Who do you want be the next president of the USA?

[EGGO]

He has done more to strengthen this country's economy and security.

Lies. We've already proven you wrong on these statements. And what president wouldn't strengthen this country's security after an attack/war?

He might not be popular with the rest of the world, but he won't sell out this country's sovereignty to the UN just to get their support for 2 seconds.

Nobody cares if he's popular, but everybody cares if he goes gung-ho and subjective in every issue, destroying lines between church and state, lying to us, and killing us for it. Last time I remember, the UN said, "There's no WMD"

We elect a President of the United States NOT an Appeaser of the World.

You think it's honest to
Change quote to "We elect a president of the us, not a lier, a malfeasant, a man who changes his promised principles."

Before 9/11, Bush seemed more phony with his personality. I don't like people that are fake.

So you love his State of the Union

You think it's honest to threaten the man who will tell people the cons of your medicare bill?

You think it's honest to exaggerate the terrorist threat, and scare rogue countries into obeying?

You think it's honest to not include war costs in your spending request, apparently because you want to make the budget look smaller to the American people as they head to the polls to vote? not apologize for your obvious lie?

Kerry keeps balking at Bush's "tax cuts for the wealthy," but he's a limousine liberal himself.

I take it you watched Bush's Campaign ads. I can easily tell that Kerry isn't a liberal, he's a democrat. Big big difference I'd say, especially concerning that he, himself, isn't one for the gay marriage. I'd set my facts straight.

Kerry also brags about his honorable service in Vietnam, but downplays his anti-military escapades after he left the service.

I'm not denying this, but can I see your source?

As I have said, I agree with Bush's policies. Bush isn't stupid. He might sound stupid, but that isn't how you judge good leadership. Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist and sucked royally as President.

Shifting the burden of truth while bringing up a poor analogy. Why did Jimmy Carter suck?

I don't understand.........How does the US's Marshall Plan, defense of Europe from the USSR, and giving the defeated Axis nations their democratic sovereignty back make us bad?

You missed a few things, like the "Liberation" of Phillippines, the War on Iraq (2004), Vietnam, journalism, heck you can keep giving us all the things that sound good Reagan, that's what they do in the news, at least the news that Bush wants talking about him (Note: Bush brings only the press that likes him in things such as the State of the Union). Please, let's try and stay objective for once.

We still have "boat people" from Cuba(and Haiti) coming to our shores today. I don't see them being trained by us into becoming paramilitary revolutionaries today. One reason Gore lost Florida in 2000 was because the Cuban-Americans in Florida were pi$$ed at the Clinton/Gore administration for sending Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba. Giving Elian back was like throwing a kid over the Berlin Wall. Those Cuban exiles volunteered when they joined the anti-Castro forces used in Bay of Pigs. They weren't forced by us into doing that operation.

I'll get back to you on this because I know my brother's AP History teacher has a thing or two to say about this little thing.

If we lifted the sanctions on Cuba, Castro would get all of the money. I don't see any economic equity among the Cuban people occurring if we did that. Cuba is a dictatorship. Their people would rather have a democracy if they had the choice.........just look at the "boat people."

Dictatorship: 1 ruler
Democracy: A choice between 2 rulers?? [/sarcasm]

Before 9/11, we feared having another long-term "quagmire" like the Vietnam War. We didn't want to lose anymore troops than we had to.

But we still lied about Iraq about being with the terrorists and having WMD to make an invasion, whoops, "war against a criminal."

Everything else below that statement was for whoever you quoted, because I absolutely have no idea what's being talked about there.

[EGGO]

Did anybody see Bush joking about not finding WMDs in Iraq at the correspondents dinner last night?

Bush said, "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," as he showed a picture of himself looking under the carpet in the Oval Office.

I guess families of soldiers who died in Iraq are less than pleased. I am troubled by the fact that he is joking about the failure to find WMDs, when that was his main reason for going to Iraq.

Or is this just a harmless joke?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4596717/

[Dark Neighbour]

i honestly dont know why we still trust that S.O.B, considering what hes done. Bush marches on in, looks under a tree for a nuke, declares war, takes Saddam captive, and then sits back and laughs when so many people have lost their lives for his "cause!" it makes me so fucking angry, to know someone so stupid has got the power to order the largest military force in the world around. Like Katy said, "operation iraqi liberation", or "OIL" for short...

