George W. and Napolean

[Dee]

Do you guys think that the endearment of GW no longer fits our president? Perhaps the Napolean of the South, or even Little General would better fit? Or perhaps maybe a hearing aid, so that he could hear us? But, that would mean we would be out the additional expense of buying one for every senator and congressman too. They don't seem to be listening either.
Anyway, let's take a pole.  

[Dee]

Well TM7, you're the only one who has commented. I started the thread sorta as a joke,but with a poll. But the poll is amazing on the vote.

[hardertr]

I was going to vote "start our own country"....but then realized, GW would probably come running back "home" to Texas, so that wouldn't solve OUR problem at all 

I would like to get rid of GW, but look at how many other people would have to "disappear" before we got to someone we could trust:
The Vice President Dick Cheney
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates

[Dee]

Hardertr, that is not necessarily so. GW could easily be retrained to perform another job. He could drive a bread truck, trash truck, wash dishes, WAIT!!!! I just had a great idea! He could pick fruit with illegal aliens. He loves them and they love him. Man, that would be perfect. Later on if we were lucky he would go back home to Mexico to visit GB senior and Barbara and Laura, and the two girls. After the fruit picking season of course. While there, he might get interested in politics, run for office, get elected President of Mexico, and send the illegal aliens to the middle east to fight what ever he wanted them to fight, or to fight what Americans are unwillingly to fight. Perfect!

[Mikey]

I think you all are just wasting your time and space.  You complain about someone like George Bush but just wait until the new demigods in d.c. start having their way.  Just wait until those gutless cowards start cutting and running - those of you who didn't want another vietnam just got one - another failure at the hands of cowards.  But never fear, at home it will be even worse - that lineup of scum will make the notion of privacy subject to their interpretations, not yours. 

You had your voice and vote.  You spoke loudly enough, just like most whiners and complainers spittin' into the wind.  You didn't want someone capable of making his own decisions and now you have what you wanted - a country that will be run by committees that meet behind closed doors whitout intentionally so that they don't have to listen to you when they decide the fate of your, ummmm, 'Constitutional rights (?)' according to their doctrines, not yours.  Your only problem now is that they won't ever bother listenting to you. 

Oh yeah - like to hunt (and with a handgun, too) - I seriously doubt you will have that right for very long.  Want to own one to carry - good luck.  Move to san francisco, you'll b e safer there............

What else - they will cut the troops right out of Irag and throw them in some hole some place where most can't hear them complain; they will start spending your money on benefits for illegal immigrants rather than on cutting back unnecessary taxes or other burdens on the elderly; they will impose bloomberg's anti-gun suit all over the country, and you people are complaining about G.W on a hunting and shooting website - we'll be lucky if this website and our !st Amendment rights survive those nazis and their more stringently defined mccain-feingold approach to our right to free speech (as already defined by our very own manchurian candidate and his commie in arms). 

You complainers got what you wanted - I hope not to hear another complaint from you for about four more years.  Mikey.

[Dee]

My goodness that was quite a rant. As far as whinning, it was satire. As far as our rights, have you not read The Patriot Act. As far as GW, I voted for him as Governor, and I voted for him twice for president. As far as him being right all the time, NOPE!
I don't vote Democrat at all, but if I don't agree with one man not allowing the Congress to sign a document, but insisting they vote on it (The Patriot Act) then I have the right to say so. Majority is supposed to rule, whether you like it or not, and the truth of the matter is that about 70% of America ain't buying it anymore. As far as them cutting the troops out of Iraq and stickin'em some where, if so I'll go get my son, he's one of em, and I'll listen to him some more.
Bush and company as we speak are already wanting to give illegals amnesty, and in calforinia they want to give them compensation because of the crop failures recently.
As far as gun control, Bush said publicly if congress re-introduced the assault weapons ban, he would sign it. He ain't perfect. He  was the LESSER of TWO EVILS.

[hardertr]

I also voted for GW for governor, and presiident TWICE.  For the most part, I supported him in everything he did.  That is, until he and his posse ropa-doped us into a war in Iraq.  It was all down hill from there.

There are a couple of other "leaders" in history I can think of that 1) blatantly disregard the desires/demands of thier country 2) "re-locate" senior military leaders that question the motive behind military micro-management and 3) take personal gain in allowing cheap (illegal) labor to invade the workforce.  Ironiclally, "America" has seen it fit to dethrown them.  I guess there really is only room for one dictatorship in the world   

As far as "cutting and running" and pigeon-holing the troops...... do YOU have any idea what "the troops" are saying about this war, much less thier confidence in the president??  I pretty much have my finger on the pulse of this one.  I assure you, "the troops" are not robots that blindly follow and agree with the motive of this administration.  We have lost MANY good troops, because they refuse to re-enlist, or resign thier commission.  The majority of that 27% that still believe GW has a grasp of reality is most definetly NOT comprised of "the troops".

