Woman's Dying Wish: Bush Defeated

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

Since you libs seem to like throwing body counts around.. Bush has only 'killed' 900+ of our soldiers.. while Osama has killed 3000+ of our citizens.. I'm assuming you feel like Bush will catch up in the murder column?

Unless you are defining threat differently than I am...

:roll:

Nice roll. Try again. Let me try and explain this to you in simple conservative terms:

Iraq not= Osama (Nice try and comparing the two.. NOT)

Iraq war = Lies (Fact)

900+ Dead Soldiers = Bush hands are full of blood (Will burn in hell for sure)

The End.





:roll:

Where did I saw Iraq = Osama? You are saying Bush is THE SINGLE GREATEST THREAT to our country.. back it up.. if its in terms of lives lost (Which is a insane argument, but you dems seem to like to make it), it seems like Osama beats Bush.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

:roll:



And if kerry wins...................4 years from now the same will be said of Kerry by those opposing him..............

Beyond that, I'm no huge Bush fan, but, I'm not so sure kerry will fare much if any better................

I don't think it will be said of John Kerry that he sent KIDS to Iraq to die for his lies. I don't think we have to worry about interns falling for him either. I think Kerry will do a great job as commander in chief. And God forbid that Kerry looses and we have to endure a Hillary presidency because that is where we might all be headed in 4 years. It is a LEAST a possibility. So be careful with wishes.

I'm getting really tired of you disrespecting our military. No KIDS have died.. MEN and WOMEN have died you worthless troll.. I have absolutely no patience for people who insult our troops.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer

Originally posted by: bjc112
As I've pointed out before and is also a fact................remember whom ALL sent our military there................

Both the House & Senate overwhelmingly approved the measures that sent the troops to Iraq with or without UN support AND both the senate and house had access and made their decsion with the exact same information supplied to the president......................then add to that the fact that the groundwork for a military invasion was prepared in '98 - '99 with the bill created by then president Clinton making official US policy regime change in Iraq at any/all costs including military invasion...................not pretty, but factual and remember all this when casting your votes for you congressmen...................

------------------------------------------------------


Case closed.

Psst, the house and senate approved measures that approved military action IF diplomacy and weapons inspections had failed. They didn't fail.

The House of Representatives approved President Bush?s resolution on Iraq yesterday in a 296-123 vote while the Senate approved the resolution 77-23, leading the United States closer to the prospect of military action in the Middle East.

The resolution supports the president?s efforts to enforce UN Security Council regulations in Iraq and authorizes the president to use United States armed forces to ?defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.?

Robert Zelnick, the head of BU?s journalism department who covered the Pentagon during the Persian Gulf War for ABC, described the resolution as a ?blank check? for President Bush to initiate or withhold an attack as he desires.

?I don?t think there?s any condition on demanding any UN Security Council resolution,? Zelnick said. ?If, for example, the president is displeased by what the Security Council does, under this resolution, he can ignore it and make the decision to initiate hostilities on his own.

?I agree with the House in giving the president this authority because I feel that stopping Saddam Hussein is a laudable and worthwhile objective,? Zelnick said.

Bruce Schulman, a College of Arts and Sciences professor who teaches history and American studies, said Bush made a good decision in seeking approval from members of Congress.

?I think it was extremely wise and absolutely crucial for the president to make the decision to get congressional action,? Schulman said. ?I think it?s going to be important for him both in the short and the long run.?

Schulman spoke of those who opposed the resolution, and said in previous instances, dissenters have paid a political price for opposing popular action, but in the long term often gain ?grudging respect from voters and history.?

Those in Congress opposing Bush?s resolution, he said, ?fit squarely into a long-established tradition.?

Dissenters usually raise two key questions, Schulman said. One concerns the seriousness and eminence of the threat, and the other the consequences following a military victory.

He emphasized the importance of letting debate take place within Congress.

?I think having a free and open debate and answering the critics and dissenters is going to be important for both Bush?s short-term conduct of the war and in the long-term interests of U.S. foreign policy,? Schulman said.

Both Zelnick and Schulman said they believed the resolution did not pass through Congress too quickly.

?I don?t think it?s fair to say this is hasty; I?d say quite the contrary,? Schulman said. ?Even though the president gave his speech on Monday in which he explicitly answered questions about it, this debate has been going on since September. That seems pretty efficient, but not hasty.?

Zelnick said he felt the ?question of Iraq has been debated for 11 years,? and emphasized that Hussein has caused trouble throughout this period by defying UN resolutions, amassing weapons of mass destruction, attempting to obtain uranium and providing support for terrorist organizations.

?Saddam Hussein is a terrible human being. It is in our best interest to make sure he doesn?t have weapons of mass destruction and remove him from power,? Psihogios said. He said he had confidence in Bush and his Cabinet to make decisions about U.S. actions in the Middle East.

 

[ToBeMe]

Sorry, couldn't find the right one at first..............

