Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

A lot of people are cheering but I think it's premature. There will be partisan squabbling between Congress and the White House over Iraq. The Democrats may try to raise taxes but I bet they'll do nothing about out of control government spending. They may try to deal with a few non issues such as abortion and try to ignore the constitution when it comes to gun rights.

In the past under republicans we've had government that lied to us about everything, pandered to big business by supporting free trade, ignored then environment, did nothing about the widening gap between rich and poor. Under the Democrats we'll have the same thing.

Corporations still control America no matter who wins an election.

im just celebrating the end of the check-free activist president

So this is the sequel to the box office hit thread: "Everything but what's really important" ?

I'll say...What happens to my gross paycheck, property and income taxes, and net take-home pay? Then, I'll have an answer.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
So what do the election results mean

That Donald Rumsfeld MUST GO!

That the Democrats won the House and could possibly win the Senate, duh. doh

It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

Freedom won? AWESOME!!

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota. Banning abortion outright would be unconstitutional under the Roe v. Wade decision

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

funny since the majority of registered voters would disagree.

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

**** you and your pro-life ways.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
So what do the election results mean

Also a huge rise in the use of the word ****

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

On the contrary - I'd say it's a good day for people in SD for waking up and realizing that it's not their place to dictate the choices of someone's personal life.

In one case, anyway.

Originally posted by botankus
So this is the sequel to the box office hit thread: "Everything but what's really important" ?

I'll say...What happens to my gross paycheck, property and income taxes, and net take-home pay? Then, I'll have an answer.

It isn't about whether the thread is a hit or not. I think people will continue to complain about things and at the end of the day do what they always do...stick their heads in the sand.

Originally posted by Darth_Erebus
It isn't about whether the thread is a hit or not. I think people will continue to complain about things and at the end of the day do what they always do...stick their heads in the sand.

...better than burting out pointless dismal rhetoric which means nothing for anyone

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Also a huge rise in the use of the word ****

I used that word repeatedly...in both positice and negative ways. Good elecions on the whole...some bad personal races for me.

Originally posted by Naz
It's a sad day for babies in South Dakota.

The babies in South Dakota will, of course, be completely unnafected. You know, on account of how they've already been born.

One group that's actually been legitimitely victimized in this elections has been the gay community, but somehow, I doubt you care about them.

Originally posted by Gregory
One group that's actually been legitimitely victimized in this elections has been the gays, but somehow, I doubt you care about them. Poor, poor gays.

When the Gay Marriage is guaranteed by the Constitution (which by my research, it already is), people will look back on this political era with the same disdain that we look at Nixon's now

see "Miscongeniation amendments"

Originally posted by PVS
...better than burting out pointless dismal rhetoric which means nothing for anyone


Globalization, free trade, and the destruction of the middle class are not "pointless dismal rhetoric".

I guess everyone is hoping everything will turn out ok in the end. For the vast majority, it won't.

Originally posted by Fawne
smile. you could've been aborted

I prefer to frown, since you could have been.

you ungreatful jerk!

so you think it is okay to kill someone before they have been born..them not able to have a life? what the hell is wrong with you anyway?

Originally posted by Fawne
you ungreatful jerk!

so you think it is okay to kill someone before they have been born..them not able to have a life? what the hell is wrong with you anyway?

Yes, I believe in the right of a woman to abort an unconscious parasite in her body.

to each his own..but is everyone here such a jerk to wish death amognst others..you lucky you weren't aborted..just to state that

i don't get why a woman would want to do that anyway..it is her fault..but of course i can see if she doesn't want to go through hell giving birth to a child she doesn't want..i still believe in pro-whatever..life is my shot. cause no one deserves to die that early

Originally posted by Fawne
to each his own..but is everyone here such a jerk to wish death amognst others..you lucky you weren't aborted..just to state that

Well, i wouldn't say lucky. If I had been aborted I wouldn't feel any pain, I wouldn't care that I don't feel pleasure...I wouldn't care that I do not exist..I just wouldn't exist. I could deal with hat, cause I wouldn't have to.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, i wouldn't say lucky. If I had been aborted I wouldn't feel any pain, I wouldn't care that I don't feel pleasure...I wouldn't care that I do not exist..I just wouldn't exist. I could deal with hat, cause I wouldn't have to.

oh god..i have no answer to that

Originally posted by Fawne
oh god..i have no answer to that

Yes, because it is true.

