T1B

Variable wrote:Not that Bush should be let off the hook for any of his administrations corrupt acts, but who was the last president that could be considered as "non-corrupt?" Jimmy Carter? Yeah, that went well for the US.

Is it Jimmy Carter's fault that America was to self centered to understand that we did need to learn how to do more with less? The man's only crime was being ahead of his time.

BSmack Wrote:
Is it Jimmy Carter's fault that America was to self centered to understand that we did need to learn how to do more with less? The man's only crime was being ahead of his time.

And he can hammer a mean nail.

a man much smarter than mvscal wrote:I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Of course he's right.

BSmack wrote:Better get some soap on a rope for Rove.

From everything I've heard about Rove, he would prefer to play "drop the soap".

mvscal wrote:

At Large wrote:To be fair, Bush did say that anyone involved who has committed a crime would be fired. Now, he says anyone involved who is convicted of a crime will be fired. It all depends on which one he's held to.

The difference would be?

Do I really need to explain the difference?

How about a person is arrested for committing a crime, let's say murder. But then he isn't convicted because it's proven that it's in self-defense. Is that simple enough for you?

Karl Rove knowingly or unknowingly "committed" a crime (depending on your definition of this crime), but may not be "convicted" because he had a good defense.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote:

a man much smarter than mvscal wrote:I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.

Of course he's right.

3,000 dead Americans in New York say that both of you are gibbering dumbfucks.

If counter terrorism efforts fail, you occasionally have 3000 dead people. If the fight against nuclear proliferation fails, you will be praying that only 3000 people die.

The fight against nuclear proliferation has failed, idiot. How many countries have acquired nukes and are on their way to developing nukes since that treaty was signed?

It was retarded from the start anyway and was only sympbolic gesture on behalf of the signatories, many of whom have violated it several times.

Sudden Sam wrote:I based my prognostication on the Harken Energy bailouts,

Bush bailed Harken out?

Link?

the favors Bush owed to oil people,

You were asked about this before and you refused to even speculate what those favors were.

You want to give it a run, again?

his track record in business in general,

What about that "track record" gives you the impression that as President Bush would run a corrupt administration?

and some of the names he was associated with in Texas.

Oh, guilt by association...I get it now. You have nothing more than this...

The corruption is probably no worse than in most administrations, but the toll in lives and dollars could reach epic levels.

Such as???

Well?

Do you have anything more than absolute conjecture and hyperbole?

What a piece of shit you are, SS.

man up and at least bring a practical argument to the table. Otherwise you're simply running an Index imitation here.

Sudden Sam wrote:I am index.

No surprise.

DrDetroit wrote:The fight against nuclear proliferation has failed.

I must have missed the nuclear explosion. Then again, you live in Detroit. So I could see how you might be confused about whether or not a nuke blast occurred.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:The fight against nuclear proliferation has failed.

I must have missed the nuclear explosion. Then again, you live in Detroit. So I could see how you might be confused about whether or not a nuke blast occurred.

So now you have even confused what the concept of nuclear non-proliferation is...props, idiot.

mvscal wrote:

At Large wrote:How about a person is arrested for committing a crime, let's say murder. But then he isn't convicted because it's proven that it's in self-defense. Is that simple enough for you?

In other words, he didn't commit the crime. Yes, I understand that you are a total idiot, so I'll give you the opportunity to digest that fact.

Karl Rove knowingly or unknowingly "committed" a crime (depending on your definition of this crime), but may not be "convicted" because he had a good defense.

As a point of fact, it is far from clear that there is even a crime here.

Oh, I see, because I shoplifted, that means that I'm automatically convicted of it? Your logic really kills me.

If I stole from a company, but then then didn't get convicted of the crime, I've still committed a crime. No conviction doesn't take away the fact that I've committed the crime.

First of all, At Large incorrectly summed up the charge that Bush raised the standard under which he would fire someone in this matter.

Second, I don't believe that Bush contradicted himself when he said that we would fire anyone involved in illegally outting a CIA agent. He said in 2003 that he would fire someone who illegally outted a CIA agent. In 2004 he stood by that statement (though he was answering a misleading question that inaccurately restated his initial proposition). In 2005 he reasserted that he fire anyone who committed a crime.

We know he won't fire anyone because no crime has been committed. It is that simple.

Any further blustering on this matter is merely smearing the President, which was the intent of this whole charade from the beginning.

Sudden Sam wrote:If President Bush slaughtered and ate a baby on national TV, his supporters would vehemently defend him.

Hmmm, refuses to honestly discuss the issue and then attempts to speculate using straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks.

