Obama has won the nomination

[Radar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Carter was smart. No thanks.

I'd prefer competent.

Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.

[freshnesschronic]

I'm no expert, nor thoroughly up to date in politics or blah blah blah write me off as a dumb college student, lack of real world experience as I have been written off before.

But it was an awesome speech.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I have to agree it looks much better in print than I sounded like on TV.
But even reading it, brings one question to mind.... What are you going to do about it?

Oh that's right, Change.

I'd like a little more detail.

[lookout123]

don't forget the hope bruce. i hear he believes in it.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Radar

Bush is neither. He's also dishonest, smarmy, hypocritical, an asshole, and is guilty of several counts of high treason.

That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again? after how many tries and how many years, again? -- and carrying that war to the enemy abroad, does not and cannot rise to high treason. I cannot respect thinking of that kind: go suck a wet rock (sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic, your call) and your thumb, in alternation. Meanwhile, let our self-made, pathologically aggrieved foes reap the whirlwind and be blown to Sheol where they won't bother democrats and other good people.

As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.

Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.

Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again?

Bush, when he decided to invade without any justification? (answer: yes)

after how many tries and how many years, again?

Well, he tried to find an excuse from his first day in office, so a couple at least...

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

That kind of thinking may satisfy you, but it comes far from satisfying me: actually trying to win a war, one started by whom, again?

Started solely by America and America's puppet the UN. The United States has a DEFENSIVE military that may be used legitimately (legally) only when America is attacked, and then only against the NATION that attacked us, and then only when a formal declaration of war is made by Congress (Not an authorization for the use of force in support of UN resolutions) The United States had no legitimate justification to invade Iraq in 1991, in 2003 or at any time before or since. The first gulf war was illegal and blatantly unconstitutional, bombing Iraq for 12 straight years was illegal, the cease-fire agreement was illegal, the no fly zones were illegal, the embargos were illegal, etc.

Aside from starting an unconstitutional war and murdering hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people and getting thousands of Americans killed unnecessarily, Bush also deserted from the military during war time (high treason), and he openly admits and actually champions another act of high treason (spying on Americans)

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

As for me, I prefer to avoid frothing and raving, especially in political matters.

Yes, you prefer to avoid anything remotely resembling the truth, facts, logic, reason, or plain old common sense.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Dishonest and smarmy -- goodness, no one currently in politics can pull any of that away from those Clintons. They take the entire cake -- frosting, plate, and server. They had to be shamed into returning $28,000 in White House furniture in '01, remember. Those two have a disconnect in their brains that way.

The Clinton's didn't knowingly lie to the American people to start an unprovoked, unwarranted, unreasonable, and unconstitutional war of aggression against a nation that posed no harm to America at any point during America's history as Bush did. They also don't address the United States with a smirk, while looking like a chimp the way Bush does. They also didn't violate habeas corpus, the 4th amendment, etc. the way Bush did.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Hypocritical would actually require, I think, to do something very much at variance with what one says. Looking at what Bush says and what he does -- they mesh pretty well, and perhaps rather better than in the usual run of national politician, no? Looks to me like what you see is what you get. That sort of thing set the cat among the Beltway pigeons with Reagan, too.

Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Radar

Bush is a hypocrite in many ways. He claims to be a Christian, yet he practices murder. He claims to want to protect American freedoms, yet he attacks them every chance he gets. He claims to want to balance the budget, yet his deficit spending has sent the dollar into a tail spin, he was a drunken college flunky who got into Yale only because of his father, who barely made it through college, and who used cocaine but supports a drug war. He says he wants to use cleaner energy and help America to stop being dependent on Arab oil, yet he's seen holding hands with members of the Saudi Royal family and his unconstitutional war has tripled the price of gas during his administration and given oil companies record profits year after year.

Does that make Bush Spitzerian or Spitzer Bushian?