Handgun Forum banner

Change

3K views 43 replies 14 participants last post by  kev74 
#1 ·
More thought for the politically inclined:

George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.

1. Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2. Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3. The unemployment rate was 4.5%
4. The DOW JONES hit a record high --14,000+
5. American's were buying new cars, taking cruises and vacations overseas, living large!

But American's wanted 'CHANGE'!
So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress & yep--we got 'CHANGE'!

1. Consumer confidence has plummeted;
2. Gasoline is now over $ 3.5 a gallon & climbing;
3. Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase)
4. Americans have seen their home equity drop by $12 trillion dollars & prices are still dropping;
5. 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
6. THE DOW is probing another low 11,300 -- $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS, BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS! YEP, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE! AND WE GOT IT! A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, NANCY PELOSI. HARRY REID.
Now the democrat' candidate for president -- and the polls say he's gonna be 'the man'--
Claims he's gonna really give us change! Just how much more 'change' do you think you can stand? :anim_lol:
 
See less See more
#28 ·
I'm still waiting for kev's response to that clip JS. Another example of facts not agreeing with the fiction I guess...:anim_lol:
as we wait for a response, why don't we take a quick musical intermission with one of my personal favorites from Slipknot... that just happens to be titled... "Before I Forget" :smt077



as you were... :)
 
#29 ·
I honestly think that I'm one of the only people left on this planet who is informed and has any memory whatsoever... I mean come on...kev.

Here's a reminder for you.

follow the link, please

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
Sorry to keep you waiting for my long awaited words of wisdom...

First, back in 1998, the big threat was that Saddam was going to acquire WMDs and biological weapons. At that time, the UN sanctions were still in effect, weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and were still getting the access they requested, and nobody found any WMDs or biological weapons. I find it a bit amusing that those who have criticized Clinton for blowing up an aspirin factory based on bad intelligence are now saying that there was a credible threat in Iraq at that time that would have required intervention.

Next, in 2002, the only evidence for WMDs or biological weapons in Iraq was the word of the Bush administration. Any democrats who said there was did so based on the word of Bush & Co. Remember, this was happening almost exactly 1 year after 9/11, and right before a mid-term election. Anyone who disagreed with the administration on this would have been shooting themselves in the foot and would have hurt their party right before an election.

Third, if Iraq had WMDs or biological weapons, where did they go? Why haven't we found them in the last 6 years?

If you haven't heard about him, you might want to look up Scott Ridder - Marine and chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1991 - 1998. Audio U-tube
 
#30 · (Edited)
Sorry to keep you waiting for my long awaited words of wisdom...

First, back in 1998, the big threat was that Saddam was going to acquire WMDs and biological weapons. At that time, the UN sanctions were still in effect, weapons inspectors were still in Iraq and were still getting the access they requested, and nobody found any WMDs or biological weapons. I find it a bit amusing that those who have criticized Clinton for blowing up an aspirin factory based on bad intelligence are now saying that there was a credible threat in Iraq at that time that would have required intervention.

Next, in 2002, the only evidence for WMDs or biological weapons in Iraq was the word of the Bush administration. Any democrats who said there was did so based on the word of Bush & Co. Remember, this was happening almost exactly 1 year after 9/11, and right before a mid-term election. Anyone who disagreed with the administration on this would have been shooting themselves in the foot and would have hurt their party right before an election.

Third, if Iraq had WMDs or biological weapons, where did they go? Why haven't we found them in the last 6 years?

If you haven't heard about him, you might want to look up Scott Ridder - Marine and chief UN Weapons Inspector from 1991 - 1998. Audio U-tube
:anim_lol:

It's amazing people have completely forgot the 8 years of Clinton/Gore telling the world, on almost a daily basis, that Saddam had WMDs. Completely amazing. Talk about having your head buried in the sand. Again, I will repeat... I have to be one of the only persons left on this planet who has actually retained a memory of the past.









and here's the classic...

