Why can't we attack Bush on real issues?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I fail to see how that is relevant.

It's relevant to your snide generalisations.

[Odin]

I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

[SlowwHand]

I'm going to skip on down and not read the crap I know has been posted.
One can't attack Bush on the "real" issues.
All he's had time to do is clean up after Clinton's foreign neglect.
Does he need to make time to address domestic issues, like jobs ?
Sure, but he didn't get to pick his priorities.
Up until now, I think he's done just fine.

[loinburger]

If Bush loses the next election then it'll be from the economy still being in the dumper more than anything else. Bush's supposed lies and half-truths with regards to foreign policy will be secondary, assuming that anybody even bothers bringing them up again. The only reason that the opposition's harping on things like the African uranium claim is that it's premature to start harping on the economy -- if the economy recovers then the tactic backfires. They'll probably stick to issues-of-the-week until then, and forget all about them when election time rolls around.

[SlowwHand]

BTW, the Brits stand by their intelligence reports.
That's good enough for me.

[monkspider]

I'm going to skip on down and not read the crap I know has been posted.

In other words, "what you say doesn't matter, but what I say is worth posting". How, ah, Texan of you.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Odin
I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

Oh, and the democrats are just freakin geniouses

I hardly think there is any correlation between intellegence and political party (other than that both parties have pretty low average intellegences... i guess average by american standards), and if there was, i wouldnt be surprised if it is contrary to what you think, seeing as the stereotypical republican is from Big Business and is Ivy League educated

[Kramerman]

and whats with the damn party hats on the smilie faces... the freakin winky face doesnt look nearly as coy as it used to, now he just looks like a weak-ass homo ******

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by monkspider

In other words, "what you say doesn't matter, but what I say is worth posting". How, ah, Texan of you.

no, rather he means, "what you say is the same old horse **** i hear every day, nothing new, nothing interesting".... and ratehr that is, how smart of him, because its brutally efficient. why waste time reading the same ideas and complaints over and over again?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Spiffor
When reading the title of this thread, I thought Bush has finally cheated on his wife

An American would never use the word finally in a sentence about infidelity unless it alluded to someone finally leaving or killing someone else. The little cultural differences are amusing.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I'm being perfectly serious. I don't think the average American would recognize a real issue if it hit them on the head.

It depends on how much the issue weighed. If it is too heavy the resulting death or brain damage would obviously escape notice, and if the issue was very light they might not notice it at all. Thus only moderately weighted issues will be noted by the American people.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


I fail to see how that is relevant.

Pull the bag off of your head, your boyfriend has already gone.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Odin
I think people should be required to take a civics exam to be allowed to vote. It will never pass though because then the republicans would loose a lot of voters (Republicans are ignorant of the real world).

Hey genius, loose is an antonym for tight.

[Sikander]

There are so many clumsy and / or blind moves by Bush's foreign policy team that it is only the generally acknowledged complete lack of a foreign policy consensus by the Dems that gives Bush any cover at all. They need to develop a viable foreign policy alternative so that they can do their duty as loyal opposition. It will help them in the long run, and the country in every instance.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


It's relevant to your snide generalisations.

When I say Americans are idiots, I never make the claim that other people are not. I just don't have to deal with them on a daily basis.