OT: *Another* Bush Flip Flop!

Just heard Bush's comments right after he voted.

He said that he has faith in the people that they will make the right
decision, and then he flip flopped and said he was confident he would win.

Which is it George?


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone ( http://www.**--****.com/ )

In article <BDACFEC6.E89D% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




The right decision would be "none of the above."

-- 
George Graves
------------------

John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971

"George Graves" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in post
 XXXX@XXXXX.COM  on 11/2/04
10:58 AM:



Funny you should say that - have you been listening to Rush recently... he
has been going on and on about how nobody likes Kerry and that *anyone* or
even *no one* would do just as well against Bush.

Even Rush seems to know that "none of the above" would have a good chance of
beating Bush.


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone ( http://www.**--****.com/ )

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:07:18 -0700, Snit < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >




Before Senator John Kerry announced his reaction to the OBL video, he
took a poll that asked how people thought he should respond to it.

Taking that poll says everything you need to know about John Kerry.

--phil

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Phil Earnhardt




While I'm not all that hot about polls as the data and questions are
much too easily manipulated to reach a pre-conceived conclusion, is it
better to take a poll a gather information, or just 'go with your gut',
which is just about the only way Bush does things.

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 21:44:51 GMT, Lloyd Parsons




Really? I think GW Bush can most definitely go with his gut feeling on
OBL. His response was right on.

What exactly was it that you think Senator John Kerry needed to learn
from poll before he could issue a statement? What would he possibly
learn from interviewing a group of citizens before he could
competently respond to the video?

--phil

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Phil Earnhardt




Correct,  his gut was right that time.  But then he decided to go to
Iraq.  Must've had indigestion that day!

I didn't say anything about what he could get from it, nor did I say
that polling would be accurate or even needed.  What I was saying was
that Kerry is willing to listen to opposing points of view in his
decision making process.  All indications are that with Bush, there is
little if any, opposing points presented or considered.

Around here we call that bullheadedness, politicos call it 'steadfast'.

In article <BDAD1FAF.E93F% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,





Your reading comprehension problem rears it's ugly head once more. I 
didn't say that even 'None of the above' would have a good chance of 
beating Bush, I said that NONE OF THE ABOVE is the best choice. In case 
you are too stupid to understand me, NONE OF THE ABOVE INCLUDES THE 
{*filter*} KNOWN AS KERRY AS WELL AS THE IDIOT KNOWN AS BUSH!

-- 
George Graves
------------------

John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971

"George Graves" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in post
 XXXX@XXXXX.COM  on 11/2/04
6:38 PM:


Wow... funny how in a post where you make allegations about some reading
comprehension problem you think I have, you demonstrate how you did not
understand what I wrote.

I was talking about Rush, not you.  I did not say that you and Rush
agreed... I was merely pointing out something I found amusing that was
somewhat related to what you said...

I never said you said "none of the above" would have a good chance against
Bush, I said Rush said "none of the above" would have a good chance against
Bush, and you said I said "none of the above" would have a good chance
against Bush, which was in error.  And then you accuse me of having poor
reading comprehension.

This is why I ask you to support your claims.  When you actually do try to,
not only do you fail to show your accusations against me are accurate, you
often show, as in this case, that they apply more to you than to me.

Maybe if you type with more caps, however, your claim will become more
convincing?  That is what you were trying to do... RIGHT?


-- 
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone ( http://www.**--****.com/ )

In article <BDAD926B.EA2E% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




He understood what you implied. Of course, no one ever accused you of 
understanding the implications of your own words, have they, Snit:)

-- 
Steve C

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 23:24:05 GMT, Lloyd Parsons




It's your opinion that invading Iraq was wrong.

I'll repeat the quesiton again: given the push by France to remove all
the sanctions and the clear indications that Saddam would re-start his
WMD programs after the sanctios were lifted, why do you conclude that
this was the "wrong time" to invade Iraq?

When in heaven's name would ahve been the right time?

You are second-guessing the actions of Bush; you should be able to
make these proclamations with clarity and reasoning.


THen why the hell did he do a poll on that?


He did it! He clearly spent the money and the effort. Why?

It looks so horrendously bad to do something like this. Kerry is so
removed from reality he has to *run a poll* on this to know what to
say?????


And what decision was that?

WHat in heaven's name are you talking aoubt? WHat were the options?
What opposing points of view would there possibly be?


WRT how to react to an OBL video, there is not a single opposing point
that you need presented or considered.

Any true American with a spine would know how to react.

Any poser would have to .... run a poll to know how react.


To know how to react to an OBL video? Are you kidding?


--phil

In article <BDAD926B.EA2E% XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,




Can't you respond to the topic? I thought not.

-- 
George Graves
------------------

John Kerry - Betraying America Since 1971

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Phil Earnhardt




And France could have lifted those sanctions on its own?  Not hardly
and we weren't leaning towards it at all.  Hence, by your own thinking,
the WMD program wasn't going to be restarted.

Since Saddam had NO ability to harm anyone but his own people, maybe
never.  Kind of like Castro, just let him sit there and fester.

Maybe it is second guessing, but with all the lies that were
perpertrated to take us there, maybe more should have been doing some
second guessing.

I was and am fully behind Bush on going into Afghanistan, it made
sense, it was the right response.

I was and am fully not behind Bush's rush to war with Iraq.  I was
against it the first time he started yammering in that direction.  The
logical place to go after Afghanistan would have been Saudi Arabia
where all the 9-11 terrorists came from, and where it appears at least
some of the money came from.