How many times do you have to be wrong, before you question your ideology?

Cypress

Will work for Scooby snacks
How many times does one have to be fundamentally wrong on basic issues, before one starts to question the validity of one's ideology?


1)
2001: We can easily afford Bush's tax cuts! They won't contribute to a return to deficit spending!

2007: Ummm...deficits don't matter anyway.


2)
2000: Bush's economic policies are better than Clinton/Gore's economic policies! We'll have unprecendented economic growth!

2007: Well, so what if the Clinton economy was stronger overall? Clinton just got lucky!


3)
2002: Saddam definetly has WMD and collaborative ties to al qaeda!

2007: Ummmm.....well, the French helped saddam hide the WMD in syria. Besides, we really didn't invade for WMD anyway!


4)
1996: Global warming is a hoax! There is NO evidence of a long term warming trend!

2004: Well, maybe there is a warming trend. But humans have nothing to do with it!

2007: Well, maybe humans have a little something to do with the warming trend. But global warming will be good for us! We'll be growing oranges in Alaska!


5)
2004: The insurgency is in it's last throes. Things are getting better in Iraq. The lying liberal media isn't reporting the good news. Iraq won't be an issue in either the 2006 or 2008 election!

2007: No one could possibly have predicted how bad it's gotten. But, we have to fight them there, so they don't follow us home!


6)
2002: Whew! Man are we lucky Gore wasn't elected president. He NEVER would have attacked afghanistan. He would have wimped out! Bush is awesome - he's the heir to Ronald Reagan, and the next historically great american president!

2007: Hey, I never said I liked Bush that much. He's really a liberal.
 
LMAO @ cypress.
I just take prind in the fact that I knew he was a steamy pile of $hit in 2000. That's my only bright side to everything that's been going on over the last 6 1/2 years
 
USC: Yes, it must be based on faith. Not on facts.

I knew he was a steamy pile of $hit in 2000.


What sane, thinking person didn't see that Chimp in the 2000 debates, and conclude he was a total lightweight competely unequiped for the job?
 
How many times does one have to be fundamentally wrong on basic issues, before one starts to question the validity of one's ideology?


1)
2001: We can easily afford Bush's tax cuts! They won't contribute to a return to deficit spending!

2007: Ummm...deficits don't matter anyway.


2)
2000: Bush's economic policies are better than Clinton/Gore's economic policies! We'll have unprecendented economic growth!

2007: Well, so what if the Clinton economy was stronger overall? Clinton just got lucky!


3)
2002: Saddam definetly has WMD and collaborative ties to al qaeda!

2007: Ummmm.....well, the French helped saddam hide the WMD in syria. Besides, we really didn't invade for WMD anyway!


4)
1996: Global warming is a hoax! There is NO evidence of a long term warming trend!

2004: Well, maybe there is a warming trend. But humans have nothing to do with it!

2007: Well, maybe humans have a little something to do with the warming trend. But global warming will be good for us! We'll be growing oranges in Alaska!


5)
2004: The insurgency is in it's last throes. Things are getting better in Iraq. The lying liberal media isn't reporting the good news. Iraq won't be an issue in either the 2006 or 2008 election!

2007: No one could possibly have predicted how bad it's gotten. But, we have to fight them there, so they don't follow us home!


6)
2002: Whew! Man are we lucky Gore wasn't elected president. He NEVER would have attacked afghanistan. He would have wimped out! Bush is awesome - he's the heir to Ronald Reagan, and the next historically great american president!

2007: Hey, I never said I liked Bush that much. He's really a liberal.

LOL Love it!
 
USC: Yes, it must be based on faith. Not on facts.

I knew he was a steamy pile of $hit in 2000.


What sane, thinking person didn't see that Chimp in the 2000 debates, and conclude he was a total lightweight competely unequiped for the job?

I they are called republicans........
 
Back
Top