Jump to content

Bush in 30 seconds

myg0tsp0rky
myg0tsp0rky
in General Discussion

Featured Replies

depends on who runs against him, sp0rk.

 

Bush might be a lesser leader, to be sure...but he's less potentially damaging to the country than most of the idiots up for the democratic ticket, IMHO.

sp0rk']http://www.bushin30seconds.com/

 

check out their bush info page

btw im voting against bush in 2004 and if u can vote and arent a moron you will do the same

 

Democrats don't have a prayer of winning. Their whole ideology has gone out the window. They have no substance. Nobody knows what they stand for anymore. The Dem's are scrambling around trying to find any symbolism that may work. Look what happened to California with democrats in office, it FAILED miserably.

 

All states that are predominantly Democrat has a state and sales tax.

New Hampshire is a republican state...NO SALES TAX, NO STATE TAX.

If you vote democrat then watch your GUNS that you use to protect your family go right out the door with their anti-american gun laws.

 

If you believe that the government can run your life better than you can, vote democrat.

Is Dean the little guy that yells "WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION!?"? hehehehe that guy makes me laugh...

Howard Dean

Former Governor of Vermont and a Medical Doctor, Dean is known for being fiscally conservative (he balanced Vermont's budget) while somewhat socially progressive, working to improve childrens' access to health care and signing a law permitting civil unions for gays. Strongly opposed to Bush's war in Iraq, he now insists we must "win the peace" over there. Dean came from nowhere to lead the pack of candidates, raising some $10 million and attracting thousands of supporters to rallies and meetups.

 

http://www.deanforamerica.com

 

http://www.gristforthemill.org/2004candidates.html

Gotcha SX...which one's the former General, again?

 

And I agree, Dean's scary as hell...I have watched a few of the speeches and debates...enough to know I'm opposed to any one of the leaders in the primaries for democratic ticket.

 

If they ran someone with some sense, I might vote Dem this time, but it's not looking likely..which is a shame, they've got some damned good people in office in congress and the senate...plus several decent democratic state governors who could be nominated.

http://www.gristforthemill.org/images/sharpton_big.jpg

"Rev. Al Sharpton

Mr. Sharpton, despite his checkered past, has an interesting approach to this election and has made some lucid, thoughtful contributions to the debate. His website lists his Top 10 Reasons for entering the campaign, among which include "statehood for the 600,000 disenfranchised citizens of the District of Columbia," and a Constitutional Amendment declaring health care a human right. "

 

http://www.realchange.org/sharpton.htm

 

 

The only guy I'm voting for in the primary ...Al Sharpton.

oh yay...let's go to socialized medicine, so we get the same 50% income tax rate that canadians and brits suffer, so that idiots who can't hold down a good enough job to get health benefits can go to the emergency room for every headache and hangnail, and charge it to those of us who actually work for a living.

 

Dude...socialized medicine can't work economically, unless it's limited to strictly preventative medicine...like free immunizations, and the like.

 

Now..if you arange your "socialized medicine plan" so that all it pays for universally is immunizations, a single yearly checkup, and life-threatening illness or injury, I'll support it, and pay the increased taxes related to it...until then, why should *I* work to pay for some 7-children-by-different-fathers, welfare riding high school drop out to get her vaginal warts and meth-induced "acne" treated?

 

 

 

Political parties according to farmers:

 

 

Democrat:

You have two cows, one neighbor has four, the other none...

You pass a law that says the neighbor with four cows still has to pay for the housing, care, and feeding of his four cows, and has to milk them...but he must give all the milk two of them produce to the neighbor with no cows (who gets to sleep in instead of milking cows in the morning, since he doesn't have any)

 

Life is good.

 

Republican:

You have two cows, one neighbor has four, the other has none.

You buy all the milk you can from cheaper foreign producers, sell it to the guy with no cows cheaper than the guy with four cows can, driving him out of business. You buy his cows for 2 percent of their fair value, hire him to milk all six of your cows, and charge him and the guy with no cows three times as much as your competator was originally charging.

 

You now have all the cows, and do none of the work. So?

