It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A question for the Republicans...

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Was that a class move or what? The
guy gave it up faster than a drunk
Catholic girl. I hope my kids don't
pull this crap on me.
Of course, if they didn't, they'd be
dumb and abnormal and they'd probably
never move out of my house and I'd
have to support them until I die. I
take it back.
Guy...guys... All this typing has made me
kind of light-headed. I think I better
lie down.



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well Colonel, I'll give you that, you are calling things AS YOU SEE them.....


Correction though........politicians, regardless of party affiliation, 'care' about the poor.
'Poor' is not regulated to this current administration......duh!?
Middle class is dwindling....this is also not regulated to this administration.......

Anything else?

You deny looking a reality when all that matters to your own reality is BUSH......
BTW.....Budweiser still producing BUSH beer? If so, have one.




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Well Colonel, I'll give you that, you are calling things AS YOU SEE them.....


Correction though........politicians, regardless of party affiliation 'care' about the poor.
'Poor' is not regulated to this current administration......duh!?
Middle class is dwindling....this is also not regulated to this administration.......

Anything else?

You deny looking a reality when all that matters to your own relaity is BUSH......
BTW.....Budweiser still producing BUSH beer? If so, have one.




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Seekerof]


There is still time for you to depart from the Dark Side.

(And stop lying. When did repugnants EVER care for the poor)

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Colonel]



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Repugnatsn would never vote for her. A black Democrat female? Yeah right!


Thats a huge problem in this country right now. Don't you find it funny that there was such a BIG DEAL made about JFK when he won? They thought it was revolutionary to have a CATHOLIC president!! My gosh! He might push the pope's rules on us!

I always thought that was funny. A Catholic president was seen as "Revolutionary". Imagine what a woman president would do. Or, maybe (Gasp) an African American one!

Sooner or later, it will change. The Latino and African American populations are soon going to outnumber the White/Anglo saxon males and then what? You'll still have a country run by the "white" minority? Don't bet on it.

Maybe we can convince Chuck D to enter politics.



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Riiiigghhtt Colonel.......



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Seekerof]



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega

Originally posted by Colonel
Repugnatsn would never vote for her. A black Democrat female? Yeah right!


Thats a huge problem in this country right now. Don't you find it funny that there was such a BIG DEAL made about JFK when he won? They thought it was revolutionary to have a CATHOLIC president!! My gosh! He might push the pope's rules on us!

I always thought that was funny. A Catholic president was seen as "Revolutionary". Imagine what a woman president would do. Or, maybe (Gasp) an African American one!

Sooner or later, it will change. The Latino and African American populations are soon going to outnumber the White/Anglo saxon males and then what? You'll still have a country run by the "white" minority? Don't bet on it.

Maybe we can convince Chuck D to enter politics.



He said Chuck D.



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kai-Raega
Sooner or later, it will change. The Latino and African American populations are soon going to outnumber the White/Anglo saxon males and then what? You'll still have a country run by the "white" minority? Don't bet on it.


Don't bet on that. The repugnants will find some way to introduce legislation to have all tose populations put in prison---but wait! They already have it!

Wonder why Rush ain't there?



posted on Nov, 3 2003 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofCorrection though........politicians, regardless of party affiliation, 'care' about the poor.
'Poor' is not regulated to this current administration.[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Seekerof]


Of course, there are some Republicans that care about the poor, but not the ones who actually *win* elections. Have you listened to Rush? I did for years, and I'll tell you, a day never went by when he didn't insult and "blame" the poor for their own problems.

Just look at the Tax Cuts. Look at their lack of support for unions and how Reagan broke the airline unions in the 80's. I'm not saying that Democrats pick the poor up and give them blank checks (Welfare to work = Bad Idea) but they generally do more for them then the GOP.

Since when has the GOP increased the minimum wage? Since when did they help workers unions get started? Didn't bush cut funding for Veterans hospitals? Why do they want to do away with Social Security and force everyone to use 401K's to fund their retirement?

I could go on and on, but I need a drink.

[Edited on 3-11-2003 by Kai-Raega]



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Ok, so far we have a lot of democrats saying what they think, and one republican who probably won't vote. Can some of the other republicans give me their opinions?