Color me surprised.

I incorrectly summed up the charge that he changed the standards? He did change the standards. I'm just going by what he said. That's all.

If I worked for a company that had a policy about firing anyone involved in a crime, they wouldn't wait for me to be aquitted of said crime, they'd probably fire my ass by now. The real world is way harsher that this.

If you were going by what he said then you would have quoted him. You're not working from actual statements.

DrDetroit wrote:If you were going by what he said then you would have quoted him. You're not working from actual statements.

Fair enough. I'll find them tonight when I get home. Need to go to a meeting in a few minutes here.

Forgive my ignorance. It's hard to tell what's true in the case. Yes, I am a dumbass, but considering this case has taken a lot of turns in rhetoric (see how I switched it around? :wink: ), I think deciding the facts are hard enough.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 929-7.html

MR. McCLELLAN: -- that suggests White House involvement. There are anonymous reports all the time in the media. The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.


Then came...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 718-1.html

PRESIDENT BUSH: We have a serious ongoing investigation here. (Laughter.) And it's being played out in the press. And I think it's best that people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. And I will do so, as well. I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts, and if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

So I was wrong about the convicted part, although I could have sworn I heard the sound clip.

DrDetroit wrote:First of all, At Large incorrectly summed up the charge that Bush raised the standard under which he would fire someone in this matter.

Incorrectly? Wrong. First go round he said he'd fire anyone caught leaking, NOT convicted of a crime. That is upping the standard.

Second, I don't believe that Bush contradicted himself when he said that we would fire anyone involved in illegally outting a CIA agent. He said in 2003 that he would fire someone who illegally outted a CIA agent. In 2004 he stood by that statement (though he was answering a misleading question that inaccurately restated his initial proposition). In 2005 he reasserted that he fire anyone who committed a crime.

We know he won't fire anyone because no crime has been committed. It is that simple.

Any further blustering on this matter is merely smearing the President, which was the intent of this whole charade from the beginning.

Well the point being that if he had held true to his initial statement, Rove would be gone. He upped the ante most likely after some lawyer or person with a brain in his administration told him what he should say.

"It is against the law for a government official to knowingly expose a covert CIA agent."

Of course the telling point is the word "Knowingly"

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... sh_leak_dc

A few more "Quotes"

McClellan: "If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the improper disclosure of an undercover CIA operative's identity], they would no longer be in this administration."

Bush: "If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action."

and another BUsh Quote:

"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of..."

From a press conference:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

whitehouse.gov. you gotta dig deep.

Incorrectly? Wrong. First go round he said he'd fire anyone caught leaking, NOT convicted of a crime. That is upping the standard.

So did you not see At Large's post before throwing this up?

I already provided the actual quotes on this board...twice. You, just like NPR, WaPo, NYT, CBS are ignoring what the President stated in 2003. You're simply ignoring it. Which means that you are lying. period.

Well the point being that if he had held true to his initial statement, Rove would be gone. He upped the ante most likely after some lawyer or person with a brain in his administration told him what he should say.

Here you go again, Bushice. Why are you compelled to ignore evidence and simply lie?

"It is against the law for a government official to knowingly expose a covert CIA agent."

Okay...so why did you ignore the rest of the law?

Then you go on to actually provide quotes that prove you wrong. Nice work KYOA, Bushice.

Oh, and then you post the misleading question that inaccurately restates the President's initial statement.

That reporter improperly redefined Bush's statement to fire anyone involved in illegally leaking a CIA agent's name.

Uh-huh. Doesn't count when a reporter improperly restates the President's position on an issue.

That shit might go over well for you people, but not people who act in good faith.

DrDetroit wrote:That shit might go over well for you people, but not people who act in good faith.

Let me know when you find one of those in Washington.

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:That shit might go over well for you people, but not people who act in good faith.

Let me know when you find one of those in Washington.

Your point is what??

Bush made his statement in good faith. Nothing has been presented demonstrating the contrary.

On the other hand, we have a manufactured controversy here where we know that it was not Rove that was retailing Plame's name but journalists who were.

And we have mainstream journalists obstructing justice while the administration has cooperated (with Bush sitting for an interview once and Rove testifying three times).

And we have mainstream journalists simply blatantly lying about what Bush said re: firing people.

Doc,

You wouldn't admit Rove is a scumsuckin' POS under any circumstances.

Straw man? Ad hominem? Red herring? Take you pick...

The FACT that he disseminated BS lies implying that a political candidate in Alabama was a pedophile doesn't even faze you, does it?

I don't believe that I was asked to comment on that, was I?