[reagan80]

Originally posted by EGGO
Lies. We've already proven you wrong on these statements. And what president wouldn't strengthen this country's security after an attack/war?

I've already mentioned facts that would contradict your assertions too. The unemployment rate is about the same as it was during Clinton's '96 re-election campaign. We might be in a deficit right now, but Kerry would increase the deficit more than Bush ever will because of his extravagant spending proposals and lack of budget cuts. Sure, he could raise taxes on the wealthy, but that won't pay for all of his proposed programs either. Guess who else would be stuck with the rest of the bill? That's right..............the middle class taxpayers that he is "fighting" for.

Kerry doesn't have a real plan to fight terrorists. I haven't heard him give us any effective ideas on stopping terrorism besides bashing Bush's efforts. His apparent plans include cozying up to the UN and giving them the "keys" to Iraq just to get more countries to support us while they impose their own little agendas in the reconstruction effort. The UN is probably more incompetent than us when it comes to "nation-building". Just look at them in Kosovo..........http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...nlmdb.asp?pg=1

http://www.agitprop.org.au/stopnato/1999111712.htm

I'm sorry, but we can't just be on the defensive for the rest of our lives. We have to succeed ALL THE TIME with our counter-terrorism ops at home while terrorists only have to be successful ONCE. The only way to win this war is to eliminate terrorists, terrorist infrastructure, and the environments that nurture them such as Iraq and Afghanistan. By attempting to disrupt terrorist operations overseas, the terrorists and their resources have a lesser chance of reaching our shores.

Nobody cares if he's popular, but everybody cares if he goes gung-ho and subjective in every issue, destroying lines between church and state, lying to us, and killing us for it. Last time I remember, the UN said, "There's no WMD"

He didn't lie to us. It was just a simple matter of our intelligence being FUBAR. No one questioned Clinton when he was "sabre-rattling" against Hussein.

How is he killing you?

If the UN knows there is no WMD in Iraq, why can't they tell us what happened to them? If Saddam destroyed them, he(or the UN) could tell us where and how they were destroyed. If the Iraqis could have detailed records on the personal lives of its citizens, surely they would have had detailed records that would provide evidence of their destruction, but Hussein didn't disclose everything. The rest is history.............

I take it you watched Bush's Campaign ads. I can easily tell that Kerry isn't a liberal, he's a democrat. Big big difference I'd say, especially concerning that he, himself, isn't one for the gay marriage. I'd set my facts straight.

Actually, Kerry says that he isn't for gay marriage, but he says that he doesn't want to vote for an amendment to ban gay marriage either. Me and Kerry are okay with civil unions, but he doesn't seem to want to permanently ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman. A Massachussetts liberal group tabulated the percentage of votes that Kerry voted on that progressed the liberal agenda there. This link shows that Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy........http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenmassachusetts.html........That should say something.........

I'm not denying this, but can I see your source?

You already know about Kerry's flaunting of his service in Vietnam over Bush, but after he left the service............http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...5/142343.shtml

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1083294/posts

Coming straight out of Rambo II, Vietnam veterans really love Kerry for this...........http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

Shifting the burden of truth while bringing up a poor analogy. Why did Jimmy Carter suck?

I'm not shifting the burden of truth......A couple of pages ago, I kept seeing posts about crucifying Bush because he's a "dumba$$"........I'm just trying to point out that people that have smarter credentials and superb oral communication skills aren't always the best leaders and people that have horrible verbal skills aren't always horrible leaders.

Here's a few reasons why Carter sux........http://www.chronwatch.com/content/co...878&catcode=13

I have gripes with Carter to this date regarding his handling of Cuba and North Korea after he left office..........

You missed a few things, like the "Liberation" of Phillippines, the War on Iraq (2004), Vietnam, journalism, heck you can keep giving us all the things that sound good Reagan, that's what they do in the news, at least the news that Bush wants talking about him (Note: Bush brings only the press that likes him in things such as the State of the Union). Please, let's try and stay objective for once.

