One day you critisize him for reading to kids while the 9/11 attacks happen.
One day you accuse him of not being able to read, because his book was upside down after he was informed about the attacks. (so he must have been thinking, not reading).
You say he took his time in the classroom, but rushed into war.
You say he lied about wmd, but democrats were misinformed. And then you try to defend this by saying, he was responsible for the democrats being misinformed, even though they had those opinions before he was in office.
This type of list can go on forever.
could you try to be a bit more consistant, or do you just WANT something to critisize him for. Are you that much of an immature child, that critisizing him for being republican is more important than what is going on in this world?
2007-01-18
03:56:37
·
13 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
----------------
regarding the old michael moore argument of the 'stolen election':
http://www.davekopel.org/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm#2000_Election_Night
A study by a newspaper consortium including the Miami Herald and USA Today disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario. As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:
"Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."
"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."
KEEP TRYING LIBS
2007-01-18
04:29:00 ·
update #1
Unfortunately, it is more important to criticize Bush for everything than what is actually happening in the world. Iraq hit a bump in the road, Bush's fault, not the Iraqi Government. Our soldiers couldn't infiltrate certain areas of baghdad because of political reasons, Bushs fault, not tha Iraqi Government. 9/11, Bush's fault, not Al Qaida. the taunting of Saddam Hussein during his hanging, Bush's fault, not the Iraqi's. Katrina, Bush's fault, not FEMA. the reason everyone in this country isn't rich, Bush's fault. the reason everyone has to wipe their own ***, Bush's fault. the reason we haven't been attacked in almost 6 years since 9/11, Bush's fault. the reason Iraq has a government based on democracy, Bush's fault. the reason Afghanistan has a government based on democracy, Bush's fault. The reason people in Afghanistan and Iraq voted for the first time in the history of their countries, Bush's fault.
2007-01-18 04:07:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
In 2004 McCain made diverse statements indicating that the conflict in Iraq might want to be over straight away and be gained somewhat. In 2007 McCain says something to the concept he continuously stated this would not be an somewhat gained wrestle. And that any one which concept in the different case became being stupid. that is not in common words the Iraq conflict he has been doing this with. I concern what's going to take position if he easily partakes in talks with a overseas chief. He became a lot sharper in 2000. McCain makes those opposite statements each of the time in the present day. In 2000 i became mushy with him. i do not understand why the opposite statements are appearing this in many cases with him. What might want to be worse, if that is planned, or unintended? besides i'm a 30 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous male with a heart situation that no coverage organisation might want to insure. i want more effective than in basic terms emergency care to live to inform the tale. McCain grants no longer something to me. both democrat plans are conceivable.
2016-10-15 09:58:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It isn't so hard to "find," as you say, things to criticize this president for. They are just there, wide open in the light of day...
You used the word "misinformation." There seems to be a lot of it going around, so don't blame those who can see what is there. I know so many like you who call themselves "conservatives" or "Republicans" because they always have, or because their family traditionally has been. Why don't you look at what the deeds tell you about the person, his background, (his oil ties), cause and affect. These people are not beyond reproach, as they think they are. Arrogance. Corruption. On both sides- the sides that are splitting our country apart. We should all be very wary of these elements in our government- not blind to them.
2007-01-18 04:01:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by catarina 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Your complaints are more than a little hollow.
I have seen Republicans go apoplectic over Democrat gnats of misbehavior, and slurp down elephants of worse but otherwise similar, in the same breath.
Elephant 1
They hounded Democrat Gary Condit from office because a woman who worked for him disappeared from some unknown location, even though evidence pointed elsewhere.
At that very time another employee at a Republican Congressman's office is murdered IN THE OFFICE and not a word makes the press. Some bloggers on their own manage to prove widespread fraud and coverup, but as they are bloggers and not FBI that is all they can prove.
Elephant 2
All the press and Republicans are in a tizzy over Terry Schievo,
A woman who has been brain dead for five years, spending millions, Bush even making a special flight to Washington DC to sign a bill to prevent her from any sort of dignity.
Even as this is happening, Bush's jet is flying over a real, live person with a living brain, but quadraplegic, in a hospital is starved to death, because of a law Bush as Gov. signed that allowed hospitals to do this when the patients DON'T HAVE THE MONEY to stay alive. The money wasted on Terri could have saved this person for a number of years.
Twin Elephant 3
Bush flies to activate the troops over Terri Schievo, but plays guitar and jokes while thousands of people drown, and folk die for lack or water in a Football stadium, even as huge trucks full of water bottles are sent back, then heads to California for a fund raiser, to elect more incompetents.
This is just three cases, not even getting to comparing lies about sex and lies about war, or any of the other thousands of similar obvious cases. You guys have swallowed more elephants than the world has elephants.
2007-01-18 04:38:56
·
answer #4
·
answered by Dragon 4
·
1⤊
3⤋
Hey don't sweat it! Stop trying to reason with most liberals it almost as futile as trying to reason with the Islamic extremest it's all emotion.
I realize if I don't get enough thumbs down answering a question like this I have not done a good enough job of insulting them that's all they deserve.
2007-01-18 05:40:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ynot! 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Their hatred for Bush no longer is based in reason (if it ever was to begin with). They will argue against anything a Republican does. Take for example the fairness doctrine. If a Rep had done this they would be rioting in the streets because its a violation of free speech. But since its being done by a Dem, and is aimed at Rush, they accept it. Not to mention they think flag burning is freedom of speech. But where are these free speechers when it comes to this Hush Rush Bill? Who knows.
2007-01-18 04:01:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
4⤋
Boy, you are really nasty. Do you have that wide toothy Republican smile to somehow make it seem you are nice when you are not?
How can you possibly compare any situation in an elementary school classroom to starting a war?
2007-01-18 04:46:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Lou 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
To be honest with you. the more LIBTARDS hate Presdident Bush, the firmer I support President Bush.
it means that President Bush must be doing his job.
2007-01-18 04:32:29
·
answer #8
·
answered by Quickie 3
·
2⤊
1⤋
That is true! They have to have INGSOC level devotion to believe so many contradicting beliefs. It is really amazing to see the neo-lib cult worship and Bushate at work.
I am going to write my doctorate on it but there likely won't be any of them left after 08.
2007-01-18 04:00:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
How this "His party stole the 2000 & 2004 election!" I believe the lack of evidence "no proof or verification via our currupt voting/political system" is proof enough alone.Say nothing about the fact of his brother & Miss Harris plus a well known corrupt gerimandered process in the state of Florida in 2000 etc.
2007-01-18 03:59:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by bulabate 6
·
4⤊
5⤋