Re: Moldy old Hippy women.

Gio Medici wrote: 
 Stuart Grey <stuart.grey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stu... these points have been adressed many times here. 

And they were refuted many times here.

So, I guess we have nothing to do, eh?

LOL!

Presume it has been done, and then never do it.

The basic
facts speak for themselves, but I'll hit a few of the biggies:


Gio Medici wrote: 


Bush doesn't have a clue about economics or anything else important or
complicated.

Cite? Proof? 


The stupid smirk on his face as he comments on his C-student status at
college.


SO, you don't like the way he looks?

Only pretty people are intelligent? Is that what you're saying?

I think his method of giving speeches, with the long pauses between phrases, is irritating as hell. Does it prove he's stupid? No, Neither does anything you may perceive as a smirk.

As for his C average at Harvard? Or was it Yale? Whatever. The guy who ran against him. Kerry, had an even lower GPA. The left's claim was that the guy with the lower scores, that Bush outsmarted, was really the smart guy. No sane person is going to buy that story. There's no basis for it.

(As usual, even when you pick your battles, you can't find a point to win on. )

He tried the proven "cut taxes" method that was validated under Ronald Reagan. Did it work? Well, the economy's better, but I can't say that it was because of anything Bush did.

And if YOU think you have the economy figured out, you're dumber than your posts would lead us to believe.



I understand that the modern day 'economy' is a lot of smoke and
mirrors based on stock and banking fraud. Oh yeah, then there's the
'Service Industry' so essential to the US economy..... Foo-foo the
poodle gets a dog walker.

Yes, yes. The socialist doesn't like capitalism, and you're a socialist.
That doesn't change the fact that the economy is complex, Bush tried something, and the economy got better.

I'm not going to go so far as to claim that Bush fixed the economy; there is simply no hard evidence for his harming or hurting the economy.

You want to make the case that Bush did something bad, when the economy, which has natural cycles, got better, you need to make that argument. You can't just tell me how much you hate freedom and capitalism.

He's nothing more than a professional liar, a cheerleader
fronting for the banksters and warmongers. Just like Ronnie Reagan.

Well, he was a yell leader. The rest of your accusations need to be backed up.


Sure. A politician is by definition and by nature a professional liar. 

No. Not in my dictionary. Prove this.

As for fronting for the banksters and warmongers, there's the Iraq war
bought on credit.


Prove it.

As an asside, yes, I would agree that special interest groups will decend on government and will push through programs that would benefit them the most. Usually, the only choices made available to the voting public are trivial things that only affect the masses: Do you want to kill unborn babies, or not? Do you want gay marriage, or not.

Most of these social issues are contrived to be emotional, but not rational and not really significant, other than they attack our culture.

Things where money is involved, now that's what the special interest go after. You'll note that on these issues, there is often no choice, both parties will agree.

Or, one will agree in principle, and the other will disagree but will give into special interest - and this is where the real money is to be made by the parties.

    "Only Nixon could go to China."
          Old Vulcan Saying


And now the US voter begins to realize its mistake, and prepares to
elect a Democrat to do the same. Idiots.

It's not at all clear what you're talking about, as there is no election this year. 


Voter approval of the President and Congress keeps slipping as the TV
now allows you to discover what a bunch of criminal scumbags the
incumbants really are.

Television, aka the "Idiot Box". Has Dan Rather produced more forged documents, or what?

And you need to point to some objective facts. All you're doing is ranting. Quite frankly, you don't have any credibility with me; I don't think you can back you what you say in your rants. That's based on history.

I'd be as pleased as punch if you COULD back up your facts. I see a lot of hate, but I don't see much facts to back up that hate coming from the left.

For example, leftist say Bush lied in his SOTU address. But, not only was what he said literally true, but it was backed up by British intelligence and the PM himself after the fact. What you mean to say is that his truth was misleading, as in we know after the fact.

That doesn't wash. Being wrong is not always being deceitful. In this case, he wasn't even wrong.

And his claims were supported by almost every other government. Heck, even Saddam was saying he had WMD. The UN security councile agreed on that.


Then in a year or so they'll be convincing you
that another politician is *really a good guy. This time. Again.

When did I say Bush was a good guy? I don't like him, but I liked Gore and Kerry much, much less.

Stu, I appreciate the effort you're making to think logically and be
objective; but you've got to realize that you're not in Kansas
anymore, and things are stranger than you thought.


Prove it.

Gio


.

Relevant Pages