The Spanish-American War, Mexican-American War, and Indian Wars were imperialist adventures..........happy? I never said my country's history was sparkling clean. I know my country was responsible for the overthrow of Iran's democratic government in the 1950's so they could protect oil interests there. I know we shouldn't have been in the Philippines because we didn't liberate them from the Spanish, but we exploited their natural resources instead. At least we corrected the error of our ways and gave their sovereignty back after the war with Japan.

Even if Bush keeps a few members of the press away, it still doesn't stop the large quantities of anti-Bush news from reaching the "mainstream" media............

Dictatorship: 1 ruler
Democracy: A choice between 2 rulers?? [/sarcasm]

I am still dumbfounded by this statement............I saw it already on the first couple of pages of this thread and I can't believe I'm seeing it again.

Dictatorship: No elections. No separation of powers. No way to legally remove(impeach) leader. No system of checks and balances to prevent leader from doing anything that violates the will of the majority of the people. No guarantees of minority(and majority?) rights.

Democracy: Who said it just had to be a choice between 2 potential leaders? There could be dozens of third-party candidates to compete against the 2 predominant parties' candidates here. One reason Gore lost was because a percentage of liberals voted for the Green Party's Ralph Nader.

Keep bashing democracy..........If you were living under a dictatorship, I'd be curious about whether you would even have the right to openly bash your form government there without fear of death or imprisonment...........Who do you want to be your dictator then?

But we still lied about Iraq about being with the terrorists and having WMD to make an invasion, whoops, "war against a criminal."

I already mentioned my WMD argument before, but can you explain why the Iraqis had thousands of chemical suits in southern Iraq during the invasion?

Actually, Iraq did have a terrorist connection, but not with 9/11.........http://cfrterrorism.org/groups/abunidal.html

Besides Abu Nidal, Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and encouraging these activities with financial incentives in order to derail the possibility of a future peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

[Mason]

Originally posted by reagan80
Kerry doesn't have a real plan to fight terrorists. I haven't heard him give us any effective ideas on stopping terrorism besides bashing Bush's efforts. His apparent plans include cozying up to the UN and giving them the "keys" to Iraq just to get more countries to support us while they impose their own little agendas in the reconstruction effort. The UN is probably more incompetent than us when it comes to "nation-building". Just look at them in Kosovo...

Iraq isn't the property of the US. The US may have freed the Iraqi people from a tyranical ruler, but they are their own people. Giving the UN the "keys" to Iraq is exactly what should be done. The effort now should be to get Iraq back into stable condition, not to exploit the hell out of them.

I'm sorry, but we can't just be on the defensive for the rest of our lives. We have to succeed ALL THE TIME with our counter-terrorism ops at home while terrorists only have to be successful ONCE. The only way to win this war is to eliminate terrorists, terrorist infrastructure, and the environments that nurture them such as Iraq and Afghanistan. By attempting to disrupt terrorist operations overseas, the terrorists and their resources have a lesser chance of reaching our shores.

Actually, if the US really wanted to stop terrorism the best bet would be to work to stabilize countries, not to try to hunt down every last terrorist. Hunting down terrorists will never stop, more are born every day. However if you have stable countries where people can establish their own lives you're a lot less prone to have terrorists.

He didn't lie to us. It was just a simple matter of our intelligence being FUBAR. No one questioned Clinton when he was "sabre-rattling" against Hussein.

Yeah he did. Bush said that it wasn't his intention from the start to oust Hussein. That was a lie, he was planning it from a few days after he got into office according to sources inside the administration.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Dictatorship: 1 ruler
Democracy: A choice between 2 rulers?? [/sarcasm]
----------------------------------------------------------------

I am still dumbfounded by this statement............I saw it already on the first couple of pages of this thread and I can't believe I'm seeing it again.

Dictatorship: No elections. No separation of powers. No way to legally remove(impeach) leader. No system of checks and balances to prevent leader from doing anything that violates the will of the majority of the people. No guarantees of minority(and majority?) rights.

Democracy: Who said it just had to be a choice between 2 potential leaders? There could be dozens of third-party candidates to compete against the 2 predominant parties' candidates here. One reason Gore lost was because a percentage of liberals voted for the Green Party's Ralph Nader.