 
#31 ·
No js, you aren't the only one that remembers. But the mainstream media has buried such footage to perpetuate the myth that GW and the evil and omni powerful Dick Cheney are the only ones to blame. But to keep it simple and with fewer words, Cheney is dropped. That way, the mindless hordes of liberal sheeple can remember the four words to the liberal battle cry: Bush lied - people died.

But the real problem here is the impotence of facts as they pertain to most liberals. See most people are empowered by facts. Facts are kinda like Superman. But liberal spin and revisionism is like kryptonite. And Superman is no match for kryptonite.

Most liberals already have their minds made up about things. They don't like to be bothered or confused with facts.
 
#32 ·
...Most liberals already have their minds made up about things. They don't like to be bothered or confused with facts.
Please change the word "Liberals" in that sentence to "people," and I'll agree with you completely.
Willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity are not solely Liberal traits.
 
#33 ·
the tip of the iceberg has just been seen
most of us have not felt it yet
get ready for a real cold 5 years to recover

i am thinking the DJIA will bottom at 7,000
 
#34 ·
Please change the word "Liberals" in that sentence to "people," and I'll agree with you completely.
Willful ignorance and stubborn stupidity are not solely Liberal traits.
Dang Steve, I already toned it down when I said "most liberals". I originally just said "liberals", but decided to leave some of our more enlightened or open minded liberals an "out".

Wait, is "open minded liberal" an oxymoron?:mrgreen:

Anyways, if I listen to you I'm afraid you'll water down my posts to where it'll be just like "bla bla bla". Where would be the fun in that?

But you are right of course. Liberals don't have an exclusive paten on being closed minded. They have just perfected it to an art form. How else could you explain Barack Obama?
 
#35 ·
...is "open minded liberal" an oxymoron?:mrgreen:...
Funny you should ask...
I was just having that very same conversation with a friend I've known for more than 40 years (we met in college).
He remembered that his father had taught him that a "Liberal" was a person with a mind that was open to new ideas. I remember that my own parents told me essentially the same thing.
My, how definitions, and attitudes, change!

I would blame it on the '60s and '70s, and recreational drugs, but I was indulging myself in that way at that time, and it didn't close my mind.
After a lot of thought, I have come to the conclusion that recreational-drug use was only one of the symptoms of the problem that caused the closed minds of the Hippie generation. I believe that the real cause is the normal convinced egocentrism and self-indulgence of 'teen-age, without the moderating influence of parental discipline and control.
Parents of the Hippie generation's kids were, for the most part, WW2 survivors who had pledged themselves to give their children a better life in a better world. It is our great misfortune that the "better life" was seen as an unfettered and uncontrolled one, and that the "better world" was the one their kids were going to create in that condition of absolute freedom.
What a mistake!
:watching:
 
#36 ·
Well if you go purely by these definitions then I'm a liberal:

Favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

Favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

Of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

Free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

Open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

But if you just go by this - http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal - then I am not. I agree with some of those.....but disagree with many.
 
#37 ·
I guess, Fred, that we have to remember the difference between a "liberal" and a "Liberal."
The dictionary definitions you found fit "liberal." It's a term describing a particular philosophy and outlook.
The definitions on Conservapedia fit "Liberal." It's a term that describes a political position, usually one that's set in concrete.
Now, maybe, we should also look at "Conservative."
 
#38 ·
It's amazing people have completely forgot the 8 years of Clinton/Gore telling the world, on almost a daily basis, that Saddam had WMDs. Completely amazing. Talk about having your head buried in the sand. Again, I will repeat... I have to be one of the only persons left on this planet who has actually retained a memory of the past.
Alright, I've been working almost nonstop since Saturday, so I'm not as sharp right now as I should be. Please help me out with this.

Are you saying that:

1. Clinton's air strikes on Iraq based on (as of yet in this thread) undisputed evidence that Saddam was attempting to construct WMDs and biological weapons is the equivalent of Bush's 6+ year ground war that was based on shaky evidence of existing weapons stockpiles and laboratories (both mobile and fixed) that haven't been found even though we turned the country inside out looking for said weapons and labs?