Originally posted by Fawne
oh god..i have no answer to that

Well, he's right.

The "you're lucky you weren't aborted" argument is the stupidest thing ever.

If you were aborted, you never would have lived, and thus would not exist, so how could you care about it?

And a woman getting pregnant is NOT solely the fault of the woman.

don't ask me..i saw it on a bumper sticker

Originally posted by Fawne
don't ask me..i saw it on a bumper sticker

Ah, the true font of your wisdom.

hah hah..for your information..there is a lot about me that you don't know

Originally posted by Fawne
don't ask me..i saw it on a bumper sticker

Don't ask me...I'm just a girl?

no...i hated the bumper stitcker....not much of an excuse...i don't know why i said that

is everyone her really this much of a jerk?

Originally posted by Fawne
hah hah..for your information..there is a lot about me that you don't know

Indeed? Do tell.

Because basically you just said that your opinion on abortion can be summed up by a bumper sticker that says "You're lucky you weren't aborted".


We're not being jerks. It was just annoying to see you refuse to argue your corner. You started by making an uninformed comment, which you then did not back up, and when challenged, referred to a bumper sticker.

When you said this:
Originally posted by Fawne
but is everyone here such a jerk to wish death amognst others

You assumed that everyone here thinks of fetuses as fellow human beings, which isn't true at all. Why do you consider fetuses people?

If you make radical claims you will be challenged. Simple.

Dammit. I should have thought of saying that.

Election results mean nothing.. voting is for *****.. i am going to kill P Diddy.

I saw so many bitches walking around with I VOTED t shirts and stickers yesterday.. really fuels my hatred.. in my off time i like to walk around my neighborhood kicking over politicians signs. They are so delightfully kickable.. they always have those obnoxious red white and blue bold letters with the dirty ****ing rat politician's name on it in front of some cheesy waving american flag.. VOTE 4 CLAY SHAW... i think not. Signs posted every two blocks, anywhere they find a free patch of dirt. As if the more i see your c.unt name in front of some cheesy flag the more likely I am to vote for you.. No. Wrong. I wll not vote for you mr CLAY SHAW, becuz ur a politician, and therefore u deserve more bullets than u do votes.

Also love political commercials, where they tell u vote YES or NO on amendment whatever, without even telling you what it's about. Or when some poltician makes a commercial promising that if u elect them then A CHANGE GON' COME... then directly after that there's a commercial with another politician telling you the previous politician was full of shit. Politicians are all money hungry bitches.. plastic gold diggin whorez reaching for my loot. Not to be trusted any more than the female gender.

Can I just say congratulations for the result, it is quite impressive - Australian political commentary is describing it as one of the biggest US political shake ups of recent years, saying it will make Bush's final years in office an absolute misery, all Dems to launch all kinds of investigations, if they get the Senate will allow them to make more liberal appointments. The First women speaker (who from what I have seen isn't a bad political type), first Muslim senator, Rumsfeld gone...

When changes happen, they really happen.

I would be interested though - who was the Republican who lost his seat and in his goodbye speach was thanking God for letting him have the chance to serve "the greatest nation in the history of the world" or something to that effect. That kind of mind set along would have made me vote against him. Disappointed Harold Ford Jr. didn't win his race.

Its rather huge. Democrats now have the House. If they can take the senate, which at this point seems likely, we will have control of Congress.

Nothing this big has happened since the 94 Republican revolution.

The @sshole you are thinking of is Rick Santorum. Santorum's last name, incidentally, was turned into a term to describe the frothy mix of semen and feces that can be made created during sodomy by the gay columnist Dan Savage. Santorum was a bit to much of a basket case, and flagrantly anti-homosexual.

I have now lost the remaining respect I had for Bush and his administration, he isn't going to fight for anything, and is now becoming a puppet of the Senate, Republicans didn't fight for anything, they let this happen, and now our tax cuts go bye bye, Gas/store prices increase, and Al Quada can rebuild.

This is a sad day in America's history, which will be finalized when they impeach Bush. I'm looking forward to 4 years in hell

The only good thing coming out of this is Liberals can show America what they really can do fear

Bush will not be inpeached.

Originally posted by Fawne
you ungreatful jerk!

so you think it is okay to kill someone before they have been born..them not able to have a life? what the hell is wrong with you anyway?

The movie in your sig and avy is one of my favorite ever.