Keep bashing democracy..........If you were living under a dictatorship, I'd be curious about whether you would even have the right to openly bash your form government there without fear of death or imprisonment...........Who do you want to be your dictator then?

Democracy doesn't have to be a choice among two potential leaders, and ultimately shouldn't be. It is in the US though, at least for presidential elections. Sure, there's third-party candidates, but be honest with yourself; do they have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected? No. They're just there so everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, "Look at all the choices for leaders we have!"

[GODJonez]

I think anyone else than Bush should be in charge.

[reagan80]

Originally posted by Maison
[B]Iraq isn't the property of the US. The US may have freed the Iraqi people from a tyranical ruler, but they are their own people. Giving the UN the "keys" to Iraq is exactly what should be done. The effort now should be to get Iraq back into stable condition, not to exploit the hell out of them.

I know that Iraq isn't our property, but we can't just leave prematurely before it becomes stable. Otherwise, it could revert into a state of civil war and become a failed state. Failed states such as Afghanistan are usually havens for terrorists and we don't need another one in the world. We're trying to get our troops out of Iraq. We don't want to be in Iraq's cities either.

We aren't exploiting the Iraqis because if we were we wouldn't be having increasing fuel prices right now.

I don't trust the UN especially after the oil-for-food scandal. I also don't have faith in the UN to finish the job properly in Iraq especially after the UN pulled its personnel out of Iraq after a single terrorist attack.

[B]

Actually, if the US really wanted to stop terrorism the best bet would be to work to stabilize countries, not to try to hunt down every last terrorist. Hunting down terrorists will never stop, more are born every day. However if you have stable countries where people can establish their own lives you're a lot less prone to have terrorists.

I agree. When Iraq becomes a stable democracy, our troops can leave their cities(or maybe even get out of Iraq totally). The Iraqis could be a new ally in our war on terror. Unfortunately, allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia are terrorist resources(most of the 9/11 hijackers came from there). If these "allies" make democratic reforms, maybe the terrorists will lose a source for their manpower. Another problem in the Islamic world is that there are many Islamic fundamentalist schools that teach hatred of Jews, Westerners, and non-Muslims(infidels). If the moderates could only reform their education system to espouse tolerance, we wouldn't be having this problem with new generations of terrorists. Economic development could also reduce the tendency of Arabs to turn to Muslim extremism. Unfortunately, most Arabs are poor and don't have a chance to better their own lives because their governments usually control the country's wealth.

In other words, Saudis turn to Islamic fundamentalism because their government(royal family) has all of the money and oppresses them. The Saudi royal family fears these extremists though because they don't want to be toppled like the Shah of Iran. As a result, the Saudis pay these extremist religious leaders "protection money" to make them look the other way. When these religious leaders "look the other way," they look in the direction of Israel and the US. Instead of preaching hatred of their own corrupt government, these religious leaders put the blame on the Jews and America for all of their society's troubles. Terrorism is the inevitable result.

When the terrorists get finished with Israel and the United States, they will turn their attention toward the rest of the world. Even France isn't safe from terrorist threats.............http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4540546/

Despite France's opposition to America's efforts in Iraq, the terrorists still threaten them. If Spain didn't support our efforts in Iraq, I wonder if Al Qaeda would have left Spain alone?......Nah. Does France still want to distance itself from our global anti-terrorism efforts now?

Democracy doesn't have to be a choice among two potential leaders, and ultimately shouldn't be. It is in the US though, at least for presidential elections. Sure, there's third-party candidates, but be honest with yourself; do they have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected? No. They're just there so everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, "Look at all the choices for leaders we have!"

Actually, it is possible for a third-party candidate to win, but that would only happen if everybody becomes disgusted with the two major parties' candidates. Teddy Roosevelt was a strong third-party candidate that took about half of the Republican candidate's(Taft) votes away to allow Woodrow Wilson to win. I admit that it is unlikely that a third-party candidate will win, but that is because most of our voters are like.........(I hate to say this)........Democratic or Republican "sheep"..........I wouldn't mind voting for a Libertarian candidate, but I can't because I know that most of my fellow voters won't elect him.............

mind the CAPS mate

I'll try to do that from now on. As in, I'll try to remember not to do that again.

