http://www.moveon.org/misleader/3lies-ad.pdf ......On the eve of battle, President Bush said war was required because of Saddam Hussein's connection to "... the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001" Now Bush admits "we had no evidence" of such connection" Dick Chenney charged that Saddam "has reconstituted nuclear weapons". Now Cheney admits: "I did mis-speak.".... 87 billion what for? "The Rich aren't like US" http://www.bartcop.com/where-was-bush.jpg In the mean time our soldiers keep on dying, but hey! they only worth $6000 per body, small price to pay for the trillions of $$$$ in oil control. You know... this whole 9-11... pretty convenient excuse for a lot that has happened, to line the pockets Oil Shrub Mafia and Co
Hey do me a favor and spend about a month in Israel. Then spend another month in Palestine. Then come back here and tell me what you would do to stop the bloodshed that has been going on over there for 50 years. You talk about a dead soldier here, dead soldier there, while although extremely tragic in every sense, you make no mention of the hundreds of thousands of women and children that have been slaughtered there for half a century. Like a typical liberal you will blame Bush and blame it on the oil, but you will offer no solutions, no leadership, no character. Sad indeed. I think one of the mysteries to life has got to be why liberals enjoy pain and suffering so much. You root for the stock market to go down so people will lose money and it will hurt Bush. You root for soldiers to die because again, it will hurt Bush. You want to take violent criminals and put them on the street and give them lighter sentences. So typical and yet so sad. One day your grandchildren or maybe your great grandchildren will ask their parents when the turning point was in the middle east. And they will respond, it was one former President George W. Bush freed Iraq and brought stability to the middle east for the fist time and everything just grew from there. Of course you will tell me no such thing will happen because of course as ignorant liberal, you will be rooting for the opposite.
***One day your grandchildren or maybe your great grandchildren will ask their parents when the turning point was in the middle east. And they will respond, it was one former President George W. Bush freed Iraq and brought stability to the middle east for the fist time and everything just grew from there.**** I really hope you're right. I used to hold very similar views...sure the Muslim Arabs are brutal savages- but the WW2 Germans were even more barbaric, and the Marshall plan was able to take the snakepit of mid-20th century Germany, and transform the western half into a thriving Democracy. Can the US do the same for the Arab world? I hope so, but I'm really not sure anymore.
Hold on Maverick What right have you to stereotype people who don't like Bush as ignorant liberals. I'm not a liberal. I haven't voted for a democrat in 20 years and I hate George Bush because I know that he is a crook. I will vote for virtually anyone who runs against him in the next election. What have you got against the left, anyway. I read on another thread that the left is dying. There is probably some truth in that. I certainly hope not. But what if it does? Will you be satisfied with a one party democracy? If a crooks gets in office how will you get them out. America need a loyal opposition. What we don't need are bigots profaners. I'm seriously thinking about starting a thread call Persona Nongrata in order to list the names of individuals who use rudeness and profanity against others on Elite Trader that try to express a point of view and I was wondering what you thought of that idea. There are almost 20,000 members of this site and only a few posters. I hardly thing that these people are bereft of ideas. I rather suspect that they decline to post because of the high probability of abuse that is commonly bestowed. We need the rest of these silent people as well. regards
You know what's funny? The fact that you yourself think "Liberal" is a bad word. LOL. This is too funny. There use to be a time in our history (60's) were liberal was a cool word. You were a progressive thinker, you pushed for change. I find it so funny whenever someone on this board is called a liberal, they get all up in arms over it. LOL. My have times changed. In fact, it almost goes as far to prove the point. If someone calls you a liberal, you should say thank you very much, thanks for the compliment, that is if you believed that liberals have valid points, and a valid belief system. By the very fact that you denounce the word, you are at the same time denouncing their very beliefs and ideals which supposedly you are arguing for. LOL. Don't you see the paradox here? Very ironic indeed. Yeah, go ahead and create your thread of hate spreaders. There are very many people on here with the sole purpose of defaming the character of our President with absolutely no cold hard facts to back it up. I will fill that thread up with each and every one of them. The only bad word (according to you it's a bad word) that I use on here is calling people a liberal. But wait, is that really a bad word? However, others on here have used words to describe the President that I would not even use in front of my mother. And to answer your question, no, i do not want a one party system. I also do not want this country to slide to the left. And yes, the democratic party is dieing a slow and painful death. I think it died with Jack Kennedy. I actually liked the man a lot and have a lot of respect for him. Somehow I have this feeling that his own party killed him. In fact, interesting new book out that LBJ in fact was directly linked to his murder. After Jack was killed, the party was never the same. It started drifting further and further to the left. Even Clinton himself ran as a moderate democrat and avoid the fanatics on the far left as much as possible. The party is doomed though because they have decided that their strategy is to keep moving to the left and in turn will alienate them from most of America. And with Hillary Clinton looking at a 2008 run she will really pull the party to the left. I really can't find anyone in that party that can save it either now or in the future. The one that I think has some potential if he moves just a little bit over is Senator Harold Ford from Tennessee. But I'm afraid that not even he can escape the stronghold that the far left liberals now have on the party. Rest in peace Jack Kennedy.