 

Life is good

 

Socialist:

You have two cows, your neighbor has four, your other neighbor has none. You stop milking your cows, and pass a law stating that everyone must get free milk. You go on welfare while your neighbor is paid minimally for his milk, then is taxed from his income to support you. You walk to the store with the cowless neighbor to get your free milk.

 

Life is good.

 

Communist:

you have two cows, one neighbor has four, one neighbor has none. The government comes and takes away all the cows, and puts them on a labor farm, where they produce half as much milk as they used to. You now wait in line for 5 hours to get 1 bottle of milk per day...which is sour and warm.

 

You get a job with the government, and start killing anyone who dares raise a couple goats, and black market the milk.

 

Life is good.

 

Libertarian:

You have two cows, your neighbor has four, other neighbor, none.

 

Do the cows like being milked? Is it fair? If they liked it, why don't we let them milk themselves, and increase their standard of living from the profits? This is a wonderful idea!

 

Noone has milk, the cows get left the fuck alone. Your kids get pregnant at 14, and drop out of school to ride welfare, because there was no discipline in their lives.

 

You starve to death convinced life is good :)

PsychoBud']oh yay...let's go to socialized medicine, so we get the same 50% income tax rate that canadians and brits suffer, so that idiots who can't hold down a good enough job to get health benefits can go to the emergency room for every headache and hangnail, and charge it to those of us who actually work for a living.

 

Dude...socialized medicine can't work economically, unless it's limited to strictly preventative medicine...like free immunizations, and the like.

 

Now..if you arange your "socialized medicine plan" so that all it pays for universally is immunizations, a single yearly checkup, and life-threatening illness or injury, I'll support it, and pay the increased taxes related to it...until then, why should *I* work to pay for some 7-children-by-different-fathers, welfare riding high school drop out to get her vaginal warts and meth-induced "acne" treated?

 

Psycho Psycho Psycho...tisk tisk

 

Don't you know if you vote for the LOSER of all LOSERs in the primary and they win the primary that they don't have a snowballs chance in hell?

 

It's an old school way of beating the odds.

 

Al Sharpton is as LEFT as you can get....I'm all about the RIGHT.

Al Sharpton doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell to winning the presidency.

 

Democrats don't have a prayer of winning. Their whole ideology has gone out the window. They have no substance. Nobody knows what they stand for anymore. The Dem's are scrambling around trying to find any symbolism that may work. Look what happened to California with democrats in office, it FAILED miserably.

 

All states that are predominantly Democrat has a state and sales tax.

New Hampshire is a republican state...NO SALES TAX, NO STATE TAX.

If you vote democrat then watch your GUNS that you use to protect your family go right out the door with their anti-american gun laws.

 

If you believe that the government can run your life better than you can, vote democrat.

I guess you didn't read my above post.

PsychoBud']

 

Republican:

You have two cows, one neighbor has four, the other has none.

You buy all the milk you can from cheaper foreign producers, sell it to the guy with no cows cheaper than the guy with four cows can, driving him out of business. You buy his cows for 2 percent of their fair value, hire him to milk all six of your cows, and charge him and the guy with no cows three times as much as your competator was originally charging.

 

You now have all the cows, and do none of the work. So?

 

Life is good

 

And that's the way it is FOLKS!

It's a dog eat dog world. Get used to it.

 

nice one Psycho.

PsychoBud']Gotcha SX...which one's the former General, again?

 

I think youre thinking about Gen Clark:

 

General Wesley Clark

Formerly the Supreme Allied Commander Europe for NATO, Clark has also done stints on CNN as a war commentator. No sooner did Clark become the favored candidate that it also emerged that Clark's been a longtime supporter of Republicans. He voted for Reagan, evidently, and has made appearances at Republican fundraisers. While his candidacy may not appeal to activist Democrats who will vote in the primary, his military resume alone seems to make him a favorite over our current Pres with regard to the general voting public. Never mind the issues.

 

Military Record -- Starting World War III?

