PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 76
   
Posts: 923/1528
EXP: 3850885
For next: 155194
Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy
Since last post: 2310 days
Last activity: 2152 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #3 Posted on 24.11.03 0812.27
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0812.30 | These alternate between wild-eyed Bush hatred and general stupidity. Here is an article from TIME about Democrat ties to Enron.
And one person, one vote? Please. Gore was more than happy to discount votes that didn't go in his favor. How many dead Indians voted for Tom Daschle?
Also, there's no 'e' in 'phony.' | OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 101
Posts: 1808/3013
EXP: 10513472
For next: 204240
Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 1 day
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #4 Posted on 24.11.03 0918.00
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0919.01 | It's the new Political Correctness, ThreepMe - you aren't allowed to mention the 2000 election anymore. Bush won in a landslide. There was nothing controversial at all about that election. Be'lee that, playa.
Seriously, though - that site's been up and running since the 2000 campaign. Most of those stickers about the election have been on that site since, well, November 2000.
As for those stickers, a few years ago - I think the Christmas of 2001 when everyone was still in that "we must worship Bush as a diety" period and me and my friends couldn't figure it out - I was dead broke and that's where I got my Christmas presents for them. One of them still has the "I Don't Have To Like Bush To Love America" sticker on his car. (Making up for the FUCK BUSH sticker he took off on Sept. 12 when we were all giving him a chance.)
(Oh, and I hate to be a dick [no, I really don't], but click here.) | Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 46
Posts: 36/502
EXP: 663844
For next: 47935
Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville
Since last post: 2780 days
Last activity: 2772 days
| #5 Posted on 24.11.03 0945.39
Reposted on: 24.11.10 0946.02 | | Back in '92 I had an official (from Hustler) Larry Flynt bumper sticker with the "Lick Bush" slogan. Like a dumbass I put it on my car. Thing's worth a mint now. | Mawngo the CHango
Cotto
Level: 15
Posts: 20/38
EXP: 14050
For next: 2334
Since: 15.7.03
From: Beverly Hills, CA
Since last post: 3456 days
Last activity: 3456 days
| #6 Posted on 24.11.03 1103.26
Reposted on: 24.11.10 1103.32 |
Bush didn't win either. | ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 57
Posts: 311/836
EXP: 1478766
For next: 7171
Since: 20.2.03
Since last post: 2017 days
Last activity: 1904 days
| #7 Posted on 24.11.03 1130.03
Reposted on: 24.11.10 1130.14 | | (deleted by CRZ on 24.11.03 0934) | drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 113
Posts: 1661/3922
EXP: 15624946
For next: 193663
Since: 22.4.02
From: Connecticut
Since last post: 24 days
Last activity: 17 hours
| #8 Posted on 24.11.03 2018.19
Reposted on: 24.11.10 2018.21 | Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
Back in '92 I had an official (from Hustler) Larry Flynt bumper sticker with the "Lick Bush" slogan. Like a dumbass I put it on my car. Thing's worth a mint now.
Wonder if the people at Maxim still have that "ANDRIJ LICKS BUSH" paper from 2000... 
And yeah, some of them are dumb (not the Court's jurisdiction, but what's done is done, just don't let it happen again), but there's also some people that need to be reminded that patriotism /= Prez-worship. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 2497/4700
EXP: 20294771
For next: 343301
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 749 days
Last activity: 546 days
| #9 Posted on 25.11.03 0556.11
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0556.27 | Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
It's the new Political Correctness, ThreepMe - you aren't allowed to mention the 2000 election anymore. Bush won in a landslide. There was nothing controversial at all about that election. Be'lee that, playa.
I probably really shouldn't complain about the fixation on 2000. People are so obsessed with that fact that most are too oblivious to the fact that one of the nine dwarves is going to make it through to be buzzsawed by Bush in November. | ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 52
Posts: 359/641
EXP: 1040769
For next: 43079
Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas
Since last post: 3181 days
Last activity: 2840 days
| #10 Posted on 25.11.03 0822.06
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0822.06 | Originally posted by Grimis
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
It's the new Political Correctness, ThreepMe - you aren't allowed to mention the 2000 election anymore. Bush won in a landslide. There was nothing controversial at all about that election. Be'lee that, playa.
I probably really shouldn't complain about the fixation on 2000. People are so obsessed with that fact that most are too oblivious to the fact that one of the nine dwarves is going to make it through to be buzzsawed by Bush in November.
Then it'll be a fair fight. One of the nine dwarves vs. one of the seven dwarves (Dopey).