Hard to know where to start in response to your comments. Liberal is not a bad word. What people react to is your generalization of use, labeling people who take a position on one issue as "liberal" and your tone of use, and seeming hatred of those people who have different points of view of various issues. If a white guy calls a black guy "nigger", he gets quite a hostile and negative response from the black man. If a brother calls another brother "nigger", it is a sign of closeness. Same word, different meaning. Context often determines meaning. Liberal was not a "cool" word to the right wing conservative party in the 60's. Liberals were hated by those who feared the changes that America was experiencing in the 60's. "Cool" is fashionable according to the majority party. I don't believe the democratic party is dying at all. It is changing, in the same way the republican party has changed. It is the nature of politics to cycle from one extreme to another, in an attempt to find balance. The current wave of "conservatism" is reactive in nature. People feel fearful of the changes brought forth by 911, and those who offer aggressive and simplistic solutions to simply destroy the enemy are appealing to the masses. Prior to 911, the election showed that the country was quite evenly divided between Democratic and Republican lines. After 911, the conservative base initially received strong support by those fearful Americans who wanted to regain a sense of safety. People want things to return to "normal." Over time, when these attempts to win the war on terrorism on a military basis alone fail, then their will be another reaction. Clinton was smart to run as a moderate, in the same way Bush ran as a moderate. Extremists will never be elected in this country. At present, the democrats are not acting too smart if they think that Howard Dean can win the election, he cannot. He is an extremist. The fact that escapes the democrats, is that getting elected is more important than making a point. Once elected, and only when elected can change begin. A strong moderate democratic ticket can win in the election versus Bush, and the polls are showing that to be a strong possibility.
Maverick I only read the beginning of your second post because you tried to glom over the fact that you called the other person an "ignorant liberal" and then you didn't even have the guts to own up to it. Any good arguments that you may have had in the first post were completely over shadowed by your rude and personal response to this individual. You left out the negative connotation altogether when you attacked me. Perhaps you should perform a rewrite and who knows, I might take a look at it. regards
I will not re-write my post because I stand by what I said. I used the term ignorant liberal because that is what he is, a person who is ignorant of the facts, and liberal thinking. Nothing more to be said. What I said is true and therefore does not need to be changed. And yes, I am aware of my harsh tone. but you know what, when I read post after post after post after post talking about how we are sending our troops to die for some cheap oil, i get a little irate. The fact that people in this country honestly think that is sickening to say the least. But, as I've said before there is a trend in this country with people who are liberal that want to pursue hate. They feel this demagoguery will overthrow Bush. But for those of us who have to listen to this crap every day it's getting really old and mark my words, it will backfire on them in the next election. Most of America does not respond to hate speech. Like I have said before, my posts are tame, and I mean tame to most of the other anti-Bush posters on this forum. If all you can come at me with is my usage of the word liberal, then you have lost the battle and the war.
Maverick You've toned it down but you are still doing it. Presuming to know another persons politics and then sterotyping them into some unholy alliance doesn't help you get your point across. If you want to be effective in this life, all you have to do is leave that stuff alone. regards
hoodooman, do you even read the posts on this board. I find it quite humorous. You want to censor my free speech because it is directed towards liberals, but when someone comes out and defames our President with garbage, well, that is alright. It's funny, people on the left (didn't use the word liberal), tend to scream a lot about the first amendment and censorship, but then when the speech is directed towards them, suddenly they are not so free speech anymore. Why don't you start going after some of your anti-Bush buddies and the filth they post. Then I will start to respect you more. But when you practice selective censorship only going after those who you disagree with it really makes you out to be a total hypocrite. Is that a bad word too? And yes, when I read someone who has made 100 anti-Bush posts, I have a pretty good feel for their politics. And what is this unholy alliance you are talking about?