[MasJ]

Wow, this debate had kind of died out after a while, nice to see it in steam again =D
Just a note to reagan80, mind the CAPS mate, it's impolite. Alright, now that, that has been said, carry on cowboys

[Dingy]

Reagan, you've really got to start accepting the fact that every other country is not the goddamn responsiblity of that dumb ass bush--offense intended...not to you, to him! Hell, he can't even wash his own undies, how's he gonna look after the world?
You have to understand that he has done things that have shown the world what a paradox the US can be in the so-called democracy that it claims to uphold. Clinton, did alot to keep the world by his side, you might assign a monumental task like that very little importance, but bush like many Americans thinks that the invincible USA doesn't need anyone by it's side, but if the whole world forms an anti-america alliance, then nukes, or no nukes--the next generation might not study geography with a USA on the world map, not that they'll be people or geography after a world war. This is just a hypothetical example to tell you that, the way the US is going,it's got more enemies,than friends by its side...and that's NEVER good.
America is a very powerful country, and I hate quoting Spiderman's uncle Ben (was it?) but "With great power comes great responsibilty"

[Jimmy Onestroke]

Bush is shit, Clinton was shit, other Bush was shit, etc.

Now, my quotes are going to be in absolutely no order at all due to the way I'm replying to a bunch of posts by the same person at once and can't be arsed keeping it chronological.

Originally posted by reagan80
The unemployment rate is about the same as it was during Clinton's '96 re-election campaign.

Jesus fucking Christ. Third time's the charm, and if not, then maybe the fourth or fifth time I show you this image you MIGHT decide to stop repeating that idiotic talking point.








U R A STOOPI!!!1ONE!!1!111! NOW READ AND REPET PICTUERS!!1 THAT R TEH WAY TO LERN.

Originally posted by reagan80
You already know about Kerry's flaunting of his service in Vietnam over Bush, but after he left the service............http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/...15/142343.shtml

Awesome, you use Newsmax as a news source. While you're there, you might want to get this item, apparently a hot seller in their store, that I know would appeal to you personally: http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/show...roduct_ID=1495

There's also wonderful pop-ups like this one:


Wee! http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/show...=10&GroupID=13

I must digress. Newsmax is poopy, but has wonderful bargain-bin sales. Now, Kerry was in Vietnam to fulfill what he was told was his duty, a-shootin'-and-a-killin', as you do in the army, and then he left. He didn't like it, you see. Morally horrified by the widespread shootin'-and-a-killin'-and-a-this-is-the-inexcusable-part-torturin'. So he badmouthed widespread atrocities, which some soldiers were lucky enough not to witness themselves. Those soldiers are now offended because apparently they're all meant to have taken part in the rape and murder but for whatever reason some didn't get to. Or something. On the other hand, Bush went AWOL from his post at the National Guard as a pilot. Kerry wins.

Originally posted by reagan80
Democracy: Who said it just had to be a choice between 2 potential leaders? There could be dozens of third-party candidates to compete against the 2 predominant parties' candidates here. One reason Gore lost was because a percentage of liberals voted for the Green Party's Ralph Nader.

This and the following quote show the fallacy in your line of thinking. As you said, one reason Gore lost was because of the votes from liberals who instead went to Nader. So despite there being more liberal voters than conservative voters, the conservatives won the election because the liberals were split. That and the fact that Bush had some pals in the Supreme Court. How does this prove that the current US electoral system is beneficial to democracy?

MMP is the way to go.

Originally posted by reagan80
Actually, it is possible for a third-party candidate to win, but that would only happen if everybody becomes disgusted with the two major parties' candidates. Teddy Roosevelt was a strong third-party candidate that took about half of the Republican candidate's(Taft) votes away to allow Woodrow Wilson to win. I admit that it is unlikely that a third-party candidate will win, but that is because most of our voters are like.........(I hate to say this)........Democratic or Republican "sheep"..........I wouldn't mind voting for a Libertarian candidate, but I can't because I know that most of my fellow voters won't elect him.............

More self-defeating evidence. On another note, it's curious that you call others sheep for following the exact same conventions you abide by. I refuse to believe that you hesitate to use the term, as I've noticed you chucking around the phrase before in regards to liberals.