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 2, 2002

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations and whereas regime change in Iraq was made official U.S. policy in 1998" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain immeadiate and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Crimson
Wow.. that is just wrong.. my dying wishes would be for my family to be safe, my friends, etc..

Wrong? I think her dying wish WAS for her family and friends to be safe. How better than to remove the greatest threat to this country.

:roll:

 

[judasmachine]

I for one will do my part to make her wish come true.

/card carrying liberal conspirator

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

:roll:



And if kerry wins...................4 years from now the same will be said of Kerry by those opposing him..............

Beyond that, I'm no huge Bush fan, but, I'm not so sure kerry will fare much if any better................

I don't think it will be said of John Kerry that he sent KIDS to Iraq to die for his lies. I don't think we have to worry about interns falling for him either. I think Kerry will do a great job as commander in chief. And God forbid that Kerry looses and we have to endure a Hillary presidency because that is where we might all be headed in 4 years. It is a LEAST a possibility. So be careful with wishes.

I'm getting really tired of you disrespecting our military. No KIDS have died.. MEN and WOMEN have died you worthless troll.. I have absolutely no patience for people who insult our troops.

Grow up asshat and quite trying to paint me into your little corner. You disrepect our troops every time you use them to further your agenda. Again, GROW UP. And BTW - this ex Navy man will put his combat record up against your list of tripe any day. Keep acting like a KID and you will keep being treated as such.

 

[judasmachine]

18 year olds are not men. They are overgrown children, as are most of these so called men and women. Most never pass the revenge stage of early childhood.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

:roll:



And if kerry wins...................4 years from now the same will be said of Kerry by those opposing him..............

Beyond that, I'm no huge Bush fan, but, I'm not so sure kerry will fare much if any better................

I don't think it will be said of John Kerry that he sent KIDS to Iraq to die for his lies. I don't think we have to worry about interns falling for him either. I think Kerry will do a great job as commander in chief. And God forbid that Kerry looses and we have to endure a Hillary presidency because that is where we might all be headed in 4 years. It is a LEAST a possibility. So be careful with wishes.

I'm getting really tired of you disrespecting our military. No KIDS have died.. MEN and WOMEN have died you worthless troll.. I have absolutely no patience for people who insult our troops.

Grow up asshat and quite trying to paint me into your little corner. You disrepect our troops every time you use them to further your agenda. Again, GROW UP.

Now you are accusing ME of somehow controlling our troops? I suppose *I* am personally responsible for the death of these 'kids' now? Someone please provide me with my 'Commander in Chief' card.

You don't think its just SLIGHTLY odd that you are telling me to grow up, while you label our troops as kids?

 

[Painman]

Wow. Ya know, I find it hard to look at that "Names of the dead" thread stickied up above because every time I look at it I see the names of 18, 19, 20, 21 year olds... I was that age once... I'm 35 going on 36 now...

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

:roll:



And if kerry wins...................4 years from now the same will be said of Kerry by those opposing him..............

Beyond that, I'm no huge Bush fan, but, I'm not so sure kerry will fare much if any better................

I don't think it will be said of John Kerry that he sent KIDS to Iraq to die for his lies. I don't think we have to worry about interns falling for him either. I think Kerry will do a great job as commander in chief. And God forbid that Kerry looses and we have to endure a Hillary presidency because that is where we might all be headed in 4 years. It is a LEAST a possibility. So be careful with wishes.

I'm getting really tired of you disrespecting our military. No KIDS have died.. MEN and WOMEN have died you worthless troll.. I have absolutely no patience for people who insult our troops.

Grow up asshat and quite trying to paint me into your little corner. You disrepect our troops every time you use them to further your agenda. Again, GROW UP.

Now you are accusing ME of somehow controlling our troops? I suppose *I* am personally responsible for the death of these 'kids' now? Someone please provide me with my 'Commander in Chief' card.

You don't think its just SLIGHTLY odd that you are telling me to grow up, while you label our troops as kids?

Don't you think it is more odd that you keep holding on to this KIDS thing? You have issues that can not be dealth with here. Nice read into my post. WRONG. You keep disrespeting their memory every time you mince words Crimson.

 

[ToBeMe]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
18 year olds are not men. They are overgrown children, as are most of these so called men and women. Most never pass the revenge stage of early childhood.

This still doesn't make it right, but, factualy, the 18 year olds are not the ones dieing for the most part..................

So while more 20-something-year-olds still die than any other age group, the average age at death in Iraq has risen, from just 22 and a half in Vietnam to almost 27 now. The average age is even higher, 29, in Afghanistan

 

[GeneralGrievous]

Well, I'm glad she's dead. One less fool in the world.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: judasmachine
18 year olds are not men. They are overgrown children, as are most of these so called men and women. Most never pass the revenge stage of early childhood.

This still doesn't make it right, but, factualy, the 18 year olds are not the ones dieing for the most part..................

