First, with all due respect to my friends that may agree with me at times I wouldn’t go so far as saying liberals are not liked here or anywhere. I like them, at least the ones I have debated back and forth with here.

I really do try and separate the person from their particular beliefs, lack of beliefs or brain washing in general. Take arrbilly for example. I think he is a real good person and I don’t think he or I agree on much if anything but nonetheless he is good people even though he is wrong most, if not all the time…

As far as I am concerned there is one general rule when debating another person regardless how screwed up their “supposed” beliefs and/or ideas may be and that is to debate the subject/issue itself and not the person.

In other words there’s never a reason to personally attack someone or name call because they are misguided. That is one thing that “most” not all but “most” liberals practice because they really don’t have any beliefs or ideas they can actually debate with any intelligence. Basically they can never “explain” why they have the belief they do. It is usually because it “sounds good” or makes them “feel good” and/or “look good” to their friends and thus the reason the vast majority of liberals make good followers and never good leaders.

With that said I would ask jaymz why do you think President Bush is a moron? Do you have some of your very own thoughts to back up the reason you believe President Bush to be a moron? I will give you this to begin with and that is the man does not make a good speaker. Now Clinton, that man could speak, he could “shock and awe” a crowd. Personally I use to LOVE listening to Clinton speak and watch him daze and amaze his audience into actually believing the man was actually telling them what he really thought rather then what the latest polls told him to say.

So, in that aspect you have one man, President Bush that can “not” speak well and most likely will never “daze and amaze” a crowd but another man, Clinton who could. So if one was choosing a man based on speaking abilities then Clinton would be the winner. He would make a good salesman for any product.

However, what President Bush is much better at and Clinton failed miserable at was actually doing what was in the best interest of America. With a choice of either man then President Bush is the one that wins that hands down. He has done nothing more then what is in America’s best interest. Has he made mistake? You bet he has, like EVERY other man that has ever been in the White House.

So let’s see, we have one man that aided China on their nuclear development and brought them approx. 20 years ahead of where they would have been and we have another man that is actually doing something to fight terrorism in the world and so far has kicked the chit out of two countries, and now along with the world’s most powerful military has insured you can sleep easier tonight then had Algore been in office at this time.

Question is, which one would you choose to be the leader of your country? And, which was is really the moron? I don’t think either men are morons. I just think Clinton was a very weak minded and/or had no core beliefs to begin with and that made it hard for the man to actually do the “hard” things required to make America better and safer…

 

I'm not as forgiving as Burt here (at least not when people make stupid assumptions and general classifications), but as for the rest of what he said....

 

"semi-intelligent" about says it all.

 

Score one for the "pinko."

 

Talk about a left-handed compliment! As a southpaw I know em when I see em.
Gee, thanks burt....I think...

 

Anytime buddy, Fair and Balanced I always say...

 

Since when does disliking junior make you a liberal? Are you speaking for all normal, semi-intelligent people (you'll notice I've added the comma for you so you can write properly), or is it that only those that agree with your political opinions can be considered normal and/or intelligent?

 

01, "Question is, which one would you choose to be the leader of your country? And, which was is really the moron? I don’t think either men are morons. I just think Clinton was a very weak minded and/or had no core beliefs to begin with and that made it hard for the man to actually do the “hard” things required to make America better and safer…" Clinton isn't running, why bring him up? Should Democrat's bring up Reagan to poke fun at Republicans? As far as Junior, I'm not so sure he did anything to make me sleep better at night. In 1991, Senior told us how bad Saddam was. Fast forward to now, Junior tells us how bad Saddam is, that there are ties to Al Queda and that he has WMD's. Neither of which proves to be true, in any way, shape or form. Notice that in between now and then, Saddam has done nothing to us. While this is going on, North Korea is defying a treaty and developing nuclear weapons and throwing out UN camera's and inspections. They are detonating nuclear missiles in the sea of Japan, but Junior thinks we can solve this one diplomatically. If he's really out to get all bad, evil men, then let's do it, not just the ones Senior and Junior dislike. I was never a big fan of juniors, but thought he was great during 9/11. It really changed my attitude about him, note, I didn't say I disliked him prior, just wasn't a big fan. As far as Clinton following the polls, I think every president, at least in the past century, has done his share of that. As far as the economy goes, I don't really believe any president has ever had a really big effect on it. We don;t elect kings, and they all rely on what their economic advisors tell them. The Clinton bashing is getting old though, Kerry should provide you with plenty of ammo!

 

You know something? You are absolutely correct. There are people that dislike him for reasons entirely nonpolitical. They dislike him because he comes across as too "good-ole boy" or "everyman." They dislike him because he is not a polished communicator with a golden tongued way of speaking over the heads of the rabble. They dislike him because he isn't like them, or what they are used to seeing. They dislike him because they are just a bunch of pseudo-intellectual snobs.

 

Forgot one thing, we can debate candidates all day, but I've seen the Bush complex in Kennebunkport and Kerry's house. There is no way, either one of those guys could possibly relate to anything, any of us need or want.

