Are you saying that if Maverick74 beat and raped his own wife in the manner that Carlie Bruscia was you would not stop responding to him? Pretty sad state of affairs this country is in. tsk. tsk.
"reckless" - lol.... someone'e been studying the neocon playbook exactly why is it "reckless" to ask for proof and conclude the unfavorable when the proof is not produced? inconvenient, ill-timed, even mean-spirited, sure, but "reckless"? as for military records, surely you see how some people might be angered by a bunch of millionaire chickenhawks who've never experienced what they're forcing on others, strutting around yelling "bring 'em on," playing dress-up and risking other people's children from the comfort of their offices....
A: Yes, it's a joke. B: Of course you "get it". Or should. (If you really need an explanation, ask anyone. AAA and ART will both explain it to you in identical terms). Peace Mav, RS
Difficult joke, wasn't it? Reminds me of Henny Youngman. A man goes to a doctor and says as he moves his arm up and down: "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doctor says "Then don't do that."
This was a great post AAA. Like I said, I would vote for you. While I disagree with your politics, I do understand them. And so do you. I think that is the difference between you and Bush I sincerely don't think Bush has any political beliefs. He believes in getting elected. He comes across as being extremely arrogant. And he seems (to a huge percentage of Americans) to be out of touch with the way things are for most of us. Clark made a good comment today in his endorsement for Kerry. He said (I don't remember the exact words) that we need a President that "values the American family" Not one that just talks about "family values". And I think this is why Bush seems to generate so much emotion out of his detractors. He seems to truly just NOT CARE about people. Unless they are rich. Or powerful. As Clinton raised emotions with his arrogance, so does Bush. But at least Clinton, no matter how despicable a human being he was (and he was), the guy worked hard, was informed about every issue that came across his desk, and had a genius for "reading" the public. While GWB seems not to care one bit about what's "blowin' in the wind". He won't read newspapers? How much time did he spend in the Oval office between his inauguration and 9/11? You are right. LBJ, Nixon, FDR were truly titans compared to some of our more recent Presidents. (Ford, Carter, Bush Sr. Eisenhower, and a whole slew of Presidents that served prior to FDR). Bush would be an asterisk in the history books if not for the war on terror. The country seemed to be on "cruise control" when he was elected..(excuse me..when he RAN..lol). "Goldilocks economy" and all. And if the country did not feel a tremendous sense of security, how could we have had the choice we did? Gore and Bush? Please! If New York were attacked two years earlier, we would have seen Colin Powell run in 2000. Just not sure if he would have run as a Democrat or Republican. And the truth is, it wouldn't have mattered. Maybe Schwarzkoph. Maybe both on the same ticket. McCain. Maybe even Kerry. But not Gore and not Bush. I was very impressed with Bush when he spoke ad lib at Ground Zero. I thought then that I had underestimated him, and maybe he was up to the job. But that seemed to be his zenith. Since then, he has seemed just plain unimpressive. I don't hate him. I know a lot of people do. I just think he is not qualified. Mostly because he seems not to really care. And as for his service record; I think it is irrelevant. I would have done exactly the same thing he did if I had the opportunity. So would every single college grad I knew at that time. (GWB and me are the the same age). The problem he may have is not everyone is as empathetic about the issue. Try and explain how things were for 22 year olds in 1968 to a 22 year old now. Doesn't translate. Unfair for Bush. But that's politics. Putting on that flight suit last year could backfire. But again, who wouldn't have done that? Being President has it's privileges. But everything has a price. Peace, RS
error, I am amazed at how sometimes you can seem so spot on and sometimes you seem be so off the mark. Do you use a ghost writer at times. Nevertheless, I fear you are correct about Bush. I too thought both candidates sucked. And I thought Bush would at least be fiscally conservative. Plus, I just had so little respect for Gore. Then, I was glad he was in charge and not Gore. Now I am wondering about his competence again. Just not enough yet to go for Kerry, who seems to offer even less than Gore to me. I mean he was a junior senator he seemed to be relatively more junior than a vice president. What has he done in office that merits his becoming president. I have not been informe of one thing. That does not mean it is true. It is just I have not been told. Where is Perot?
RS, I agree with a lot of that. But it's not like Bush didn't serve at all. He was a jet pilot in the Air National Guard, flying high performance yet obsolescent planes, which is not a real good deal. I believe he flew the F-102, which as I recall had the nickname "Widowmaker" when it was being flown by frontline units in Germany. A guy who served with him and went on to be a lifer in the Air Guard had a long letter published the other day in the Washington Times. He made some great points, the main one being that a lot of Guard pilots bought it in crashes. He also said it was not unusual for the pilots to be allowed to shift units due to work, and the new units wouldn't put a newbie who was only going to be there a short time in a plane. That makes sense to me and explains why he didn't do much when he was on loan to those units. Bottom line is it is entirely possible he got a sweet deal and favorable treatment, but he did serve and in a dangerous slot. Kind of like Al Gore, who went to Nam as a photographer. No one ever raised any question about how he scored a plum job like that, instead of going infantry. Couldn't have anything to do with daddy Gore being a Senator?
I agree he's basically a very unimpressive man. He is where he is because of family and political connections. The party machine made GWB. It's kind of ironic that he could be such a failure in almost everything he did and still become president. It's not about Bush, it's the party machine. And this is a truly wickedly powerful and well-oiled machine (MONEY being the oil of the politcal machine). I confidently predict that BUSH will win because the powerful forces behind him will not allow any other outcome, and they have many tools at hand for ensuring this. Occasionally Rove steps in it, but he is so quick and clever in his recovery. Bush will win. But I agree with you Error, he's really just a prop, not a real actor. Irma
You people keep talking about money. You can't buy an election. Believe me, Donald Trump tried to. Ross perot tried to. In the end, it's your vote that counts. If the American people come together and vote against him, they will throw him out of power. But if the American people vote for him, then their voice has been heard and democracy prevails. And if this Bush family has so much money that they can buy elections, how do you explain George Bush Sr. losing to Clinton in 92. There are three groups of people that will be responsible for Bush's re-election if he wins. One is the pro-life group. Two, are the people who don't want their taxes raised, and three, the people who want this nation to be protected from terrorism. If Bush loses, it won't be because of the democrats, but rather republicans who no longer believe Bush anymore. They don't believe he will control spending, they don't believe he will continue to support socially conservative policies, and they don't believe he can improve our intelligence agencies enough to fight this war on terror. If that happens, it will be the right that throws Bush out of office, not the left. All the money in the world can't change this.