texxx, not only are you posting while on suspension, but your l33t speak is pretty much teh suXX0rz. The preferred spelling is "n00bz". When you write "N00Bs" you pretty much show that you are, in fact, a n00b and commit self-pwnage
I don't hate them but I didn't and don't want either of them in the highest office in the land. Bush got elected because the power behind the Republican Party deemed in 1998 or 9 that he was "electable" . He had the family name, he hadn't done anything really so there wasn't a negative spin ready and waiting. He wasn't an idealog so he was malleable to whatever platform they decided to put together. Hillary has the extreme benefit of being married to Bill. She is probably brighter and more experienced than Bush was. But, she is just another career politician who learns how to play the game and seems more driven by ego. Sometime in this century, I would like to see a a candidate that arises from his/her own merits. Someone who has worked in the political system for positive change, starting at the local level, Someone who has written books (not signed ghost written books) will real ideas, an intellectualized understanding of what motivates people to do good and simplified plans for implementing that into government. I want an inspiring orator who can deliver written addresses, handle questions without evasion at news conferences and express himself coherently off-the-cuff . I want a moderate who looks at the long term implications of government policies but one who is not afraid of innovation. I want some combination of Colin Powell, Bill Bradley, Elliot Spitzer, Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy. And yes , even the part about not keeping their dick in their pants, Bill Clinton was pretty close to that. I was really hoping Barack Obama was going to be that guy, I thought he was, but he should be blowing Hillary out of the water with rhetoric by now.
i dont think people are afraid. i think its more like people are so polarized that theres no point in discussing the issue. "you believe what you wanna believe. ill believe what i wanna believe..."
I appreciate your straightforward answer but am wondering why you find them offensive personally? I certainly don't agree with most of GW Bush's policies and think he is damaging the country and find Hillary Clinton's public persona shrill but having never met either of them in person I have a hard time personally detesting them. What I am curious about is where does the political disagreement become the personal affront?
Bush is an incompetent idiot, the living embodiment of the Peter Principal. He should never have been President and the truth of that is right there, for all to see. He has overseen and been involved up to his ears in criminal activity against the Constitution of the United States, the judiciary of this country, misled (to be kind) the American people to get support of his voluntary invasion and occupation of a sovereign state, and as a result, been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, more likely hundeds of thousands, and the turning into refugees and outcasts of millions of Iraqis. He's bent on destroying our voluntary military and is well on his way. I could go on. But do I hate him? Golly, no way! He's beneath hate. As for Ms. Clinton? Drawn and quartered by the GOP, their media allies, and a lazy media in general since the early '90's. The people of New York don't appear to care. Why should we? Oh, I forgot. She's a woman. The b**** should stay home and clean house. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush for Promoting Torture and Gross Incompetence.
i am personally offended by what they are doing to this country. i detest their fakeness and hypocrisy. i am personally offended when i am repeatedly lied to. i detest liars and hypocrites, which is what the bushes and clintons are. i do not respect liars and hypocrites. it becomes personal hatred for me based on what they do and say. i am personally insulted by their policies. the policies they advocate often go against the will of and the best interests of the american people. i take it as an 'f u' on their part, especially when bush and clinton both continue to advocate for a war which most of the country is against, advocate for amnesty for illegals and open borders or when they plant people to ask questions in their audiences or remove people from public events.
Bush is brilliant. He is a master of deflecting criticism, acting stupid, saying canned patriotic garbage while all along getting exactly what he wants. Name me another president who has gotten as much of what he wanted done at so high a price? Bush gave us the legacy of trillions in debt, a huge military presense in the middle east, a strong armed executive branch, and a draconian Homeland Security Dept. Add to that the Patriot Act and the whole war on terror/evil empire mindset and I would say he is as politically successful as any president we have had. His reign has been just a shade off of executive dictatorship. Hillary is also brilliant. She is the master of policy spin, political correctness, and mobilizing the democratic big guns. Her politics borders on social communism. I don't hate Bush or Hillary. I feel sorry for them.
you're joking right, bush got all his crap through because of 9-11, no 9-11 no homeland security no 9-11 no run rough shod over constitution no 9-11 possibly no war in iraq bush was brilliant enough to have been sitting when one of the worst terrorist attacks happened on his watch, he played those next few weeks brilliantly, showing up at the scene in casual wear and boots on a bull horn talking tough. possibly the greatest photo op in history
I love how a true patriot loves to call somebody else "MC Sadr" and accuse everybody else of supporting terrorist then puts up a picture of a bloody shiite lynch mob of militiamen exacting tribal revenge in the name of Sadr as his absolute trump card. I mean even the Bush administration and most of its cheerleaders recoiled from that sorry embarrassing spectacle when it happened. But not our little BBS patriot!
So I assume this means it is worth it to take out Saddam by spending hundreds of billions if not a couple trillion dollars and losing thousands of American lives in addition to the tens of thousands of injured soliders?
its quite ridiculous. we're bringing democracy to this country and we'll start out by letting an angry mob hang its leader we took out militarily
PG- the proper term is angry Islamofacist (or islamic terrorist) mob - as basso and Rudy G would tell us. your failure to include the word islamofacist means that you probably are one and were not wearing a game jersey under your button down today. Shame.
On Iraq yes, but as far as her campaign promises- I read her website every initiative she proposes is federally funded and brings stronger government interference into the free market. (which already is no longer free). It is a newer deal social program to have the federal govt. borrow more money, create more federal beauracracy and strip parents and local communities of basic decisions, responsibilities and opportunities. Every program and I read through them is a new government program to rescue us all from ourselves. It's not as expensive as war, but it will increase the debt and do what every other federal program does- fail. We need better ideas not more borrowed federal money thrown to special interest groups who create failed agencies. We don't need a federal solution at all, we need a good solution that works. I spent 8 years working for Dow Chemical doing root cause analysis work to make the plants more efficient and reduce waste. I've yet to see a politician take the time to do the analysis to find the root cause of a problem. Anyone who does root cause analysis will tell you that the best solutions rarely cost very much money. Any time a politician asks for billions of $$$ to fix all of our problems tells me they don't know what they are doing.