As well, I don't believe that I have been a strident Rove defender here except in this issue.

So, continue creating your straw man arguments.

The Repubs were so desperate to win a judgeship that they called Rove's slimy ass in...yet they still lost. But, in the process of the campaign, that bastard did tremendous damage to the Democratic candidate's name.

That's shitty politics then...if your version of the story is accurate.

But that's okay, isn't it? Dishonesty is fine as long as it benefits your side, right?

Another straw man?

Hey, Sudden, have all the straw man arguments you want. That doesn't change the fact that you still cannot demonstrate that Bush owed anyone a favor nor that Bush bailed Harken out.

When are you going to sack up for those empty assertions? Rather than attacking me for arguments I didn't make, how about you start addressing the points/questions I have raised???

And to think that I am the one being attacked by posters on Main Street. At least I am a good faith poster here.

Sudden Sam:

Harken bailed Bush out

Well, that wasn't apparent from you posted earlier -

I based my prognostication on the Harken Energy bailouts

Perhaps you could be more clear...

So...are you going to provide something that demonstrates Bush owed people favors or are you sticking with the unsubstantiated hyperbole/conjecture and straw man argument re: me??

Oh come on. Every politician owes and or gives/gets favors at different points in time in their sleazy careers. That's what lobbying groups and PACS are all about. Bush is no different from any other shitty politician from any party.

Mister Bushice wrote:Oh come on. Every politician owes and or gives/gets favors at different points in time in their sleazy careers. That's what lobbying groups and PACS are all about. Bush is no different from any other shitty politician from any party.

I see, political campaign contributions are really just bribes, right?

There you go, again. The speculation shit always nips you in the ass.

So, let Sudden defend himself. He made the assertion twice, so I have to presume that he's got some solid information behind it.

DrDetroit wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Oh come on. Every politician owes and or gives/gets favors at different points in time in their sleazy careers. That's what lobbying groups and PACS are all about. Bush is no different from any other shitty politician from any party.

I see, political campaign contributions are really just bribes, right?

There you go, again. The speculation shit always nips you in the ass.

So, let Sudden defend himself. He made the assertion twice, so I have to presume that he's got some solid information behind it.

The tobacco lobby rep comes up to senator smokesnever and says " Hey senator, Here's a bundle o' cash for your re-election" Six months later a bill comes up to benefit said tobacco company. senator smokesnever votes yes, because next go around he may need that tobacco money to get re elected.

favors.

Gray Davis out here in cali was so overloaded with special interest groups and questionable paybacks he got booted for it.

It's not speculation.

He was paying back favors that helped him get elected.

You can call it whatever you want but it is part of the political landscape, and everyone does it, and always has. some are just worse than others when it comes to good judgement.

Gray Davis is a great example, the best being the prison guard contract. But I tend to think he's an exception to the rule and exception don't make rules.

Sudden Sam didn't qualify his take. He specifically identified Bush.

Also, your explanation fails to take into account true policy preferences that result in some winning and others losing.

Bush didn't get jack squat from organized labor prior to his bullshit steel tariffs, let alone from steel labor. Nor did he get jack squat from domestic textile businesses prior to enacting tariffs on specific Chinese textiles. yet, in both instances he implemented protectionist trade policies despite not having the political support of the groups the policies were intended to help.

How do you account for these types of actions?

Also, the education lobby was especially hostile towards Bush, though his educational bill significantly rewarded the teacher and school admin bureaucracies.

There are tons of examples like these.

So your explanation doesn't help to explain much more than your personal opinion that all politicians are crooked and on are on the take.

DrDetroit wrote:Gray Davis is a great example, the best being the prison guard contract. But I tend to think he's an exception to the rule and exception don't make rules.

Sudden Sam didn't qualify his take. He specifically identified Bush.

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.
Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy. Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

Also, your explanation fails to take into account true policy preferences that result in some winning and others losing.

Bush didn't get jack squat from organized labor prior to his bullshit steel tariffs, let alone from steel labor. Nor did he get jack squat from domestic textile businesses prior to enacting tariffs on specific Chinese textiles. yet, in both instances he implemented protectionist trade policies despite not having the political support of the groups the policies were intended to help.

How do you account for these types of actions?

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions. Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

Also, the education lobby was especially hostile towards Bush, though his educational bill significantly rewarded the teacher and school admin bureaucracies.

There are tons of examples like these.

So your explanation doesn't help to explain much more than your personal opinion that all politicians are crooked and on are on the take.

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.