BAZING! */stuey* | spf
Scrapple
Level: 130
Posts: 2515/5351
EXP: 25236069
For next: 494577
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada
Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 3 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #11 Posted on 25.11.03 0859.34
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0900.15 | Originally posted by Grimis
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
It's the new Political Correctness, ThreepMe - you aren't allowed to mention the 2000 election anymore. Bush won in a landslide. There was nothing controversial at all about that election. Be'lee that, playa.
I probably really shouldn't complain about the fixation on 2000. People are so obsessed with that fact that most are too oblivious to the fact that one of the nine dwarves is going to make it through to be buzzsawed by Bush in November.
I really hope the whole GOP just keeps thinking that way. I'd like nothing more than to see 2004 become 1992 minus the crazy guy from Texas. Keep on assuming that the whole country can't wait to vote for GWB. Please keep campaigning with the idea that this whole thing is already in the books. Really, the American people love that sort of confidence. ;) | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 192/2661
EXP: 8136004
For next: 220684
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| #12 Posted on 25.11.03 0901.44
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0902.00 | Originally posted by Grimis
I like how some people will never get over the fact Gore lost...
Gore didn't lose, WE lost and not because Bush won. We had to endure two less than stellar campaigns. Bush won the Rep. nomination because he had one key skill - he could raise buckets of money not because of his intellect or ideas. Gore won because he was the best of a bad lot and made sure the primary rules would favor him. He then prodeeded to run a campaign devoid of passion and ideas. I voted for Nader, not because I particularly like him but I literally couldn't force my pencil to darken the circle to vote for Bush or Gore electors.
The way the election played out was an embarassement with hanging chads and all. Both candidates and their camps acted with the maturity of two-year old children. The Supreme court didn't elect the President, they made a decision. If either candidate had run a coheret campaign, it never would have come to that. It was good for the Justices though as it was the one time in their tenure that the Conservative Rep's gave them props.
In fairness to Bush, he has done a better job than I thought he would. His presidency would rate pretty highly in my book if it hadn't been co-opted by the more extreme right wingers in his admin and if we hadn't passed the Patriot Act. And if he Had a coherent economic policy. If you are going to cut my taxes great but at least flatline spending and show some testosterone and hold the budgetary line. | JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 86
Posts: 46/2159
EXP: 5911973
For next: 230158
Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL
Since last post: 1772 days
Last activity: 1769 days
| AIM: |  |
| | | Y!: |  |
|
| #13 Posted on 25.11.03 0916.40
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0917.09 | Originally posted by DrDirt
I voted for Nader, not because I particularly like him but I literally couldn't force my pencil to darken the circle to vote for Bush or Gore electors.
[/Kodos] Go ahead! THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY! [off] 
Actually I just saw a doc called "Unprecedented" recently that was absolutely stunning. And some of the stuff that went down was caused by people who are technically speaking my current employers that never saw the light of day during the recount.
But the only way I can put closure on it is that it's the GOP's revenge for 1960. It's the only way I was able to move on. | Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 2499/4700
EXP: 20294771
For next: 343301
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 749 days
Last activity: 546 days
| #14 Posted on 25.11.03 0927.52
Reposted on: 25.11.10 0927.54 | Originally posted by DrDirt
His presidency would rate pretty highly in my book if it hadn't been co-opted by the more extreme right wingers in his admin and if we hadn't passed the Patriot Act.
This I don't understand. He will sign a Prescription Drug Benefit. Has expanded Government Spending. No Child Left Behind. That's not a hallmark of being co-opted by the Right. Hell, a lot of people on the Right are pissed that non-military spending and the size of government have increased under Bush. They are not happy but, like Nixon in '72, have no place else to go. | Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 105
Posts: 1905/3272
EXP: 12036446
For next: 225854
Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ
Since last post: 594 days
Last activity: 594 days
| #15 Posted on 25.11.03 1205.16
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1205.20 | I have never understood this. Why the hell would you continue to support Bush if he's doing things you don't agree with? Why not find a better conservative? Just because his daddy was president doesn't mean you have to elect him twice.
-Jag
I think we may have been better off without the stupid term limits. When faced with the possibility of electing GW Bush indefinitely, he'd never see a second term. | Leroy
Andouille
Level: 87
Posts: 218/2126
EXP: 6292830
For next: 99969
Since: 7.2.02
From: Queens, NY
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 33 min.
| #16 Posted on 25.11.03 1222.13
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1224.54 | Originally posted by Grimis
Has expanded Government Spending. No Child Left Behind. That's not a hallmark of being co-opted by the Right. Hell, a lot of people on the Right are pissed that non-military spending and the size of government have increased under Bush. They are not happy but, like Nixon in '72, have no place else to go.
