to what you actually said.

But that was 4 years ago..before 9/11, before the economic collapse, before the great outsourcing and our isolation from the world because of Bush's "agenda" to go it alone and do what he damn well pleased. This time around, people are going to listen much more carefully to what IS said this time.

The Truth Hurts · 06-26-2004, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Global Dialers
lets not forget bush wasnt 'elected' president

he went to court and paid for it

Your version of history is pretty fucking warped.

theking · 06-26-2004, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
The main thing you can take from this thread is that even Colin, a man of great intelligence and considerable eloquence, finds it very very difficult to defend Bush and the Republican party as a whole when challenged.

Colin, why do you keep insisting you're not a Republican when every political post you make is pro-conservative? This is a new style of posting I've seen lately, conservatives who are ashamed to admit it but they can't help posting in defense of the latest Republican fuckup.

The Truth Hurts
Theking aka Pathfinder

There must be a dozen guys who do this now.

Danny boy...my political stance is that of a moderate with a liberal leaning. If you choose to call me a conservative because I am in favor of a strong military...military R&D and believe that a strong offensive capability is the best defense...which is often attributed to a conservative position...then so be it.

theking · 06-26-2004, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
Oh, come on Dig. Are you kidding?

Some recent examples.

1. I've said that I think the Republican attempt to impeach Clinton was shameful. A president should not be impeached for what happens in his personal life. The reasons given for impeachment in the Constitution were not, I believe, meant to be applied in such a way.

2. When Republicans like to say Clinton's economy was a "false economy" and that the March, 2001 recession was a result of that policy I always point out that it was real money and that Greenspan was increasing interest rates all throughout the mid and late 1990s which was probably the real cause of the recession. Not Clinton.

3. I've stated that the Clinton years were one of the best periods economically for the country in nearly every way.

4. I've pointed out Clinton's role in those good economic years in securing a large number of free trade agreements and lowered tariffs.

All points that I agree with.

theking · 06-26-2004, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin
That's a strange one.

Hey Dig, more news for you. I'm pro-choice, anti-death penalty, and an atheist. I once applied for membership to the Conservative Party of America but they rejected my application!

All points that I agree with...however I have never had the urge to to join the "Conservative Party of America".

titmowse · 06-26-2004, 01:13 PM

a real debate or these fake excuses for debate?

ADL Colin · 06-27-2004, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/newsearch.php

Damn, thanks!

zentz · 06-27-2004, 05:36 AM

yup. i bet he would...

FlyingIguana · 06-27-2004, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Global Dialers
lets not forget bush wasnt 'elected' president

he went to court and paid for it

he won, there were people from both sides in florida making sure nothing funny went on.

06-26-2004, 12:29 PM	#56
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Dig, I have to run. Catch ya later, friend. Didn't want to leave you here talking to yourself and without the search function I'll never make it back. ;-) __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

06-26-2004, 01:13 PM	#65
titmowse Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: TEXAS Posts: 5,320	a real debate or these fake excuses for debate? __________________ I still love everybody

06-27-2004, 05:36 AM	#67
zentz Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 8,053	yup. i bet he would... __________________ Programs that owe me money ---- Epassporte.com ~ $2700 \| Protraffic.com ~ $2600 \| XonDemand.com ~ $3000 Email: [email protected]

06-26-2004, 12:34 PM	#57
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	That's alright, I have to take the neice and nephew to Disneyland anyways, should be a fun afternoon I was just starting to get loosened up too ;)

06-26-2004, 12:42 PM	#60
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	I think the "winner" of Presidential debates depends more on style over substance. Gore was right on in most of the debate points, but came over as a stiff arrogant intellectual. Poor Bush stumbled around, yet had that "folksy" charm that many Americans identified with (think about it, if any regular American was going to debate, do you think they would be as knowledgable as Gore was? no..that's why so many liked Bush from the debates). In other words, it's more important in how you say something as opposed to what you actually said. But that was 4 years ago..before 9/11, before the economic collapse, before the great outsourcing and our isolation from the world because of Bush's "agenda" to go it alone and do what he damn well pleased. This time around, people are going to listen much more carefully to what IS said this time.