I do not consider myself a Democrat, and I think it is rediculous to say I must support ALL Republicans if I agree with the views of the MAJORITY of the Republicans.  When you label yourself Republican or Democrat, you become counter-productive to the democratic process.

You want to know what REALLY pisses me off.... these "resolutions" put forth by Congress.  I have NO RESPECT for these politicians that are opposed to the war, yet do nothing except write a letter of discontent (but better not be to stern...it might affect your carreer).  When Bush got done "relocating" his Generals that opposed his "plan", then completely disregarded the voice of the public, the troops, and the majority of his advisors that weren't smart enough to jump ship you would have thought SOMEBODY would have been strong enough to raise the B.S. flag.

Am I whining, no...because I became a part of the problem when I voted for him the second time.  He was the better of the 2 evils.  Will I vote for a Democratic candidate in the next election?  Probably not, based on the likely choices.  Will you continue to label folks that don't support GW a "democrat", terrorist sympothizer, communist.....? Probably, because it's easier to do that than actually educate yourself on what's REALLY going on in the world.

Enjoy your pipe-dream....it's almost over.   

[Dee]

Well said hardertr. I have a son in IRAQ for the second time. He and his men were given four days leave in the states. Now their in Bagdad. He and his guys are under no illusion that Iraq is gonna work. He says it's a mess, and he didn't hear it on cnn or fox. It amazes me that people will believe their favorite news source, and a president the over 70% of America has finally seen thru. Oh by the way, Blackwater, Triple Canopy and other mercanary companies have made over ten billion dollars in Iraq, and the un-challenged Halliburton, God only knows how much they've made. Snif, Snif, Is that a rat I smell?

[BoarHunter]

The mistake made in Irak was to believe that these countries can become democracies like ours.

It is either a dictatorship or the mussies. Consider Iran, the Shah was a dictator but managed to hold the muslim leaders. Once gone (thank to France and Jimmy Cartr) now islamic leader took over and Iran is becoming a real problem.

The same situation exists in Turkey. Without the army strong control, it would fast become yet an other islmaic republic.

Attaturk showed the way to do, any religious leader that was a bit too excited, a bullet in the head, if a mosquee was used to spread the wrong message, just bomb it. OK, he was a bastard in the way he treated catholic Armenians.

Always have in mind that islam is basicaly a political system, an  undemocratic and backward one. It has to evolve or dissapear.
In my view the later is the best, to evolve is not possible because the kuran can't be changed and  is fundamentaly bad despite all the crap people try to make you beleive. Tolerant islam does not and has never existed.

Just consider that facts, not one single democracy in the muslim world and where they are more than just a tiny minority they are trouble makers. To justify islam is as foolish as justifying nazism (hitler was a great admirer of islam) or communism.

On the other hand saddam was a ruthless dictator and truly becoming dangerous.

If you consider that military force worked well with Lybia it may have worked in Irak. Maybe an other less vicious dictator is the answer.

The same situation exists in Afghanistan and here it is not jut the US that is involved.

To be cynical, I think that we have to let them kill each others and not intervene so long as they do not pose a threat to us.


About  islam, watch this !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WLoasfOLpQ

We have also to developp the technology in order not to have to rely on human soldiers but use robots, drone etc...

And you do not fight these people using "fair" method.

[Dee]

Well, I would have to agree with pretty much everything you have to say with the possible exception of removing Saddam, which you did not say but, possibly indicated. I believe that although brutal, he kept the country pretty much quite, and as far as being a threat, I would ask to whom? It really wasn't much of a fight, when he invaded Kuwait, and we pushed him out, and he certainly had Iran's attention.
Now we are floating major battle groups in the Persain Gulf, and threatening Iran with war. Does anyone really believe we can fight Iran, Iraq, and Afganistan at the same time? There is not a line at any of the military recruiting offices. All I saw Saddam guilty of as far as the U.S. is, he quite playing political and MOSTLY economic ball with us. I never saw him as a terror threat, and even Bush admits that intel was wrong on WMDs. The terroists are coming from all over the world and rotating in and out of Iraq, just like the U.S. soldiers with, the exception they may be getting a longer break than ours when they go back home. I see the war in it's present form as endless. The muslims are like cock roaches when you turn on the light. Even our nieve U.S. voters have let the muslim camel into the tent in Washington.
GW seems to have a real problem admitting he is wrong, and American soldiers are paying the price on a dailey basis. In my opinion democracy in a muslim theocracy is as likely as taking a deep breath of oxygen on the moon. Now with Iran, GW seems to be slipping farther and farther into denial. Has Washington D.C. forgotten that this same type of endless war in Afganistan helped break the economic back of the former Soviet Union, and we helped? Is the terrorist not shooting Russian and Chinese ammo at our troops? Are the American people and goverment oblivious to the fact that this could happen to us? JMHO

[Dee]

Come on you guys, your lookin at the thread. At least vote. It's a tie so far between No and Firein em all.