Ironically, Enid would have been pro-choice.

Originally posted by Alliance
Its rather huge. Democrats now have the House. If they can take the senate, which at this point seems likely, we will have control of Congress.

Nothing this big has happened since the 94 Republican revolution.

Yes, good things come to those who wait. I must admit to being quite eager to see the first things that that get investigated by the new Democrat controlled committees. It is being said here that the New speaker has plans for up to 100 things she plans to see done by the end of the first week of office as speaker.



Thank goodness he is gone then. Sounds like a foul type best kept away from any form of power.

And as funny as it sounds I am kind of happy Arnold retained his governorship. Clearly being more moderate has certainly helped him.

Originally posted by Mr Krieger
I have now lost the remaining respect I had for Bush and his administration, he isn't going to fight for anything, and is now becoming a puppet of the Senate, Republicans didn't fight for anything, they let this happen, and now our tax cuts go bye bye, Gas/store prices increase, and Al Quada can rebuild.

This is a sad day in America's history, which will be finalized when they impeach Bush. I'm looking forward to 4 years in hell

The only good thing coming out of this is Liberals can show America what they really can do fear The Senate is still inconclusive.
Those tax cuts have created a huge budget deficit, in conjunction with the war in Iraq, which Bush tried to claim was an integral part of the war on terror and then when asked in the same press conference what it had to do with 9/11 responded "Nothing.", and which has caused the instability that has resulted in rise in crude oil prices for everyone not just the U.S, and created a country in which Al Qaeda now have a foothold where previously they had none.
Bush will not be impeached.
Senators serve for 6 years.
Essentially your entire statement is nonsense.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Senate is still inconclusive.
Those tax cuts have created a huge budget deficit


LOL stop it, you're to much.

Originally posted by Soleran
LOL stop it, you're to much. I've called the Senate for the Democrats. Officially however it is still not declared.

You don't believe in the least that those tax cuts in conjunction with the Iraq war have contributed to your record budget deficit? Do elaborate.

Originally posted by Soleran
LOL stop it, you're to much.

How exactly is he too much? He's right.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I've called the Senate for the Democrats. Officially however it is still not declared.

You don't believe in the least that those tax cuts in conjunction with the Iraq war have contributed to your record budget deficit? Do elaborate.

The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.

They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.

Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.

They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.

But to not mention the tax cuts as a factor of the deficit is just idiotic. Is the war and the tax cuts an equal factor? No, but the tax cuts are a factor.

Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.

They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs. They're both poor decisions by this Administration, approved by it's rubberstamp congress, that have contributed to a record budget deficit.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
How exactly is he too much? He's right.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/22/BUGO2CD4SC1.DTL&type=business
Clearly he knows something Alan Greenspan doesn't.

Greenspan still supports tax cuts, however he acknowledges those tax cuts, at that time, and the manner in which they were inacted contributed to the budget deficit.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They're both poor decisions by this Administration, approved by it's rubberstamp congress, that have contributed to a record budget deficit.


http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/22/BUGO2CD4SC1.DTL&type=business
Clearly he knows something Alan Greenspan doesn't.

Greenspan still supports tax cuts, however he acknowledges those tax cuts, at that time, and the manner in which they were inacted contributed to the budget deficit. Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.

They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.



Of course lets also not to forget to mention the interest rates are a contributing factor and blah blah blah the war is the chunk that broke the bank there are 50 thousand other "contributing" factors.

Originally posted by Soleran
Well let's see the tax cuts are expected to result in somewhere between 2 to 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, and have already resulted in about $250 billion in lost rev in fiscal 2006 about 1 trillion dollars overall.

Conversely the Iraq war has thus far cost $340 billion over it's tenure.

In graphical form from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-f1.jpg

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well let's see the tax cuts are expected to result in somewhere between 2 to 3 trillion dollars over the next decade, and have already resulted in about $250 billion in lost rev in fiscal 2006 about 1 trillion dollars overall.

Conversely the Iraq war has thus far cost $340 billion over it's tenure.

In graphical form from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04tax-f1.jpg

So in that beautiful example whats the growth rate of the govt and the population in the predicted model you're showing me? When you say cost of the war what are the proposed costs in said model up to this point and expected in the future? When using the term tax cuts are these cuts specific to Bush and Republicans or is it in conjunction with Democrats and their system of tax cuts?