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 08:34 AM
link   
As soon as a repugnant leader tells them what to think, then you will get a response. Rightnow, your questions are too difficult for them and their ears are bleeding.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Well Greenkoolaid. I voted for bush I was raised a Rep. After I voted for bush soon after I relized my mistake. Since then I haven't, and never will vote again.

Some people say "Well you have to vote for the lesser evil", and I used to. But not anymore. I think the B/S all comes from the same kitchen.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 08:48 AM
link   
The number one reason i will vote for Bush is thus: Imagine, for one second you have a Homosexual like Dick Gephardt in charge of the country when some *real* $hit hits the fan. I want someone who's going to kick some ass, not someone who's going to kiss it. Number two, I don't believe in handouts. Everyone has the oppurtunity in this country to make something out of themselves, but those who choose not to will lay in gutters and drink 40's until they die. Do I feel sorry? No, because everyone can become SOMETHING in this country, whether it's a fry cook at McDonalds or the CEO of a business or a Pop-Star. That's what makes America what it is. You dig your own grave here. That's what distinguishes Americans from the rest of the world. To the chagrin of you democrat, junior socialists, Bush will win again. I'll contact you when i start suffering under his agendas, but it sure as hell hasn't happened yet.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Killed in Iraq. 240 Soldiers Dead Since Bush Told Us "Mission Accomplished." 174 GIs Dead Since Bush Said, "Bring Them On." 2176 Reported Wounded. Returning Dead Hidden from the Public View by Bush. He Betrays Our Troops and Our Nation.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 10:49 AM
link   
You won't vote vote for Bush because 240 soldiers have been killed??? Kennendy and LBJ killed 58,000 in Vietnam. It was Nixon that pulled em out.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyeff
You won't vote vote for Bush because 240 soldiers have been killed??? Kennendy and LBJ killed 58,000 in Vietnam. It was Nixon that pulled em out.


And you conveniently forget John McNamara. It was his WAR and you also forget Kissinger and the Killing Fields. That was HIS doing.

Anyway, none of that matters b/c I wasn't even old enough to vote then.

(Always pointing fingers to something that happened 2-3 decades ago) WHAT ABOUT NOW??????



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by nyeff
You won't vote vote for Bush because 240 soldiers have been killed??? Kennendy and LBJ killed 58,000 in Vietnam. It was Nixon that pulled em out.


And you conveniently forget John McNamara. It was his WAR and you also forget Kissinger and the Killing Fields. That was HIS doing.

Anyway, none of that matters b/c I wasn't even old enough to vote then.

(Always pointing fingers to something that happened 2-3 decades ago) WHAT ABOUT NOW??????


You don't think that those past events are shaping YOUR future?



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   
I am not making light of soldiers that have been killed. But to put a little perspective on it. More people are killed in car wrecks in the US everyday. Than have been killed in Iraq on a daily basis.
If you want to lose a war...put a democrat in office.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyeff
I am not making light of soldiers that have been killed. But to put a little perspective on it. More people are killed in car wrecks in the US everyday. Than have been killed in Iraq on a daily basis.
If you want to lose a war...put a democrat in office.


Ahh, but you are making light. "Oh, don't worry about the war deaths---everything is relative." This is the same "Spirit of Cain" I'm talking about. These people are the first to say "We support the troops" but forget about em as they start dying.

If you don't want to get INTO a war and expend valuable American resources and lives, vote Democrat.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I think, if you look at bush as a man, and not the anti christ, or the republican evil doer, he seems to be trying to get the most done in the least amount of time. his forcefullness in office is what i appreciate.

now i don't agree with everything he has put forward.
like the patriot act, and then no war reperations for the money we gave Iraq,

but all in all, i have respect for the man. not the image.



posted on Nov, 4 2003 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fury
I think, if you look at bush as a man, and not the anti christ, or the republican evil doer, he seems to be trying to get the most done in the least amount of time. his forcefullness in office is what i appreciate.

now i don't agree with everything he has put forward.
like the patriot act, and then no war reperations for the money we gave Iraq,

but all in all, i have respect for the man. not the image.


As a man, he's a shameless lying bastard. He is a spoiled whiny brat born witha silver spoon in his mouth. That's what kind of "man" he is .




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join