Proud Bush Supporter

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=cooprider]Bush has his faults and so does Obama, the latter simply hasn’t had time to display them. Well, not all of them at least.

I read Time magazine’s article on Person of the Year and I’ve somewhat come to appreciate Barack Hussein’s ambitions, but then again, how’s that saying about good intentions go? I then remembered that publication has been propagating Obama longer than any pigg.

The expectations on Obamination are unrealistic, and he’s done absolutely nothing yet. Except of course not be George Bush.

Once Obama’s fence-riding on Iraq, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iran, and Russia results in another attack on the US you can bet the media and the sheople will turn on him too. [/quote]

While I disagree with the predictions, I otherwise totally agree with cooprider.

I voted out of frustration and hope but then so did many people when voting for w 8 years ago.

As with any president (or anyone in any position), performance is the real measure. There are different ways to measure or evaluate that, and those who score on the broadest range of measurements tend to have the legacy thing going and be remembered most fondly (eg: Reagan, Clinton).

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Ex-SD]
[snip]…you’re an angry, disillusioned person…
[/quote]
I know I am.

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

—————————-

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Ex-SD]
[snip]…you’re an angry, disillusioned person…
[/quote]
I know I am.

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

—————————-

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Ex-SD]
[snip]…you’re an angry, disillusioned person…
[/quote]
I know I am.

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

—————————-

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Ex-SD]
[snip]…you’re an angry, disillusioned person…
[/quote]
I know I am.

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

—————————-

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=Ex-SD]
[snip]…you’re an angry, disillusioned person…
[/quote]
I know I am.

Are you happy with the way things were run the last 8 years? Are you better off now than you were before Bush became president? Do you think the country is better off now?

Angry? Yes. Disillusioned with this administration? You betcha.

—————————-

I agree that McCain should have been president back in 2000. I think he would have done this country proud.

[Anonymous]

I am pleased with Bush’s defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let’s just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I’ll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure she has the smarts.

[Anonymous]

I am pleased with Bush’s defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let’s just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I’ll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure she has the smarts.

[Anonymous]

I am pleased with Bush’s defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let’s just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I’ll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure she has the smarts.

[Anonymous]

I am pleased with Bush’s defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let’s just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I’ll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure she has the smarts.

[Anonymous]

I am pleased with Bush’s defense of this country from further terrorist attacks. This will be his lasting legacy.

I supported the Iraq war, believing as Bush did that a functioning democracy in the heart of the Middle East would draw out Muslim moderates and help bring about an end to Islamist craziness.

In retrospect, this was a huge mistake. The Muslim is manifestly unfit for democracy, a contemptible and cowardly fanatic who understands only the language of the whip and truncheon and sword.

We should have nothing to do with the Islamic world except commerce and apocalyptic destruction, depending on how truculently they behave. They should be left to their imams and warlords and clitorectomies unless and until they threaten their non-Muslim neighbors, and then suffer all the non-nuclear punishment that a great power can dish out without risking the life of a single one of its soldiers. More rubble, less trouble.

On the economic front, I am greatly dissatisfied with Bush, but not because he is any kind of a conservative. Far from it. I am dissatisfied with him precisely to the degree that he tried to be a Democrat Lite. He tried to give us socialism on the cheap, with borrowed money juiced up by foolishly low rates from the Fed. McCain would have been even worse. At least Bill Clinton could balance a budget. If we must have a stagnant corporatist welfare state, let’s just vote Democrat and pay for it as we go, instead of stealing from our grandchildren.

In 2012, I’ll be voting for whomever promises the harshest spending cuts and soundest money. I want to see government spending, as well as regulation and taxes, cut back to 1904 levels. Absolutely no safety net for anyone who can and should look out for himself. Especially, no corporate welfare for politically connected fat cats. No bailouts. No welfare. No Social Security. Work or starve. Save or suffer. Pitiless bare-knuckled Austrian-school economic policy for all sectors.

I doubt anyone in the major parties has the guts to do this, except Sarah Palin, but I’m not sure she has the smarts.

[Arraya]

Hey John,

It’s a well documented fact that the Neo-Cons(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..) think tank Project New Century America wrote Rebuilding America’s Defenses. They stated a dire need to oust Hussein an occupy Iraq for global dominance as well as need for a in their words, “catalyzing event such as a new Pearl harbor”, so that the populace would accept an invasion. This was back in 1999.

Also, during Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton stated that due to the oil constraints of the world there was a DIRE need to get into the middle east because, in his words, “is where the ultimate prize lies”.

The first thing Cheney did when he entered office was hold his secretive ‘Energy Task Force” meetings. Most of what was discussed in these meetings are considered a matter of national security but before he could get the supreme court to validate that it was an issue of national security a group using the freedom of information act (FOIA) obtained a few documents from the meetings. They were maps of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure.