Most of those things you mentioned fall under - what Jon Stewart called - the President Bush policy of "calling things the opposite of what the are". And comparing Bush to Nixon, for all of Nixons's faults, is a pretty big insult to Nixon.
Why is it that the only spending the right supports is military spending? God forbid we have meaningful social programs - because Lord knows we shouldn't help people unless we bomb the hell out of them first....
| Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 122
Posts: 2506/4700
EXP: 20294771
For next: 343301
Since: 11.7.02
From: MD
Since last post: 749 days
Last activity: 546 days
| #17 Posted on 25.11.03 1235.37
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1235.38 | Originally posted by Jaguar
I have never understood this. Why the hell would you continue to support Bush if he's doing things you don't agree with? Why not find a better conservative? Just because his daddy was president doesn't mean you have to elect him twice.
I wish we could. The fact of the matter is that it boils down to the same reason Democrats rallied behind Clinton: It's better to be in power with the wrong guy than not be in power at all. Sad, but true.
Originally posted by Leroy
Why is it that the only spending the right supports is military spending?
Because there are constitutional reasons to have a military, and not meaningless welfare programs. | ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 52
Posts: 362/641
EXP: 1040769
For next: 43079
Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas
Since last post: 3181 days
Last activity: 2840 days
| #18 Posted on 25.11.03 1326.09
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1328.10 | "Because there are constitutional reasons to have a military, and not meaningless welfare programs."
Could that possibly be because when the Constitution was written no one gave a damn about anyone who wasn't a White, Male Property Owner? And slavery was legal?
Hmmmmm???
The Constitution is all fine and dandy and whatnot, but let's wake up and smell the last 200+ years. I'm not saying to revamp the whole thing. But I do think our fore fathers had enough insight to add the "admendment" part for a darn good reason. They were thinking that maybe, just maybe, times would change, and so the Constitution just might have to change with it. | OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 101
Posts: 1812/3013
EXP: 10513472
For next: 204240
Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 48 days
Last activity: 1 day
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #19 Posted on 25.11.03 1340.19
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1341.31 | Originally posted by Grimis
Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
It's the new Political Correctness, ThreepMe - you aren't allowed to mention the 2000 election anymore. Bush won in a landslide. There was nothing controversial at all about that election. Be'lee that, playa.
I probably really shouldn't complain about the fixation on 2000. People are so obsessed with that fact that most are too oblivious to the fact that one of the nine dwarves is going to make it through to be buzzsawed by Bush in November.
Keep telling yourself that. All you're doing is giving me a great deal of quotes to choose from for my November 2004 .sig file. >:) | DrDirt
Banger
Level: 94
Posts: 194/2661
EXP: 8136004
For next: 220684
Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| #20 Posted on 25.11.03 1401.56
Reposted on: 25.11.10 1403.47 | Originally posted by Blanket Jackson
Originally posted by DrDirt
I voted for Nader, not because I particularly like him but I literally couldn't force my pencil to darken the circle to vote for Bush or Gore electors.
[/Kodos] Go ahead! THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY! [off]
Actually I just saw a doc called "Unprecedented" recently that was absolutely stunning. And some of the stuff that went down was caused by people who are technically speaking my current employers that never saw the light of day during the recount.
But the only way I can put closure on it is that it's the GOP's revenge for 1960. It's the only way I was able to move on.
Throw what vote away? I live in Kansas where Hitler would win over Christ if Hitler were the Republican running. Our entire state throws its vote away every four years and has for over a hundred years. The Rep's take it for granted and the Dems's know they would be wasting their time.
Grimis, the programs you cited are a short-sighted, narrow, worthless waste of time that keep us from solving the problems they are attemtpng to correct. The Drug bill will make thngs worse, No Child Left Behind will put back not help education, and spending more while cutting taxes is just stupid. I am a liberal but I don't want my government throwing money around. I want money spent logcally to solve problems, improve lives and make people self-sufficient so they don't need government help. And I agree, please don't insult Nixon.
The right wingers I am referring to are in the foreign policy area, and where we take over countries with no clue what to do when we have them. I am not saying we should or shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, but we should have spent as much time thinkng about what to do after we won as with the battle plans.
People in the Third World don't know they are supposed to lie down and cave in just because we ar the U.S. And to expect this War on Terror to work by saying we are right and you should follow us, just wont fly in much of the developed world. We are in a classic case as of today of winning the battle and trying to lose the war. |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Pages: 1 2 3 Next