 

Clark had an extremely successful career in the Army. Besides rising to the rank of 4-star general and commander of NATO forces, leading the war in Kosovo (which we won in 78 days without a single casualty), he is said to be the most decorated veteran since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Clark has received the following medals: a Silver Star, 2 Bronze Stars, a Distinguished Service medal, a Defense Distinguished Service medal, a 2 Meritorious Service medals, 4 Legion of Merit Medals, 2 Army Commendation medals, and a Purple Heart.

 

But that doesn't mean that his record is uncriticized. The Clinton administration cut short his stint as NATO commander by 3 months after repeated conflicts with the Army (he wanted more Apache combat helicopters in Kosovo) and with Michael Jackson (the British General, not the child-craving singer), who was commanding British forces there. Generally speaking, Clark wanted to pursue the war more aggressively than those he beefed with.

 

At the very end of the war, after Slobodan Milosevic finally gave up under withering NATO bombing, Russia demanded that they control a section of Kosovo, though they weren't (then) in NATO. (Russia has traditionally been a close ally of the Serbians, whose attacks on Albanians in Kosovo triggered this war, and Albanians rightly feared living under a Russian controlled, pro-Serbian government.) Clark flatly refused any Russian control, and -- despite promising not to -- the Russians sent 200 troops to take over Kosovo's main airport, as a power play.

 

Clark, who had negotiated with Milovic, Serbia and Russia in the Dayton Peace Accords, was determined not to let that ploy work. With the approval of Javier Solana, the NATO leader, he ordered British troops to occupy the other end of the airport -- where there were few if any Russian troops -- and prevent Russia from flying in more troops to build up their presence. British general Michael Jackson refused in a way Clark called "emotional."

 

The way Jackson tells the story, he told Clark "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." That's a great sound-bite, but it seems a bit overblown considering this was a post-Soviet-collapse force of 200 soldiers. (Jackson is a charismatic but controversial British figure, known to his troops as "the Prince of Darkness." He was the British second in command during the "Bloody Sunday" massacre in 1972, when British troops killed 13 unarmed Irish protestors.)

 

NATO forces in Kosovo had an unusual structure -- they were under Clark's command, but the countries involved could veto the use of their troops in a given engagement, and most of the ground troops were actually British. So when Jackson refused to move his troops to the airport, there wasn't much Clark could do, militarily. (As it turned out, the U.S. convinced Hungary to deny Russian jets flyover rights, so they were not able to reinforce troops anyway. After a standoff, Russia backed down and they never did control a part of Kosovo.) Click here for sources

 

Involved in the Waco Raid?

 

There are lots of allegations on the Internet -- though not really in any reputable publication -- that Wesley Clark was involved in the raid of David Koresh's cult compound in Waco, Texas, which ended in a catastrophic fire that killed 75 cult members. (4 federal ATF agents had been killed by the cult, and 16 wounded, at the start of the standoff.)

 

The raid was carried out by FBI agents, but it has been established that Texas Governor Anne Richards consulted with a military official at Fort Hood, Texas (where Clark was stationed at the time), that 2 military officials from Fort Hood met with Attorney General Janet Reno's staff in Washington before the raid, and the Fort Hood provided military equipment including tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles to the FBI raiders. This much is pretty well documented fact.

 

A link to Clark is not. For one thing, the people alleging such links are pretty much all conspiracy types falling into one of three categories: liberal anti-war types, conservative conspiracy types, and Serbian-Americans stilled pissed over Kosovo.

 

More importantly, the evidence just isn't there. They best they can do is claim that the Army secretly carried out the raid (though even anti-Waco films show FBI agents driving the tanks and carrying out the raid), or that the two military officers who went to Washington are unknown, but it might have been Clark. Most don't even try that hard, just blindly asserting that Clark ran the whole raid and loves to butcher people.

 

In fact, even critic Alexander Cockburn -- the most reasonable of these critics, an anti-war liberal who is furious with Clark for being so mean to the Slobodan Milosevic and the Serbs -- concedes that Clark was not one of the two military men. They were actually Colonel Gerald Boykin (recently in the news for saying publicly that the war on terrorism is a war between Jesus and Islam/Satan), and his superior, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the head of Special Forces at Fort Bragg And the military official that Anne Richards consulted with was Clark's assistant, not him.