 

Momalle1:

Do you really believe all that? If so, then your beyond any help I could provide you…

Fact, Iraq did indeed have and may still have WMD’s. I would refer you to the United Nations, their resolutions and the fact that all countries associated with the United Nations have also stated the FACT that Iraq had WMD’s and was producing or had the means to produce WMD’s.

Fact, Iraq did have ties to Al Queda, did Saddam himself have direct ties to Al Queda? That has not yet been completely proven out but his government did indeed have ties and since he was a dictator I find it extremely hard to believe little Hitler had no knowledge about it.

Fact, Saddam hated America with as much passion as many liberals hate President Bush, that’s a lot of foaming at the mouth. Saddam had the means and money to put WMD’s in the hands of terrorist to hand deliver to America with no need of the “big brown truck”. Iraq was the Home Depot for terrorist seeking about any type of weapon they would like to purchase to use against America.

Fact, for over 10 LONG years America had exhausted ALL diplomatic means to resolve Iraq’s refusal to FOLLOW and carry out what they agreed to after Saddams first *** whooping.

Fact, we are now using diplomatic means to resolve what Clinton left behind in North Korea as we should. No need to launch a few cruise missiles from ships like Clinton did. Perhaps if a few years go by with no development then we may need to deal with North Korea with military action. However please note that today China is trying very hard to persuade North Korea to completely rid itself of its nuclear weapons program. I would say it looks like when things are done RIGHT and CORRECTLY, unlike in Clinton’s years, that diplomatic means may work. It’s yet to be seen but it seems as progress is being made.

Fact, the liberal way of doing things, like in the Clinton years, gets MORE military killed. When you do the job half ***, pull out of an operation or mission because of a few casualties like Clinton did it reinforces to the terrorist that America is weak and does not have the GUTS to follow through. Therefore you get the kind of killing you have in Iraq, killing people, dragging their bodies through the streets for CNN to whine about it and think the American public will CRY WOLF and time to pull out.

Fact, that is not happening this time. Many people are beginning to believe America says what it means and means what it says. It makes a big difference when you have a LEADER in office who is NOT worried about opinion polls like Clinton and Kerry. If President Bush was as worried about polls as Clinton had been we would have been gone from Iraq long ago.

People like Clinton and Kerry make this country WEAK and get MANY more people killed because of either failed policies or just having NO ***** to stand up and act like a man nor do they have the courage to LEAD. President Bush is a LEADER, Clinton and Kerry are FOLLOWERS.

You don’t have to like President Bush but the FACT is you are able to sleep better at night because America is safer now then it would have been had another FOLLOWER been elected to office, Algore.

Just because there has been no WMD’s found yet does NOT prove anything as far as there were none. There were WMD’s and Iraq was unable or unwilling to explain what happen to them. They either destroyed them, moved them, or sold them that is a FACT so until one of those have been proven out the WMD’s are out there somewhere, just hope we find them before someone else attempts to use them…

The reason I bring Clinton up is he is one of the main reason we have the problems we do now with terrorist. The man had 8 years to deal with it and he either refused to do so or was just too weak minded to do the RIGHT thing for America. 911 happen in large part because Clinton made America weak by his policies just like Kerry would…

 

Nope, I farted is all.
Next time I'll leave the thread before I cut one so the conservative sniffers won't get a false-positive liberal reading.

After studying the war in Iraq from all angles I'm now convinced that we had no choice but to invade because Saddam refused to show us the weapons he didn't have. There was just no way around it.

 

ok, i was a little out of line.

i believe there are still WMDs in iraq. i have no proof but since he DID have them pretty sure there still there. like in that other country that agreed to disarm, cant remember which country, but they had WMDs hidden on a turkey farm. saddam was by no means a stupid man. he has the weapons hidden very well. well enough to keep hidden from over a hundred thousand men and women.

yeah bush isnt the best speaker, that just makes it easier to believe what he says. clinton could lie his *** off to the country and 90% of the people could probably believe him, just because he had that certain way of talking. if bush tried to lie like that, everyone would easily see hes lying. thats just my opinion though.

of course theres lots of people still protesting to leave iraq. lets say they get what they want. what happens to iraq then? millions of people starve because the US is not there to feed them. people are killing each other constantly. someone kills there way to the top so they are in the position saddam was in, dictator. is that what they really want? im always seeing all these protests on TV with people holding signs saying various things like "leave iraq" and stuff like that. did these people just not think about what would happen if the US left iraq or do they want the death and suffering of millions of people? im guessing they got so caught up in everything they didnt think about what would really happen. im sure no sane person would WANT millions of people to suffer and die.....

 

A little? You're letting that short temper get the best of you again. You turn one innocent fart into lynch mob searching for imaginary liberals?

It's true that it is Liberal season but, there is a two liberal limit, you have to have a permit and they have to weigh 175 pounds minimum (unless it's a California liberal).

p.s.
Remember to wear your bright Orange.
I do not consider these words safe to wear during Liberal Open season:
That is dangerous liberal talk.

And this could be considered 'bleeding heart liberal' which is always in season and there is no limit except in Canada:

 

ok you lost me at "innocent fart"...... whats a bleeding heart liberal? i understand its liberal season to hunt them, but other than that, im lost.....

might just be my conservative/republic thinking though