You're description is so vague and open to interpretation just like so much crap found floating on the internet it leaves little room for credibility.

People are fantastic at coming up with models and yet they don't ever seem to function as well in real life as they do in the sketching room.

Originally posted by Soleran
So in that beautiful example whats the growth rate of the govt and the population in the predicted model you're showing me? When you say cost of the war what are the proposed costs in said model up to this point and expected in the future? When using the term tax cuts are these cuts specific to Bush and Republicans or is it in conjunction with Democrats and their system of tax cuts?

You're description is so vague and open to interpretation just like so much crap found floating on the internet it leaves little room for credibility.

People are fantastic at coming up with models and yet they don't ever seem to function as well in real life as they do in the sketching room. Government spending was below the past 20 year average.
In fiscal 2004 in which this analysis was performed the Iraq war cost approximately 40 billion for operational costs, 7 billion for repairing equipment according to the Boston Globe. I could go searching for more figures but really can't be assed sorry.
Tax cuts refer to those enacted by Bush, and assume they are ratified as permanent.

Regardless of your questions, that if you really wanted the answers to (and didn't just want to find some room to move out of previously saying the Iraq war was the only significant factor in creating a budget deficit and tax cuts played no part compared to the magnitude of the spiralling war costs) you would simply find them yourself.

The tax cuts did.

Joseph Stiglitz, former chief economist of the World Bank has suggested the total costs of the Iraq War on the US economy will be $1 trillion in a conservative scenario and could top $2 trillion in a moderate one. Additionally, the extended combat and equipment loss have placed a severe financial strain on the U.S Army, causing the elimination of non-essential expenses such as travel and civilian hiring. The CIA World Factbook lists a 2005 estimate of U.S. military expenditure as 4.06% of GDP (the 26th position in a listing of 167 countries). The Congressional Research Service recently estimated weekly spending at almost $2 billion per week, and that total expenditures have now topped $1 trillion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

The link to the information

I would like a link to your information so I can review it myself please.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The Senate is still inconclusive.
Those tax cuts have created a huge budget deficit, in conjunction with the war in Iraq, which Bush tried to claim was an integral part of the war on terror and then when asked in the same press conference what it had to do with 9/11 responded "Nothing.", and which has caused the instability that has resulted in rise in crude oil prices for everyone not just the U.S, and created a country in which Al Qaeda now have a foothold where previously they had none.
Bush will not be impeached.
Senators serve for 6 years.
Essentially your entire statement is nonsense.

Senate is controlled by the Democrats

Iraq was a mistake going in, but we are by no means losing, nor would it be smart to pull out

Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi

Bush might be impeached if the Democrats are stupid enough

The next midterm is in 4 years

And to tax cuts, there's a long explanation as to how those work, but not going to get into that

Either way, both parties suck, we need more Moderate Independents

You could have linked to articles on MSNBC or in the Guardian in which this figure is also cited. But instead chose a Wikipedia article above which there is a big box reading "The neutrality of this article is disputed." How quaint.

Stiglitzt projections of up to $1 - $2+ trillion are not with regard to current cost but based on projections of Congressional Budget Office figures to 2010 and 2010 respectively, and addition of among other things future healthcare and disability costs and depreciation or military hardware.

How exactly this is relevant to current military costs and a current budget deficit is somewhat eluding. Nor would a high current cost of war negate the fact that the loss of revenue due to tax cuts, already exceeding a trillion dollars since their inception have had a significant impact on budget deficit.

Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.cbpp.org/

Originally posted by Mr Krieger
Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi

Actually, Jordanian born Zarquawi, to my knowledge, only arrived along with the other foreign fighters after the war began - Saddam has never been shown to have any link to supporting A.Q. or Bin Laden. In fact way back he shut down Bin Ladens attempts to set up shop in Iraq due to the threat A.Q. policy posed to Iraqi stability.

And even if he was there before, he had no power to do anything.



He wont be impeached, but if he was, well, he certainly has more to answer for then Clinton did, and that didn't stop the Republicans impeaching him.



Possibly...

Tax cuts aren't equal to dollars spent

Originally posted by Mr Krieger
Senate is controlled by the Democrats

Iraq was a mistake going in, but we are by no means losing, nor would it be smart to pull out

Al Qaeda did have a foothold in Iraq prior to the War, that was Zarquawi

Bush might be impeached if the Democrats are stupid enough

The next midterm is in 4 years

And to tax cuts, there's a long explanation as to how those work, but not going to get into that

Either way, both parties suck, we need more Moderate Independents There were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. You have strange definitions of "winning" and "losing".