2. Clinton the draft dodger did something correct militarily?

3. All that "Wag the Dog" talk coming form the Republican right during the last part of the 90's was incorrect and uncalled for, and that it was just a coincidence that Bill's Monica Lewinsky "troubles" happened to coincide with a truly dangerous escalation of Saddam's power?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think "normal" is now on extended hiatus. :smt1099
 
#40 · (Edited)
Alright, I've been working almost nonstop since Saturday, so I'm not as sharp right now as I should be. Please help me out with this.

Are you saying that:

1. Clinton's air strikes on Iraq based on (as of yet in this thread) undisputed evidence that Saddam was attempting to construct WMDs and biological weapons is the equivalent of Bush's 6+ year ground war that was based on shaky evidence of existing weapons stockpiles and laboratories (both mobile and fixed) that haven't been found even though we turned the country inside out looking for said weapons and labs?

2. Clinton the draft dodger did something correct militarily?

3. All that "Wag the Dog" talk coming form the Republican right during the last part of the 90's was incorrect and uncalled for, and that it was just a coincidence that Bill's Monica Lewinsky "troubles" happened to coincide with a truly dangerous escalation of Saddam's power?

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I think "normal" is now on extended hiatus. :smt1099
I'll just make it simple...

Bill Clinton & Al Gore (including all Democrat leadership) said for 8 years that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. Clinton bombed Iraq almost weekly...via "no fly zones"

George Bush II & Dick Cheney said for 2 years that...Hussein was a threat to the United States...and that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and would use them...as he already had before. (now insert 3,000 dead Americans from 9/11) Now a threat from Saddam, a threat that 2 administrations said was real... Bush acted on the threat using the same intelligence from the 8 years before he was president.

Me personally, I strongly supported invading Iraq... because of the pure shit that Clinton & Gore filled my head with, not from anything the Bush administration said.

Our war footing with Iraq began in 1992... not 2002.

you really need to watch the video below... it shows the true colors of Democrats. It's a shame... It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid. Of course, they support someone like Obama... that just says it all. Democrats support killing terrorist and their supporters, yet they will put someone in the white house with direct ties (personal and business) to a domestic terrorist and who is today.... proud to admit it. Pure hypocrisy...
\
 
#41 ·
Again, in 1998, Clinton's air strikes were used "to prevent Iraq form acquiring" WMDs and biological weapons.

Bush's protracted ground war was "justified" by faulty intelligence that Iraq WAS IN POSSESSION OF WMDs and biological weapons.

Where did these WMDs and biological weapons go? And why weren't they found? Or were we lied to because Bush & Co. wouldn't have gotten any support for an invasion without phonying up their intelligence.

It's also a shame that 95% of Democrats today are just as stupid.
Since we're making up statistics and calling names, 4 out of 5 Republicans smell like poop! :mrgreen: :smt1099
 
#43 ·
I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site?...
I've been pondering that myself lately. I think some of them are not really handgun enthusiasts. In fact, I'm quite certain some are nothing more than liberal trolls. :buttkick:

The only thing I can think of is that unknown to the administration here, there must be a link to this site at the Daily Kos and/or Move ON.
 
#44 ·
I for the life of me just don't quite understand why there are so many democrats "Liberals" on this site? Anyone voting for Obama are inviting an infringement on their 2nd amendment rights, and the truth is they will deserve it.
Some of the "Liberals" on this site, while they are handgun enthusiasts and respect and honor the 2nd amendment, realize that McCain has sold his soul in his quest for the presidency and is no more a friend to gun owners than Obama. Does anyone else remember when the NRA said McCain was a threat to gun owners because he disguised himself as a conservative? What epiphany has John McCain experienced since 2000 that changed his outlook on the 2nd amendment? Bush has said he would sign another assault weapon ban. McCain has been marching lock-step with Bush.

Remember back when McCain took a (figurative) dump on the families of the Vietnam POW and MIAs? McCain used to be against torturing enemy combatants, he rolled over for Bush on that one. McCain used to stand up to the religious right (America's Taliban), now he's in bed with them.

While I won't vote for Obama, I'm glad it looks like he will keep McCain from getting the Oval Office.

:smt1099
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top