Okay, first, relying on something as amorphous as the "religious right" to make your point is a little dishonest. Secondly, what part of the majority of American voters who voted Bush represent the "religious right?" This is rather weak and I'd like to see the data on this.

Third, are you arguing that Bush's advocacy of policies re: abortion rights and gay marriage was determinant upon political contributions from the "religious right" and were not personal political policy preferences even before he ran for President? I doubt it. He was pro-life as Governor in Texas. Like Clinton he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to protect that legislation.

Re: church funding...that's not what he proposed. It was not intended to funnel money to churches simply because they were churches, but because those very successful social organizations were discriminated against regarding the receipt of federal dollars. And I do recall that both Gore and Kerry campaigned from the church pulpit unlike Bush, though Bush was the only candidate being slammed for having the support of the overtly religious.

Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy.

Do you have a point? Halliburton has made many people rich, including Al Gore, who was the VP in the administration that awarded Halliburton the huge LOGCAP contract.

What's your point?

Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

His associates? Can you make it appear any more suspicious? Hardly. But so what? Do you have a point?

Are you arguing that Bush policy directly impacted gasoline price increases? Which policies and how so?

In fact, we know that US gas prices are being driven by three things, none of which Bush can be reaosnable held accountable for: a) security premium related to the threat of terrorism; b) expanding global energy demand; and c) limited refining capacity in the US.

So what is Bush supposed to do here? He's fighting terrorism, unlike much of the world community. Is he supposed to stomp on global economic growth? And its liberal environmental laws that have resulted in reduced refining capacity in the US.

What do yuo have to say about that? Probably nothing because your argument is nothing but a reductive fallacy.

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions.

No shit, sherlock. However, in two instances he enacted broad economic protectionist policies to protect labor in the US, in the steel and textiles industries.

Why did you ignore the question?

Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

That's your response to my civil question regarding the adequacy of your explanation to explain certain Bush policies???

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Your assertions of bribes and failures as absurd.

You still have failed to explain how these policies are not personal policy preferences. We know why and it's because you know that Bush advocates a diminshed regulatory structure.

And despite this new clean air act (which doesn't exist on its own) that you say is not an improvement, air quality continues to improve, along with water quality.

Can you explain this?

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

They certainly do and they rely on bogus arguments like yours. That doesn't make them right.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

I didn't have to and my arguments NEVER rely on that anyway.

The funny thing is that you ignored the central point of my last thread. i wonder why?

DrDetroit wrote:

Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right, and he has pursued their causes as a follow up, aka abortion rights, gay marriage amendment, and funding churches with tax dollars for faith based programs.

Okay, first, relying on something as amorphous as the "religious right" to make your point is a little dishonest. Secondly, what part of the majority of American voters who voted Bush represent the "religious right?" This is rather weak and I'd like to see the data on this.

Look at the fucking states that he won! what more data do you need?

Third, are you arguing that Bush's advocacy of policies re: abortion rights and gay marriage was determinant upon political contributions from the "religious right" and were not personal political policy preferences even before he ran for President? I doubt it. He was pro-life as Governor in Texas. Like Clinton he supported the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to protect that legislation.

I'm sure it was both. He broadcast a promise to go after Roe v Wade to the anti abortion crowd at a rally during the campaign.

Re: church funding...that's not what he proposed. It was not intended to funnel money to churches simply because they were churches, but because those very successful social organizations were discriminated against regarding the receipt of federal dollars. And I do recall that both Gore and Kerry campaigned from the church pulpit unlike Bush, though Bush was the only candidate being slammed for having the support of the overtly religious.

I was lazily broad there. I know it was not "church funding", but it was funding faith based programs with tax dollars, which is a very shaky idea at best, given the difficulty in determining who gets the money and what the money will be used for.

And Bush was slammed because he claimed to represent the majority of the American people when he was really representing the religious right.

Then there's the haliburton rebuild in Iraq, which has made his daddy and many oil associates very wealthy.

Do you have a point? Halliburton has made many people rich, including Al Gore, who was the VP in the administration that awarded Halliburton the huge LOGCAP contract.

What's your point?

The way it was done. And I don't mean just Logcap. We''ve discussed this already.

Then there are the gas prices, which he has done nothing about but have also made his associates very wealthy.

His associates? Can you make it appear any more suspicious? Hardly. But so what? Do you have a point?

Yes. Bush has a lot of oil friends that contributed to his campaign. Bush has done nothing substantive to control rising gas prices. Bushs oil friends have made a ton of money on the rising oil prices. Do you need a diagram?

Are you arguing that Bush policy directly impacted gasoline price increases? Which policies and how so?

Insert "lack of" and you'll get it.