Originally posted by Soleran
Tax cuts aren't equal to = dollars spent That's nice but irrelevant considering the entire time I've framed tax cuts as revenue lost.

tax cuts 2001

Iraq war 2003

Iraq war is a significant cause of deficit and would be the cause of deficit with or without the loss of tax revenue.

And I never denied the Iraq war has had a significant impact on budget deficit.

Conversely:
Originally posted by Soleran
The war is the burden the tax cuts are nothing as compared to that.

They don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentance or thought in conjunction with the war costs.

Yes indeedy

like I said tax cuts are significantly different then dollars spent

The war is the burden

Originally posted by Soleran
Yes indeedy

like I said tax cuts are significantly different then dollars spent

The war is the burden

And tax cuts won't ease that burdan, but rather make it that little bit heavier.

Originally posted by Soleran
Yes indeedy

like I said tax cuts are significantly different then dollars spent

The war is the burden Fascinating. So in the face of contradicting information one can still maintain incorrect assertion that the Iraq war is the only and primary significant cause of budget deficit.

Spending in 2005 including ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan 18.62% of GDP as opposed to 16.13% in 2000.

The decrease in revenue however accounts for a change of 4.04%. Making decrease in revenue a more significant effect than increase in spending, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

I said you shouldn't place tax cuts and the war in Iraq in the same piece when talking about the deficit at this point.

To which I responded with my rationale.Originally posted by xmarksthespot
They're both poor decisions by this Administration, approved by it's rubberstamp congress, that have contributed to a record budget deficit.

Originally posted by Alliance
Bush will not be inpeached.

No he won't. Nor should he be. That can only be viewed as revenge tactics. And hopefully the democrats are smarter than that. I doubt it, but who knows?

Originally posted by Mr Krieger
I have now lost the remaining respect I had for Bush and his administration, he isn't going to fight for anything, and is now becoming a puppet of the Senate, Republicans didn't fight for anything, they let this happen, and now our tax cuts go bye bye, Gas/store prices increase, and Al Quada can rebuild.

This is a sad day in America's history, which will be finalized when they impeach Bush. I'm looking forward to 4 years in hell

The only good thing coming out of this is Liberals can show America what they really can do fear

Guess what sweet cheeks, Bush was never "fighting" for a damned thing. You might buy into that, but you would be the minority that fell for it last night. He's ass raping you just like he is the rest of us. Vote on biblical, economical or social issues all you want. But in the end, you're grasping at straws.

As for gas prices, isn't it interesting that they've hit recent quater rock-bottom prices since an election was coming? You can't be that naive.

Tax cuts?! Are you serious? It's six years of tax cuts that have gotten us into this mess. Sure, it's fun to say that the national debt isn't our problem. But it is. Especially for all those people crying about illegalizing abortion. You don't wanna axe your baby now? Fine. Let him be born into a national debt. It's like planned parenthood in reverse.

As for alQueda, it's been rebuilding for a long time. That might have something to do with wasting American resources by looting Iraq.

a puppet of the Senate? Are you serious? If nothing else, this administration has been willing to present itself as one thing while acting as another. It will CERTAINLY blame the democrats(not that they will be beyond reproach) for the lack of progress. Every lameduck president does. But it won't be the Democrats alone.

Originally posted by Fawne
is everyone her really this much of a jerk?

The ones who use slander instead of facts, yes. The ones who use facts instead of slander, no.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To which I responded with my rationale.


lol fair enough

Eliminating superfulous tax cuts are an easy step to tak eot balancing the budget. Iraq war spending can't really be cut. We have men on the ground who need all the protection we can give them and the Iraquis need all the help we can give.

The two ways we can reduce spending in Iraq:

1. Cut Iraqi corruption which is siphoning off funds for private use.

2. Cut back on troop levels.

I think #1 is a good palce to start.

It probably falls under #1 and I'm not sure if it's still ongoing but elimination of nepotistic no-bid contracts would probably help too.

Yes. The government should start following its own rules.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Guess what sweet cheeks, Bush was never "fighting" for a damned thing. You might buy into that, but you would be the minority that fell for it last night. He's ass raping you just like he is the rest of us. Vote on biblical, economical or social issues all you want. But in the end, you're grasping at straws.

