Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LOL
SF, I think that this post really makes clear that you are the one who sees what you want to see.
How so? Tell me one thing I state about Bradley that isn't correct? Just one.
LOL
SF, I think that this post really makes clear that you are the one who sees what you want to see.
Probably my biggest problem with 3rd party voters, aside from the fact that they feel they are "above the fray"; they don't deal in reality, and in the practical consequences of what they see as "principled" action.
It's always imaginary ideas like "if enough people thought like us!" and "my vote is shifting the platform of the major parties..." It's a total fantasy-world...
Why do all of you idiots keep forgeting that GORE was able to get more votes than Bush. GORE did convense more voters he would be the better president than Bush was able to convense.
You are so full of shit. Because I have a different opinion than you somehow THAT disqualifies me? Pull your head out of your ass or whatever Dems ass it is in. 12 years of failure in Iraq by the UN. 8 by Clinton. The situation in Iraq was getting worse each year due to the sanctions. But I know, to you everything would have been far better had we just continued on for another 12 years so that you and your kind could bury your heads in the sand ignoring the problems and finding absolution from any responsibility.
Out of the two of us, you are the one that should be disqualified from any discussion regarding national security. Perhaps you should stick to discussing the Academy awards.... seems to be more your level.
Well Jarod.. you see we are talking about winning the election. Which means you have to win more electoral votes than the other candidate. You see that is how our election process works. I know it is confusing for you liars (I mean lawyers) but that is the simplest way I can explain it to you. Go back to ripping off your clients.
It appears the Bill Clinton policy in Iraq worked pretty well, Saddam was boxed in with no WMD! He was no threat to anyone and was isolated to his little corner of the world, costing 0 American lives and very little American money compared to the way it is now!
Such a poor leap of logic.
1) They were supposed to verify it, had they done so, the sanctions that were starving the Iraqi people and benefitting Saddam would have been removed.
2) History has indeed unfolded, but you do not know it would have unfolded in the same manner had Gore been President. Had Gore been President, would he have escalated the number of troops in Saudi if he wasn't planning to invade?... NO, because as you mentioned he wasn't likely going to invade Iraq and thus would not have had the need to do so. So if the troop buildup had not occured... would Saddam have become as cooperative with the UN? Would the UN have even cared?
Most likely.... the UN and Gore would have kept the sanctions and no fly zones in place and let the Iraqi people starve. They did not care in Rwanda... so why should they care now?
Earlier some were talking about Gore's failure to convense a majority of voters that he was the best canidate... I was pointing out that he achually did do that.
Bush's first election was a failure of the system, not a failure of the majority of voters.
I dont rip off my clients.
Right... so its just about American lives and American money. Gotcha. Like I said, that was the same plan we used in Rwanda.... THAT worked out well.
Bush's election was the system working. The failure came at the hands of a bunch of floridian morons who weren't intelligent enough to figure out how to vote.
You're a lawyer... you all rip off your clients. Don't try to lie, we all know its true.
You honestly belive that the people of Iraq like President Bush better than they liked President Clinton?
I agree with President Clinton that his Rowanda policy was a dismal mistake.
It was a failure of the system that has led to the dismal presidental leadership we have suffered over the past almost 7 years. The voters had it right!
I honestly beleive that the Iraqi people don't give a shit about either of the two. Never stated otherwise.
What failure? A little more specifics? Take your time, because I have to go and won't be back on till tomorrow. Have a good night.
Now, if he could just have convinced his home state this conversation would have been far different. No way to know exactly how different, but definitely different.Earlier some were talking about Gore's failure to convense a majority of voters that he was the best canidate... I was pointing out that he achually did do that.
Bush's first election was a failure of the system, not a failure of the majority of voters.
I dont rip off my clients.
There is no "one" election. He has to win 50 of them. One important one that he should have won would have been his home. I don't think there has ever been a President who didn't win in their home state.The failure of the System to produce a DEMOCRATICALLY POPULARLY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
I gaurantee you Colorado would have voted for Gary Hart. And did Georgia vote for Carter?The "home state" argument is pure BS. Why should a conservative state vote for what they see as a liberal? Because the pass him on the street sometimes?
Make some real arguments...