Bush Declines Invitation to Speak at NAACP Convention

Bring them on, rimbaud. Your powerlessnesses, that is.

 

There is a reason why 92% vote against Bush. It's because Bush is against the the issues that matter for 92% of that community. If I was Bush and had programs that I thought would be good for a community that voted 92% against me, I would speak to anywhere and everywhere I could to let the group know what I was doing in their best interests.

But since Bush did things like try and repeal affirmitive action at Michigan the day after MLK day, it kind of flaunts his concern in the face of that voting block.

 

They vote against Democrats?

I'd say the NRA probably votes 92% Republican.

 

Please, you didn't stand a chance. Not only did I do it first, but I did it correctly. That particular painting is THE best visual representation for this thread, which is why I googled it. It works on about five levels, maybe more if I want.

 

I misread what he wrote. I was getting at other non-racially identified groups who vote largely Democratic.

 

Just as stupid as ads that say a vote for Kerry is a vote for the Terrorists.

 

No, because when history reveals the Left's pathetic record on national defense issues, a vote for Kerry is a vote for terrorism. Why do you think terrorist organizations like Farhenheit 9-11? He may say that he's going to wage an "aggressive" war on terror, but when he is going to rely on UN mother-may-I's rather than unilateral action, it's not going to be very aggressive at all.

 

You're full of it, again. If anything, a vote for Dubya is a vote for the terrorists, since George W. Bush is the biggest recruiting tool Al Qaeda has!

 

Or as stupid as posters who say the same thing.

 

I love it when you talk crazy. I'm not going to bring up GWB's recent pleading overtures to the UN and NATO
http://www.iht.com/articles/528974.html
parts of which he stole from Kerry's playbook, and go straight to this:

Whenever Bush grovels in front of the UN, its crickets chirping, sand head time... but Kerry, oh that Kerry just wants to kowtow and let Kofi Annan run US foreign policy.

 

Wouldnt that make sense though? If someone is finally going to stand up against terrorists don't you think they would recruit more to fight that? So if Kerry wins the terrorists will turn in their terrorist card and go back to doing whatever they were doing?

 

Yeah, that really washes well, especially since the Left in this country has a very long and sad history of cowering at our enemies. Kerry is a weak-minded, bumbling fool and nothing of that will change as a president. I really don't like Bush for various reasons I'm not going into and I think even Iraq may have been mistaken, but yet, I'd take him over Kerry in a heartbeat. Besides, you folks, it's not Kerry that has you energized. It's "beat that b*stard Bush." It's your irrational hatred of him that has kept you going, but will that bring people to your side. "Yeah, vote for our candidate because we hate Bush and Kerry is not Bush." Sure....right.

 

Pfft... wimps.

 

Yeah, but don't forget Reagan's response to losing 250 Marines in Lebanon. Oh wait...

 

but let's be honest, mulder...it's been a while since we've seen a democrat cut from the mold of JFK. when i think of candidates other than clinton, i can't think of any particularly strong ones they've put up. carter...mcgovern...dukakis...mondale. that's not exactly a strong list.

(caveat...i think jimmy carter is a sensational person!! but not a leader like FDR, Truman or Kennedy)

 

Agreed, but we haven't exactly had a boom in strong candidates PERIOD. Besides, bama was talking about what wimps Dems were, backing down from our enemies and I just couldn't let that stand.

 

Before we tar and feather McGovern and Mondale as stereotypical, upper midwestern, short pants wearing liberal wussies (not to imply that you are doing it MMax but others surely will soon enough), let's keep in mind that Mondale fought in the Korean War, and that McGovern flew B-24's over Germany and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross after 35 combat missions.

McGovern might have gained the most notoriety for opposing the war, but it wasn't because he was weak or lacked courage.

http://www.bookpage.com/0108bp/stephen_ambrose.html

 

SF, obviously that doesn't matter to a lot of conservatives (not you MadMax). See Cleland, Max. If you can trick a bunch of idiot rednecks into thinking a three-time amputee veteran is similar to OBL and Saddam, then obviously the debate's a dishonest one. They just want the guys with an (R) next to their names to win (again, not referring to you MM).

 

Can we all agree that doing the right thing, that standing against obvious mistakes takes courage?

 

I would. Roosevelt pushed us closer towards socialism with his new deal and made several serious errors handling WWII that were nearly fatal. Truman allowed the Communists to gain a greater foothold in Eastern Europe. Kennedy was the last Communist fighter and I can't say a bad thing about him (he did nail Marilyn Monroe, which is big-time points in my book). LBJ was utterly worthless, a man too cowardly to fully committ us to war, instead getting our soldiers slaughtered on some half-assed "police action."

But let's take the case of Carter, a man who perpetually kowtowed to the Soviets while weakening our military for much of his term. He allowed Iran to become a nutcase theocracy through his lack of strong support for the Shah, abandoning a loyal ally to the wolves and showing that America does not always keep their promises.

Clinton shot a few cruise missiles, tried a few scapegoats and said some nice things about "bringing terrorists to justice" without doing a damned thing of substance. In fact, that could describe his entire eight-year reign.

Elect leftists in a time of war at your peril.