Also, it is a well documented fact the world is at peak oil, which is when the maximum amount of oil can be extracted on a daily basis. This introduces a whole host of economic problems without ample alternatives. In about 5 years or less 90% of the exportable oil will be in the ME or caspian basin. Actually probably sooner because Mexico’s Canterall field is depleting so fast.

Given these well documented facts do you really think the administration was distraught over the psychologic pretext that rallied the people into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

It’s interesting that you mention Palin. She stated that it was “Gods will” that we are in Iraq. Also during that speech she stated it was Gods will that a pipline be finished in Alaska. God sure does like oil doesn’t he.

[Arraya]

Hey John,

It’s a well documented fact that the Neo-Cons(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..) think tank Project New Century America wrote Rebuilding America’s Defenses. They stated a dire need to oust Hussein an occupy Iraq for global dominance as well as need for a in their words, “catalyzing event such as a new Pearl harbor”, so that the populace would accept an invasion. This was back in 1999.

Also, during Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton stated that due to the oil constraints of the world there was a DIRE need to get into the middle east because, in his words, “is where the ultimate prize lies”.

The first thing Cheney did when he entered office was hold his secretive ‘Energy Task Force” meetings. Most of what was discussed in these meetings are considered a matter of national security but before he could get the supreme court to validate that it was an issue of national security a group using the freedom of information act (FOIA) obtained a few documents from the meetings. They were maps of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure.

Also, it is a well documented fact the world is at peak oil, which is when the maximum amount of oil can be extracted on a daily basis. This introduces a whole host of economic problems without ample alternatives. In about 5 years or less 90% of the exportable oil will be in the ME or caspian basin. Actually probably sooner because Mexico’s Canterall field is depleting so fast.

Given these well documented facts do you really think the administration was distraught over the psychologic pretext that rallied the people into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

It’s interesting that you mention Palin. She stated that it was “Gods will” that we are in Iraq. Also during that speech she stated it was Gods will that a pipline be finished in Alaska. God sure does like oil doesn’t he.

[Arraya]

Hey John,

It’s a well documented fact that the Neo-Cons(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..) think tank Project New Century America wrote Rebuilding America’s Defenses. They stated a dire need to oust Hussein an occupy Iraq for global dominance as well as need for a in their words, “catalyzing event such as a new Pearl harbor”, so that the populace would accept an invasion. This was back in 1999.

Also, during Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton stated that due to the oil constraints of the world there was a DIRE need to get into the middle east because, in his words, “is where the ultimate prize lies”.

The first thing Cheney did when he entered office was hold his secretive ‘Energy Task Force” meetings. Most of what was discussed in these meetings are considered a matter of national security but before he could get the supreme court to validate that it was an issue of national security a group using the freedom of information act (FOIA) obtained a few documents from the meetings. They were maps of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure.

Also, it is a well documented fact the world is at peak oil, which is when the maximum amount of oil can be extracted on a daily basis. This introduces a whole host of economic problems without ample alternatives. In about 5 years or less 90% of the exportable oil will be in the ME or caspian basin. Actually probably sooner because Mexico’s Canterall field is depleting so fast.

Given these well documented facts do you really think the administration was distraught over the psychologic pretext that rallied the people into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

It’s interesting that you mention Palin. She stated that it was “Gods will” that we are in Iraq. Also during that speech she stated it was Gods will that a pipline be finished in Alaska. God sure does like oil doesn’t he.

[Arraya]

Hey John,

It’s a well documented fact that the Neo-Cons(Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc..) think tank Project New Century America wrote Rebuilding America’s Defenses. They stated a dire need to oust Hussein an occupy Iraq for global dominance as well as need for a in their words, “catalyzing event such as a new Pearl harbor”, so that the populace would accept an invasion. This was back in 1999.

Also, during Cheney’s tenure at Halliburton stated that due to the oil constraints of the world there was a DIRE need to get into the middle east because, in his words, “is where the ultimate prize lies”.

The first thing Cheney did when he entered office was hold his secretive ‘Energy Task Force” meetings. Most of what was discussed in these meetings are considered a matter of national security but before he could get the supreme court to validate that it was an issue of national security a group using the freedom of information act (FOIA) obtained a few documents from the meetings. They were maps of Iraqi oil fields and infrastructure.

Also, it is a well documented fact the world is at peak oil, which is when the maximum amount of oil can be extracted on a daily basis. This introduces a whole host of economic problems without ample alternatives. In about 5 years or less 90% of the exportable oil will be in the ME or caspian basin. Actually probably sooner because Mexico’s Canterall field is depleting so fast.

Given these well documented facts do you really think the administration was distraught over the psychologic pretext that rallied the people into Iraq?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

It’s interesting that you mention Palin. She stated that it was “Gods will” that we are in Iraq. Also during that speech she stated it was Gods will that a pipline be finished in Alaska. God sure does like oil doesn’t he.

[Author]

Posts