 

Corporate Shill

Striving to be a reformer, Clark has (justifiably) attacked corporations seeking tax breaks by moving their headquarters from the US to Bermuda and other off-shore locations. But just last year, when he was a director at Stephens Investment Co., they bought 75,000 shares of Tyco Corporation which did exactly that. (The investment has paid off well, too, as their stock has risen substantially since the purchase.)

 

http://www.clark04.com

once again:

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze2hkdx/topten%20copy.jpg

 

not my own words, but i feel it needs posting:

 

Libertarianism is to capitalism what communism is to socialism: a utopian pipe-dream radicalization of an otherwise sensible philosophy that is irrevocably unstable to failure and co-option corruption by authoritarian oligarchical interests because it ignores essential aspects of human nature.

 

It's precisely the naive support given to libertarian ideology, and libertarians' willingness to vote for conservatives that dishonestly espouse it, that have led to the massively corrupt crony capitalism and corporate welfare that's taken over boardrooms and Congress.

 

I support President Bush and his policies, I will be very surprised if he is not reellected. Many people are being turned off by liberalism and the democratic party whose sole campaign is based on the failure of America. If America fails with its economy, foreign policy, or war in Iraq, the democrats gain. They are hoping America fails, and that is no basis for a campaign, they will lose 2004.

Tech you faggot virgin, you obviously dont watch the news. Any minors, canadians, or idiots posting in this thread will be banned, this includes myg0ts.

im getting sick of all this Drama on cnn and msnbc, all they trying to do is to get as many people as possible to watch there Tv Station, and totaly lost what real journalism is about. Most of the information comes straight from the goverment, which is unpure and added with as muches propagenda as possible. I watched interviews, where this issues where brought up on cnn, and of course, as soones it starts to become a topic a commerical brake has to go on, and right after, the topic will be never be spoken off.

 

Who knows what they are doing to Saddam right now, he is problay really drugged out and talking his ass off military secerts, and im betting that we are soon gonne find the "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUICTION" even if they never excsited.

 

Now that iraq is practically part of the us (unofficaly), I mean, I dont think the usa is gonne let a few iraqes run the country. There are gonne bunch of white washed americans running the hole thing. And now that we finally got the oil sources, we should be set for a while.

 

Next traget IRAN!

 

The cold war doesnt seem to be dead yet, as you can see, we are still spreading our belives in other countrys, instead of sharing them with them, and learning things from eachother, we provok our way, which is the way EVERYONE should follow, our get bombed.

 

i love this country but i hate the goverment

As always, fuck Bush and his adminstration. Fuck the lieing son of bitches, fuck the Patriot Act. Fuck all the corporations like the one I work for that is in bed with our curropt ass government.

 

Bushin30seconds owns. Some of the adds are funny as hell.

 

I'll vote for anyone but Bush. The only Dems running I'd not vote for is Leiberman (aka Mr.Burns from the simpsons) fucker wants to censor everything and take away more civil rights, fuck him. Personall I hope Dean gets the ticket, fucker actually says whats on his mind and worries about it later. Bout fucking time someone spoke from they mind and not from who is filling the pockets.

Fuck bush for taking privacy and civil rights away.

But Iraq is a piece of shit anyway who cares if we bombed the fuck out of it and made it a shitty sand-state of the USA

  • Author

i dont really like dean but to me he seems like he would do better than bush

i hate bush for the patriot act and just for being such a moron and making the US look bad

i dunno im gonna have to look at more info on all the candidates before i can really make a good decision about who im voting for, but right now im with the fuck bush crowd and ill vote against him

Anybody who invades another country without any form of aggression from that country other than "he tried to kill my dad" and "he backs terrorists" is someone that will make a good president.

 

Bush was whooping ass while the Democrats were worried about how we could fund public education (which will always suck, no matter how much money you put into it. Reason? Mexicans and immigrants that can't speak English) instead of how we could wait for another attack from some crazy dune coon or bomb some sand nigger ass.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing