One theory about the Tea Party

Dune said:
Bush said "If you are not with me, you are against me." What could be more partisan than that?
Click to expand...
He spoke about the nation, not party. That's some juicy Kool-Ade you drink... But I prefer mine without the mind altering drugs.
 
Damocles said:
He spoke about the nation, not party. That's some juicy Kool-Ade you drink... But I prefer mine without the mind altering drugs.
Click to expand...

You are on an insult roll today, it is rare to see you in such form. You must be out of balance and needing to contemplating your death a little more, can you tell I am reading Dan Brown?:loveu:
 
Dune said:
Bush said "If you are not with me, you are against me." What could be more partisan than that?
Click to expand...

This is what Bush said...

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Now.... presuming you can read the English language and discern what the words mean in context, you should be able to clearly see, Bush did not say anything remotely close to what you implied. As a matter of fact, the statement was about as bipartisan as it could possibly be, he didn't distinguish between left or right, republican or democrat, when he referred to "us" in the statement, we are all a part of "us" ...Americans... doesn't get more bipartisan.
 
Dixie said:
This is what Bush said...

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Now.... presuming you can read the English language and discern what the words mean in context, you should be able to clearly see, Bush did not say anything remotely close to what you implied. As a matter of fact, the statement was about as bipartisan as it could possibly be, he didn't distinguish between left or right, republican or democrat, when he referred to "us" in the statement, we are all a part of "us" ...Americans... doesn't get more bipartisan.
Click to expand...

There are few things on this planet with the ability to move by their own efforts that are more stupid than bush, so it doesn't really matter what he said or what he didnt say.
When are sensible americans going to haul his idle, stupid arse into a courtroom somewhere?
That will put your nation on the path to success more than anything Obama does.
 
Dixie said:
This is what Bush said...

Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Now.... presuming you can read the English language and discern what the words mean in context, you should be able to clearly see, Bush did not say anything remotely close to what you implied. As a matter of fact, the statement was about as bipartisan as it could possibly be, he didn't distinguish between left or right, republican or democrat, when he referred to "us" in the statement, we are all a part of "us" ...Americans... doesn't get more bipartisan.
Click to expand...
Correct, "us" in this context was this nation, not a specific political party.
 
WinterBorn said:
I think the conflict between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives is getting worse and about to create a division between them.
Click to expand...
The Fiscal conservatives will win. Social conservatism has lost the battle of history over and over again. They lost in 1776, 1788, 1865 and 1964. It's a dead horse and some people just don't know when to get off it.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
The Fiscal conservatives will win. Social conservatism has lost the battle of history over and over again. They lost in 1776, 1788, 1865 and 1964. It's a dead horse and some people just don't know when to get off it.
Click to expand...

Actually, we're winning:
Fewer teens and young adults are having sex, a government survey shows, and theories abound for why they're doing it less.

Experts say this generation may be more cautious than their predecessors, more aware of sexually spread diseases. Or perhaps emphasis on abstinence in the past decade has had some influence.
Click to expand...
http://www2.journalnow.com/news/201...people-are-less-amorous-study-says-ar-832155/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top