In fact, we know that US gas prices are being driven by three things, none of which Bush can be reaosnable held accountable for: a) security premium related to the threat of terrorism; b) expanding global energy demand; and c) limited refining capacity in the US.

I'm not blaming him for the rise, just for the total lack of action.

So what is Bush supposed to do here? He's fighting terrorism, unlike much of the world community.

Spoken like a true parrot.

Is he supposed to stomp on global economic growth? And its liberal environmental laws that have resulted in reduced refining capacity in the US.

He's had six years to introduce legislation. How much legislation has he introduced to improve the situation?

What do yuo have to say about that? Probably nothing because your argument is nothing but a reductive fallacy.

Conjecture and hyperbole on your part again.

Organized labor is not a major election factor for the repubs, it's the Dems mainstay, and they just took a major hit this week with the splitting of the AFL Cio Unions.

No shit, sherlock. However, in two instances he enacted broad economic protectionist policies to protect labor in the US, in the steel and textiles industries.

So why should that matter? He didn't do it to protect the workers, he did it because his advisors told him it would benefit the economy.

Why did you ignore the question?

This is one of the things you post too frequently that is exceedingly annoying because you don't get the answer you want.

Bush ignored them just like he ignored california. He rarely stumped out here, because he didn't need the electoral votes, He was leading in enough states for his entire run. Kerry was a hapless opponent. Bush had the strength of the RR on his side, and it was known up front that he really only need a couple of states to get enough electoral votes, so he hit those heavily.

That's your response to my civil question regarding the adequacy of your explanation to explain certain Bush policies???

No, that is my response to the question of why bush wasn't worried about recruiting the labor movement or the teachers union. He didn't need them.

Yes, and Bush loosened up drilling rights and access to protected forests, as well as instituted a new clean air act that is not an improvement over the old one. NO ONE gets to the top of the political heap without favors and deals.

Your assertions of bribes and failures as absurd.

I never said bribe. Have no idea what you mean by "failures"

You still have failed to explain how these policies are not personal policy preferences. We know why and it's because you know that Bush advocates a diminshed regulatory structure.

And despite this new clean air act (which doesn't exist on its own) that you say is not an improvement, air quality continues to improve, along with water quality.

Air quality is NOT improving because of his act. Air quality is improving because of the previous clean air act. The new one has wacky guidelines that don't improve, and in some cases allow for companies to pollute more by buying pollution dollars <my term, meaning if they are over the limit in one coal burning facility and under the limit in another, they can buy the extra from the under so they can continue to pollute in the one that's already over. Fucking moronic.

Besides, it's not just MY opinion. A lot of people feel the same way about our representatives.

They certainly do and they rely on bogus arguments like yours. That doesn't make them right.

This is exactly what I meant. Because there are people who disagree with your point, they are "Bogus" and you are not. Wrong.

But feel free to just jump in right here and pull the "why do you lie? "Idiot", Moron" card, as per usual.

I didn't have to and my arguments NEVER rely on that anyway.

Yes they do. You use it all the time.

The funny thing is that you ignored the central point of my last thread. i wonder why?

I did not. You just want the answers to every one of your questions worded exactly to show that you are right and everyone else is wrong. I address all of your points, you just don't agree with the answers so according to you automatically they are wrong.

And you wonder why arguing with you is so tiring and useless.

Except for the Beltway and other isolated CantMoveOn.org sleeper cells, NOBODY REALLY GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE ROVE STORY

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:Bush was elected by primarily elected by the religious right,

This is the type of stupid bullshit that gets you branded a stuttering dumbfuck all the time.

Dude, you call EVERYONE who disagrees with you that.

Bush was elected because he captured a larger portion of the center than the Democrats. The religious right didn't have shit to do with that and, in fact, might have been more of a liability in that respect.

That's crap. Bush only had to win a few key electoral votes states that were swing states, and he won those. His prime base was conservative religious america. He increased his "moral" voter turnout by 20%, and the Fear that Kerry would roll over on the whole terror Issue also swung voters, but the mainstay of his voter support was the evangelical Christians.

How could you say that, Mvscal? A majority disagrees with gay marriage? Say it ain't so....lol.

mvscal wrote:

Mister Bushice wrote:but the mainstay of his voter support was the evangelical Christians.

Horseshit. Fag marriage has nothing to do with the evangelical wing. The polling on that issue shows a very decisive majority against.

Bush won because he won the center. Nobody wins the Presidency these days without it.

Period. End of Fucking Story.

Those moved to vote against a candidate because of a pro gay marraige stand are not in the center.

Period. End of Fucking Story.