So while more 20-something-year-olds still die than any other age group, the average age at death in Iraq has risen, from just 22 and a half in Vietnam to almost 27 now. The average age is even higher, 29, in Afghanistan

In all seriousness, why are we arguing over their ages? To me, a 27 year old is a kid, let alone an 18 year old. It is pretty much up to each person's interpretation. They are dead Americans that should be remembered fondly not argued about on a message board. Let's drop them and their age group from the discussion.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Well, I'm glad she's dead. One less fool in the world.

Honest and to the point I see... :thumbsup: er uh ... :thumbsdown:

Take your pick. But please do me a favor, stick whichever one you have chosen up your insensitive a$$

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: ToBeMe

Originally posted by: judasmachine
18 year olds are not men. They are overgrown children, as are most of these so called men and women. Most never pass the revenge stage of early childhood.

This still doesn't make it right, but, factualy, the 18 year olds are not the ones dieing for the most part..................

So while more 20-something-year-olds still die than any other age group, the average age at death in Iraq has risen, from just 22 and a half in Vietnam to almost 27 now. The average age is even higher, 29, in Afghanistan

I by no means meant that them dying is right. I'm a pinko pacifist. I just forgot to hit the quote button from someone way up there that contested that it isn't children who are dying. And btw, no children dying?!?!?! Apparently Iraqi children don't count.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

Since you libs seem to like throwing body counts around.. Bush has only 'killed' 900+ of our soldiers.. while Osama has killed 3000+ of our citizens.. I'm assuming you feel like Bush will catch up in the murder column?

Unless you are defining threat differently than I am...

:roll:

Yet worldwide terrorism has gone up under bash post 9/11

 

[Painman]

Wow. Ya know, I find it hard to look at that "Names of the dead" thread stickied up above because every time I look at it I see the names of 18, 19, 20, 21 year olds and the emotion wells up... I was that age once... I'm 35, going on 36 now... THESE ARE KIDS. Kids who love this country enough to give their lives for it, and want or need a boost so they can better it in civilian life. Kids who trust their leaders to make wise choices that affect their lives.

I for one have no patience with those who stake so much personal identity upon a partisan ideology, that they will cling to any justification (before the fact or after) for our troops' loss of life and limb, as long as it serves to prop up their idol. They'll even use the justification that their "idol", if wrong after all, still hasn't killed as many of our people as OBL has, even though it's a largely accepted fact that OBL received NO support whatsoever from the state of Iraq and its leader in carrying out the 9/11 attacks, let alone much of anything else. I find this as disturbing as I find it surreal.

Gotta go now... the rancid stench of self-serving cynicism here is so strong, I think I'm gonna puke. :|

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Well, I'm glad she's dead. One less fool in the world.

Regardless of her political affiliation that remark was uncalled for.

 

[judasmachine]

so as near as i can tell since Sept. 10th, 2001 we are looking at 3900+ dead americans and countless foreigners caught in the crossfire, and OBL is still out there snickering till he wets himself.

[disclaimer-not all that died in the towers on september eleventh were american]

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

You are retarded, plain and simple. Stop posting.

 

[DubyaDisciple]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: GeneralGrievous
Well, I'm glad she's dead. One less fool in the world.

Regardless of her political affiliation that remark was uncalled for.

Completely called for. Is it not uncalled for your DYING WISH to remove an ELECTED President from power?? This IS a DEMOCRACY.

The President didnt "steal" the election contrary to popular moron complaints. It was in fact Bore who tried to steal it, counting chads all night! Why they wouldnt accept the recount results that kept resulting in Bush winning...TIME AFTER TIME AFTER TIME, we'll never know.

Now that I've educated you on why we have elections instead of just putting some braindead old woman's choice from a bunch of socialist dictators in the White House..

I'll explain it to you in laymans terms- she was a traitor to the principles of our nation, she deserved to die sooner than later.

On a side note... since she didnt support a strong Christian President like Bush, I wonder how her faith stood and how shes enjoying her stay in hell?

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

You are retarded, plain and simple. Stop posting.

No. Care to add anything to the discussion or are you just a well seasoned 6000+ posts a$$hole?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

Since you libs seem to like throwing body counts around.. Bush has only 'killed' 900+ of our soldiers.. while Osama has killed 3000+ of our citizens.. I'm assuming you feel like Bush will catch up in the murder column?

Unless you are defining threat differently than I am...

:roll:

Yet worldwide terrorism has gone up under bash post 9/11

Wtf. I am glad you are a libertarian, but blaming bush for worldwide terroism increasing post 9/11 is insane.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: umbrella39
You bet your sweet a$$ that is what I mean. This country will not survive 4 more years of Bush. The great uniter has driven a bigger wedge between the 2 parties than an 8-armed Bill Clinton ever could.

You are retarded, plain and simple. Stop posting.

No. Care to add anything to the discussion or are you just a well seasoned 6000+ posts a$$hole?

Well seasoned 6000+ post asshole, if that makes you feel any better. I am just sick of people saying sh!t like that. I don't like Bush either, but to say he is the greatest threat to this country is foolish.