Originally posted by reagan80
Actually, Kerry says that he isn't for gay marriage, but he says that he doesn't want to vote for an amendment to ban gay marriage either. Me and Kerry are okay with civil unions, but he doesn't seem to want to permanently ensure that marriage is between a man and a woman. A Massachussetts liberal group tabulated the percentage of votes that Kerry voted on that progressed the liberal agenda there. This link shows that Kerry is more liberal than Ted Kennedy........http://www.adaction.org/lifetimesenm...ml........That should say something.........

Only liberals are against changing the constitution in order to suppress people, awesome. As for your link, well, yes, something should be said about the stoop you've made with trying to prove a point by using it. I mean really, what the hell? KERRIE'S 92% LIFETIME ADA APROVED ON AVRAGE, KENDEDDY IS ONLY 90%, KERRY MUST BE A BIG WET COMMIE RADICAL LIBRAL MEDIAMAN! Thank heavens to Betsy we have a big scientific... thing to prove it.

I shall now follow your example, and post a link to a conservative blogger making reference to a newspaper article stating that voting statistics show Kerry as one of the least liberal in Democrat history. He's a political professor at the University of Chicago, which I will assume is somehow damning evidence of the liberal agenda in educating/brainwashing young Americans.

http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001141.html

My point may be best illustrated by one of the readers who comments on the article posted: "Liberal/conservative seems pretty meaningless to me, if you're just looking at voting records. What about people who undercut the political support of liberal groups while voting for liberal policies, and vice versa?"

You also might want to, y'know, look at what policies he's been addressing.

Originally posted by reagan80
He didn't lie to us. It was just a simple matter of our intelligence being FUBAR.

Oh for fu... http://citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
The link I've provided is fairly outdated (7/30/03) so it doesn't include any of the scandals revealed in the months since. But it popped up fairly high on google and it's as good a place to start as any. I can't be bothered reciting his lies, nor typing out what would need to be a lengthy summation on the rejection of CIA and FBI advice prior to the invasion of Iraq. This link barely mentions the latter, but it should be fairly widespread news over the next week or so with the Clarke scandal.

Here's another one of those pretty underlined jumbles of lettering that lead to mysterious new worlds of knowledge if you click on them, this one giving you a quick rundown of Clarke's past in case you consider trying to discredit him: http://billmon.org/archives/001239.html

The following are excerpts from the 60 Minutes interview he did recently, a fairly easy cut & paste exercise for me to fill up space:

CLARKE: Well Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq and we all said, 'No no, al Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.' Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well there are lots of good targets in lots of places but Iraq had nothing to with it.'
LESLIE STAHL: You wrote you thought he was joking.

CLARKE: Initially I thought when he said there aren't enough targets in Afghanistan, I thought he was joking.

STAHL: Now what was your reaction to all this Iraq talk? What did you tell everybody?

CLARKE: What I said was, you know, invading Iraq or bombing Iraq after we're attacked by somebody else, it's akin to, what if Franklin Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor instead of going to war with Japan said, "Let's invade Mexico." It's very analagous.

* * *
CLARKE: I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this. We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.' He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.' And in a very intimidating way. I mean, that we should come back with that answer. We wrote a report.

STAHL: In other words, you did go back and look.

CLARKE: We went back again and we looked.

STAHL: You did. And was it a serious look? Did you really ... ?

CLARKE: It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts, all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and down to FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report and we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer.' ...

STAHL: Did the President see it?

CLARKE: I have no idea to this day if the President saw it because after we did it again it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, Leslie, I don't think the people around the President show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that he wouldn't like the answer [to].

* * *

CLARKE WINS!

And finally, my cartoons remain superior to your cartoons, because they have facts and punchlines and multiple panels and all sorts of modern day shit.

[Schutzstaffel]

Why is this thread still alive!?

[Ziegfried]

Reagan wants to keep losing, it seems.

[V]

He's only losing because there are too many people that hate President Bush here. I'm not one of them, but I don't want to get sucked into a debate with Jimmy. He's too good.

[Xaenn]

He's only losing because there is no intelligent way to defend Bush.

[karragh]

Originally posted by Vengeance
He's only losing because there are too many people that hate President Bush here.

That's the same way people lose elections