Thread: I fucking hate democrats as well...

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...oil060111.html


Canada's oil supply could top Saudi Arabia:
is Canada next

Shhhh GW isn't smart enough to know about that

Originally Posted by Little Wing

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...oil060111.html


Canada's oil supply could top Saudi Arabia:
is Canada next

This is great news, the middle east being worthless wrt oil is the perfect pretext to blow it up. And it would certainly weaken the Arab countries as well, ya know, if we decide not to nuke them.

Yeah....it would be weird to not trust the president?????
This seems to have much to do with political parties, I think you are just looking for an excuse to say "I fucking hate democrats as well... "
But I guess that is alright.......

No, it has nothing to do with the president. Dems are against the patriot act because they consider it racist, yet this opinion isn't? Just a bit of consistency would be good.

BTW, I think it is a bad idea too, but I have no probs with the patriot act, save for the warrantless wire taps.

http://www.lp.org/

do what I do..hate all politicans, regardless of party

Blame Canada!

Originally Posted by IainDaniel

Shhhh GW isn't smart enough to know about that

If I don't reply with this, folks will be disappointed...


Yale much?

Originally Posted by Pepper

If I don't reply with this, folks will be disappointed...


Yale much?

Going to Yale makes him.... what exactly?

Originally Posted by BigDyl

Going to Yale makes him.... what exactly?

Rich, a legacy, the son of a politician/director of the cia. Take your pick.

Name me a single person on this board that could get into Yale with a 1200 on their SATs (GW's score)?

The Wall Street Journal reported last week that Harvard accepts 40% of applicants who are children of alumni but only 11% of applicants generally.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/...irm.action.tm/

This seems relevant as well.

Why do people find it necessary to defend this nudnick!?!?

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

Why do people find it necessary to defend this nudnick!?!?

maybe because their isn't enough objective criticism.. only blind hatred.

I would love to hear Al Gore's position on this one after his comments last week...

then again, I'd rather not hear anything out of his mouth ever again.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

maybe because their isn't enough objective criticism.. only blind hatred.

There is plenty of objective criticism, his incompetence has yielded plenty of quantifiable evidence.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

There is plenty of objective criticism, his incompetence has yielded plenty of quantifiable evidence.

he's screwed up plenty, but he's had to deal with a ton of shit.

We haven't been hit in 4 1/2 years... which doesn't mean we won't be hit tomorrow, but a little credit where credit is due would be nice.

but there won't be.. they're "planning"... "taking their time". If they could have attacked us September 12, 2001 they would have.

i'm tired of the hate bush, hate bush...

Originally Posted by busyLivin

maybe because their isn't enough objective criticism.. only blind hatred.

You know that is actually true. If it were not for the ridiculous, over-the-top Bush bashing on this site, I would probably be much, much more critical of Bush. Honestly, I am not happy with him at all.

The criticism is so absurd here and other places that I find myself defending him. Around home and work, where I am usually around Republicans, I am much more critical of him.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

There is plenty of objective criticism, his incompetence has yielded plenty of quantifiable evidence.

Clinton and Gore would have handled this soooo much better.

OY VAY -



(This whole thing smells bad)

Originally Posted by Pepper

Clinton and Gore would have handled this soooo much better.

I think we would have went after Bin Laden, but I don't imagine a useless war in Iraq would have happened. I would even go so far as to say that we would already have Bin Laden since we wouldn't be spread so thin. I certainly don't blame him for 9/11 and I voted for him the first time. I think he was doing pretty well up until he decided to go after Iraq. Going into an unecessary war with a poor, if any plan was his main error. Then, continuing with the tax cuts is only going to hurt us down the road. I don't blame Bush for Hurricane Katrina, that was a fucked up system in the first place and it should be primarily the state's responsibility. This thread wasn't about Bush, and I think we are both kidding ourselves if you are saying he didn't get into Yale through anything other than favoritism.

I am not saying that is a bad thing, either. There is not a single person here who wouldn't do the same given the opportunity. It is just us poor, unconnected folk who get to complain.

I think this country would be far better off if McCain would have been elected when Bush was.

Dale do not rip on Democrats....you will make them cry.

Originally Posted by Dale Mabry

I think we would have went after Bin Laden, but I don't imagine a useless war in Iraq would have happened.

If I'm not mistaken, Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, and he didn't take him. I think there were a couple other occasions where he could have been apprehended, I have to look it up though.

Originally Posted by Pepper

Clinton and Gore would have handled this soooo much better.

I'm not a fan of them, but none of this would have happened under them...

Originally Posted by brogers

If I'm not mistaken, Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, and he didn't take him. I think there were a couple other occasions where he could have been apprehended, I have to look it up though.

This "bin Laden on a platter" chestnut has been debunked. The 9/11 commission found no merit in the claim either. Only you and Sean Hannity believe it.

Page 110 of the report:
"Sudan's minister of defense, Fatih Erwa, has claimed that Sudan offered to hand bin Laden over to the United States. The commission has found no credible evidence that this was so."

As for the blind hatred of Bush. Please. That would imply that there is no reasonable criticism of this fucking loser of a president. (That's a joke). Perhaps you fellows forget the treatment of Clinton and Gore by the morally lofty republicans. Harsh treatment and criticism comes with the office. Don't cry about the going getting tough b/c that's what you're doing. Imagine Clinton spying on americans in violation of FISA or AL Gore shooting someone in the face and heart. Why we'd never hear a bad word of those things.

As for the topic at hand, I think both parties are fucked in the head for complaining about this contract for protecting our ports. If we are going to outsource this work, (why?--I have no idea), what's wrong w/ Dubai? It's a city of over 1 million people, an industrial and financial center, an international tourist destination and the freest country in the Arab world. Just b/c 2 of the hijackers were born there doesn't mean the whole city is fucked.

Originally Posted by BigDyl

I'm not a fan of them, but none of this would have happened under them...

Originally Posted by brogers

If I'm not mistaken, Sudan offered Bin Laden to Clinton, and he didn't take him. I think there were a couple other occasions where he could have been apprehended, I have to look it up though.

Even if true, that a great argument considering Bush was given ample evidence that Bin Laden would attack a month prior to 9/11 but didn't find it credible enough. So Bin Laden was so bad that Clinton was an idiot for not taking him on a silver platter, but Bush gets no fault for not acting on the intelligence before 9/11.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

9/11 certainly would have happened, Iraq would never have come into the picture and our image in the middle east and around the world would not be half as bad.