ot..... The Dumbocrats and Repugnicans show. Too F'd up ?

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:25 pm

subterFUSE wrote: My granddad was a freemason. It was a whole bunch of nothing.

how high did your grandad get subter? let me guess, not very (not an insult, just that very few do). compartmentilisation.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:25 pm

subterFUSE wrote:
knotkranky wrote:
D K wrote:i can't be bothered to read all this...
one thing is for sure...
voting either republican or democrat isn't going to solve a damn thing.
No, that's not right. If bush had lost in 2000, things would have been very different. 911 "may" have happened anyway with Gore. But the response would have been much, much better. This reality will always be true with choices. We have them, and they do make a difference.
The response with Gore would have been to do nothing, just like Clinton did... and then we would have been attacked again, and again.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11, and I credit that directly to Bush.

No sF, you are being disingenuous. Clinton and the military lobed many dozens of cruise missiles at Osama and his buds. Many civilians were killed. The republicans chastised the clinton administration for that and locked down the intelligence community as best they could while suing him for a 75,000 dollar real-estate deal and a blow job. No, your simplistic on message fox news sophomore rant is old and tired.

When are you going to cut bush loose? Even the staunchest Republicans have admitted way more dissatisfaction than you. Republican? fine. But cut the fucker loose already.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:28 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:kranky im still curious about this choice you talk about. Is it not well known that Bush cheated his way in. Twice?
Have you heard of Bohemian Grove? Freemasons? Skull & Bones? These organisations cross party divisions, they are the party. Things with Gore would probably have been better but then he would have never got in. Bush was prepped all his life to for those elections in 2000, in a way it was his destiny, or at least his father made sure it was destiny & not just a hope.
The thing is there are politics deeper than the public eye can see, there is no real choice. The president is SELECTED not ELECTED.

Then how did Clinton trounce bush senior in 92'?

subterFUSE · Post by **subterFUSE** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:28 pm

knotkranky wrote:
subterFUSE wrote:
knotkranky wrote: No, that's not right. If bush had lost in 2000, things would have been very different. 911 "may" have happened anyway with Gore. But the response would have been much, much better. This reality will always be true with choices. We have them, and they do make a difference.
The response with Gore would have been to do nothing, just like Clinton did... and then we would have been attacked again, and again.

We haven't been attacked since 9/11, and I credit that directly to Bush.
No sF, you are being disingenuous. Clinton and the military lobed many dozens of cruise missiles at Osama and his buds. Many civilians were killed. The republicans chastised the clinton administration for that and locked down the intelligence community as best they could while suing him for a 75,000 dollar real-estate deal and a blow job. No, your simplistic on message fox news sophomore rant is old and tired.

When are you going to cut bush loose? Even the staunchest Republicans have admitted way more dissatisfaction than you. Republican? fine. But cut the fucker loose already.

Clinton had a number of chances to get Bin Laden, and he passed.

When he launched the cruise missiles, it was a rather minimal response. And it was quite ineffective. Bin Laden knew the missiles were coming practically before they were launched, because the Clinton admin tipped off the Pakistanis, who had insiders working for Bin Laden.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:32 pm

@ kranky) why would that mean anything? Is Clinton seen as a saviour or something?
Bush Snr was very powerful decades before presidency & still is now, i guess it depends on your opinion of what the president position really is. Ever since Kennedy its just been a token, a show. Kennedy got too close, that scared the power & now the president is nothing more than the president in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:35 pm

subterFUSE wrote:Clinton had a number of chances to get Bin Laden, and he passed.

this is hilarious. And Bush is any closer to capturing bin Laden? Funny, you would think that the secret services would keep better track of their employees

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:36 pm

but then i guess its not a popular point to make that bin Laden used to work FOR the usa and that al Qaeda means 'the database'

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:38 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:@ kranky) why would that mean anything? Is Clinton seen as a saviour or something?
Bush Snr was very powerful decades before presidency & still is now, i guess it depends on your opinion of what the president position really is. Ever since Kennedy its just been a token, a show. Kennedy got too close, that scared the power & now the president is nothing more than the president in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The thing is there are politics deeper than the public eye can see, there is no real choice. The president is SELECTED not ELECTED.

Was Clinton selected or elected?

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:39 pm

have i not answered that?

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:40 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:have i not answered that?

No.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:43 pm

of course he was selected, as ive tried to say, parties mean nothing except for economic (private) interests

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:44 pm

a question for you kranky or anyone else....

was Bush Snr at the height of his power during presidency?

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:46 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:of course he was selected, as ive tried to say, parties mean nothing except for economic (private) interests

So you're saying the private economic interests of Clinton were more powerful than Bush senior's economic interests.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:48 pm

Meef Chaloin wrote:a question for you kranky or anyone else....

was Bush Snr at the height of his power during presidency?

The question is, was it more powerful than Clinton's?

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 9:57 pm

you're missing the point, its nothing to do with whether bush's interests were more powerful than clinton's, the point is that behind the veil their interests are not very different and come very close to merging. They are batting for the same side.

The other point about Bush; he was head of cia at least 3 decades before being president (some say up to 5). Now, isnt it true that the cia can prevent the president from accessing certain things? (there are many well known stories of presidents being refused access to various areas). So does that mean that Bush was promoted to president or demoted?

ot..... The Dumbocrats and Repugnicans show. Too F'd up ?

Congressional vote