As for gas prices, isn't it interesting that they've hit recent quater rock-bottom prices since an election was coming? You can't be that naive.

Tax cuts?! Are you serious? It's six years of tax cuts that have gotten us into this mess. Sure, it's fun to say that the national debt isn't our problem. But it is. Especially for all those people crying about illegalizing abortion. You don't wanna axe your baby now? Fine. Let him be born into a national debt. It's like planned parenthood in reverse.

As for alQueda, it's been rebuilding for a long time. That might have something to do with wasting American resources by looting Iraq.

a puppet of the Senate? Are you serious? If nothing else, this administration has been willing to present itself as one thing while acting as another. It will CERTAINLY blame the democrats(not that they will be beyond reproach) for the lack of progress. Every lameduck president does. But it won't be the Democrats alone.

Bush actually tried to get laws passed, policys changed, etc etc, that would be fighting, he announced in his little speech he's going to give the Democrats their shit, and don't even place me in the Mindless Republican batch that you speak of.

Gas Prices will go up, because of the liberal idea of Taxing the Gas Companies to pay for new fuels, guess what happens when they get taxed, prices go up!

Tax Cuts have not put us anywhere, except out of debt, the mess was there long before, instead of using a nice little shortcut by over taxing everyone, it's much smarter to take away tax, letting the poor get jobs, companys grow, so that everyone else gets more, then you have more employees, and guess what, you get more money from taxes than before, because there's more people paying them.

Al Quada has been slowly dying out since our intervention into Afghanistan, their leadership is destroyed, the majority of their members are stuck in the mountains fighting us, they have lost their safe havens. Iraq is only strengthening them by giving them support, yet their followers are getting killed everyday they try fighting us.

Puppet of the Democratic Senate, yes, so he can get his damn points up before he leaves, he is going to let them do whatever they want, so when they screw up, it won't be his idea.

I'm just going to reiterate what I said above as it's still applicable, essentially your entire statement is nonsense.

Originally posted by Mr Krieger
Bush actually tried to get laws passed, policys changed, etc etc, that would be fighting, he announced in his little speech he's going to give the Democrats their shit, and don't even place me in the Mindless Republican batch that you speak of.

Considering the Republicans had control of congress up till this election that doesn't sound right. You make it sound as if Bush is some Noble crusader who has been battling to push through laws that will benefit everyone....



Which flies in the face of all expert analysis on the subject that indicates no terrorist organisation is anywhere near death, that terrorist attacks in Iraq have not declined in the least bit, intelligence reports that indicate Iraq has created the next generation of terrorists, that the T.O are actually evolving in even harder to fight forms - home grown terrorists.

Yes, I am afraid what you have just said is not factual. Especially when there were no terrorists in Iraq to begin with.



That sounds awfully bitter. And it seems to imply things will somehow be worse now then before, and I find that hard to believe.

lol so true.

Im generally republican, but I dont see anything terrible about letting someone else have there way for once...I dont like some of the things that could happen, and most will be ok and good, but if they do make bad decisions -then maybe we'll learn a lesson or two...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm just going to reiterate what I said above as it's still applicable, essentially your entire statement is nonsense.

Indeed. I'll waste lots of words on him/her/it. But would it be any better than wasting them on Jackie?

See that's why I simply chose to recycle the same words. It's cost effective and good for the ozone layer.

It means were all ****ed.

Originally posted by KidRock
It means were all ****ed.

Do you have anything original to say? Maybe something you didn't hear from the television?

Originally posted by KidRock
It means were all ****ed.

Hmmm. Insightful... any specific reason it means that, or is it just that you want a chance to wander around with a placard screaming "The world is ending!"

Some advice - you need a wild beard, some rags and an alcohol addiction before anybody takes you seriously (and by seriously I mean as drunken doom sayer.)

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Do you have anything original to say? Maybe something you didn't hear from the television?

He gave a question..I gave a response.


Imperial_Samura This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click

Originally posted by KidRock
It means were all ****ed. Hmmm. Insightful... any specific reason it means that, or is it just that you want a chance to wander around with a placard screaming "The world is ending!"

Some advice - you need a wild beard, some rags and an alcohol addiction before anybody takes you seriously (and by seriously I mean as drunken doom sayer.)

Originally posted by KidRock
Imperial_Samura This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click

Hehehehe. Zing!