[billy_56081]

Who would replace him? Comunist socialist party better known as the demoncrats surely would be worse than him. I voted for him twice and would again to stop the greater evil on the other side. And yes we can fight the whole middle east and win if we want to win. I guarentee that if I were givin control of the united states military for 48 hours I could assure you Iran would be a threat no more.

[Dee]

Ya know what? I'll bet if you took 12 demokooks, and 12 repukelakins, put'em in a sack and shook'em up together, then dumped'em out on a table. Ya couldn't seperate'em again, cause ya couldn't tell the difference.
What we really need in the white house is another General Black Jack Pershing. He knew how to handle muslims.

[Casull]

Who would replace him? Comunist socialist party better known as the demoncrats surely would be worse than him. I voted for him twice and would again to stop the greater evil on the other side. And yes we can fight the whole middle east and win if we want to win. I guarentee that if I were givin control of the united states military for 48 hours I could assure you Iran would be a threat no more.

+1

I think you all are just wasting your time and space.  You complain about someone like George Bush but just wait until the new demigods in d.c. start having their way.  Just wait until those gutless cowards start cutting and running - those of you who didn't want another vietnam just got one - another failure at the hands of cowards.  But never fear, at home it will be even worse - that lineup of scum will make the notion of privacy subject to their interpretations, not yours. 

You had your voice and vote.  You spoke loudly enough, just like most whiners and complainers spittin' into the wind.  You didn't want someone capable of making his own decisions and now you have what you wanted - a country that will be run by committees that meet behind closed doors whitout intentionally so that they don't have to listen to you when they decide the fate of your, ummmm, 'Constitutional rights (?)' according to their doctrines, not yours.  Your only problem now is that they won't ever bother listenting to you. 

Oh yeah - like to hunt (and with a handgun, too) - I seriously doubt you will have that right for very long.  Want to own one to carry - good luck.  Move to san francisco, you'll b e safer there............

What else - they will cut the troops right out of Irag and throw them in some hole some place where most can't hear them complain; they will start spending your money on benefits for illegal immigrants rather than on cutting back unnecessary taxes or other burdens on the elderly; they will impose bloomberg's anti-gun suit all over the country, and you people are complaining about G.W on a hunting and shooting website - we'll be lucky if this website and our !st Amendment rights survive those nazis and their more stringently defined mccain-feingold approach to our right to free speech (as already defined by our very own manchurian candidate and his commie in arms). 

You complainers got what you wanted - I hope not to hear another complaint from you for about four more years.  Mikey.

+1 in spades!

[Dee]

Well said TM7. What casull and a few others choose to ignore, and point fingers at people like me are: The enlistment age has been raised to 42 years old. Why? Two reasons. # 1. You don't have to stand in line to join the military, cause there ain't no line. # 2. Good soldiers are getting out as soon as their enlistment is up, because they have come to realize what IS ACTUALLY going on in Iraq.
My son's opinion of the Iraq situation, and casull's opinion, is far different and he (my son) has been there twice and is there now. My son was talking about a career in the military. Not now.
Anyone who calls this whinning obviously doesn't believe in freedom of speech, only in their opinion being the right one.
Casul over seventy percent of Americans are against the Iraq war after the evidence has been published and everyone has seen how it has become ANOTHER POLITICAL MESS. Are you saying this seventy percent is not as well informed as you, and that you have better connections to the truth? I think not.
I think that 70 percent has decided that they aren't going to follow D.C. or GW blindly into the ocean with the other lemmings.

[Casull]

Casul over seventy percent of Americans are against the Iraq war after the evidence has been published and everyone has seen how it has become ANOTHER POLITICAL MESS. Are you saying this seventy percent is not as well informed as you, and that you have better connections to the truth? I think not.

If it were just "evidence" that were published, you might have a point.  I do say though, that if you publish a highly biased view against the war, and that is the only view the masses are getting, then you probably will get seventy percent to believe that line of thinking (can you say sheeple).

[wncchester]

Are we to presume those who feel GW is a bad leader that the US in general and gun users in particular would have been better served by either, or both, Al Gore and John Kerry? Or Hillary and Obama next time?

Or perhaps, even if the Democrats/media's constant howling might be worth listening to - which I don't believe myself -  maybe you should remember we didn't vote in a vaccum and there were perhaps even worse choices at the time?  And will be next time? 

Good Lord, the world isn't perfect but please save us from our whinning selves!

[Dee]

So the final analisis here is; If we don't agree with GW and you guys we're whinners, right? If we do agree with ya'll then we're well informed? I could easily call you guys whinners cause we're pickin on your boy GW, but I don't see it that way. I just see it as we don't agree. The whole thread was stated in a light hearted way for fun, but alas we have all fell short, including myself.
I think this must be your feeling however, as you seemed to have missed the part in my post where I addressed the democrats also. I said they are all a bunch of thevies. GW is the LESSER of TWO evils. But make no mistake there were two evils.