Laugh For Today

[Guest BushBacker]

Howard Dean was recently quoted as saying "if the Democrats were in power, this fighting between Israel and Lebanon would not be happening".l He then stated, the Democrats have the "moral authority that Clinton had" and would have prevented it.

"Moral authority that Clinton had " ??? This clown Howard Dean has his head in the Kool-aid jar. This guy is the Democratic Party chairman !! Thank God for the Republican Party and George Bush.

[Guest Guest]

Howard Dean was recently quoted as saying  "if the Democrats were in power, this fighting between Israel  and Lebanon would not be happening".l He then stated, the Democrats have the "moral  authority that Clinton had" and would have prevented it.

  "Moral authority that Clinton had " ???  This clown Howard Dean has his head in the Kool-aid jar.  This  guy is the Democratic Party chairman !!  Thank God for the Republican Party and George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU are in BIG TROUBLE! You will spend eternity in hell for linking God with Bush, God ain't gonna like it at all.

[Guest Patriot]

Howard Dean was recently quoted as saying  "if the Democrats were in power, this fighting between Israel  and Lebanon would not be happening".l He then stated, the Democrats have the "moral  authority that Clinton had" and would have prevented it.

  "Moral authority that Clinton had " ???  This clown Howard Dean has his head in the Kool-aid jar.  This  guy is the Democratic Party chairman !!  Thank God for the Republican Party and George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Screaming Dean" is a scarey guy, but the Dems love him. Tells you a lot about the Democratic party.

[Guest Patriot]

Howard Dean was recently quoted as saying  "if the Democrats were in power, this fighting between Israel  and Lebanon would not be happening".l He then stated, the Democrats have the "moral  authority that Clinton had" and would have prevented it.

  "Moral authority that Clinton had " ???  This clown Howard Dean has his head in the Kool-aid jar.  This  guy is the Democratic Party chairman !!  Thank God for the Republican Party and George Bush.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Clinton" and "moral authority" in the same sentence ??? That's funny !!

[Guest Guest]

Dean is a wacko!

[Guest Guest]

"Screaming Dean" is a scarey guy,  but the Dems love him. Tells you a lot about the Democratic party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Reps love a man who sold weapons to an enemy state and another who resigned the presidency in disgrace, tells a lot about the Republican Party.

[Guest BushBacker]

Reps love a man who sold weapons to an enemy state and another who resigned the presidency in disgrace, tells a lot about the Republican Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Question : Who would you prefer to see as president , a Richard Nixon or a Howard Dean ??

Answer: Take the Watergate screw-up out of the equation and the Nixon presidency was a good one. Howard "The Scream' Dean as president ?? ...... Can you say "The Twilight Zone" ??

[Guest Patriot]

Reps love a man who sold weapons to an enemy state and another who resigned the presidency in disgrace, tells a lot about the Republican Party.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When Kool-aiders have to refer to the dead to make an argument it demonstrates how pathetic the democratic party has become. The NY Times and Kool-aid is a dangerous combination, it effects your short-term memory.

[Guest Bill Fan]

"Clinton"  and "moral authority" in the same sentence ???  That's funny !!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

President and George Bush in the same sentence is even funnier!!!

[Guest Guest]

President and George Bush in the same sentence is even funnier!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

THAT's not funny, it's a recipe for setting America back years.

[Guest Guest]

  Answer:  Take the Watergate screw-up out of the equation  and the Nixon presidency was a good one.  Howard "The Scream' Dean  as president  ?? ......  Can you say "The Twilight Zone" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Typical Republican spi Take away Way=tergate and Nixon was OK. Forget the treasnous act of selling weapons to an enemy and Ronnie is God. Gee, if he was such a lowlife prick Saddam'd be a pretty good guy.

[Guest Guest]

When  Kool-aiders have to refer to the dead to make an argument it demonstrates how pathetic the democratic party has become.  The NY Times and Kool-aid is a dangerous combination, it effects your short-term memory.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

YOU WANKERS are the ones who keep referring to RayGun, we're just happy to debunk your myths.

If you'd like to limit the discussion to current living office holders...........Bush is doing a poor job and is costing the country dearly.

[Guest Guest]

Question :  Who would you prefer to see as president , a Richard Nixon or a Howard Dean ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Answer: I'd prefer to see an honest man who has enough backbone to stand up for himself and not slink away with his tail between his legs. Nixon is OBVIOUSLY unqualified.

[Guest Radagast]

Question :  Who would you prefer to see as president , a Richard Nixon or a Howard Dean ??

  Answer:  Take the Watergate screw-up out of the equation  and the Nixon presidency was a good one.  Howard "The Scream' Dean  as president  ?? ......  Can you say "The Twilight Zone" ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good question. Except for the fact that Nixon was President and Dean very likely, never will be. But then, I have a better question for you.

Question: Who would you prefer to see as President, a Richard Nixon or a G.W. Bush?

Answer: Richard Nixon. In the last fifty years, no President knew more about dealing in foreign policy than R M Nixon. He had years of study and experience prior to his Presidency. Do you think he would have allowed the United States to get into the the mess we're in in Iraq? For all the bad things I could say about Nixon, he would never have let ideology or politics shade his decisions to the exent that G W Bush has.

[Guest BushBacker]

Good question. Except for the fact that Nixon was President and Dean very likely, never will be. But then, I have a better question for you.

Question: Who would you prefer to see as President, a Richard Nixon or a G.W. Bush?

Answer: Richard Nixon. In the last fifty years, no President knew more about dealing in foreign policy than R M Nixon. He had years of study and experience prior to his Presidency. Do you think he would have allowed the United States to get into the the mess we're in in Iraq? For all the bad things I could say about Nixon, he would never have let ideology or politics shade his decisions to the exent that G W Bush has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a difficult comparison to make. Nixon's presidency didn't have a 9/11 to deal with, nor did he have Kuwait invaded during his term. Also radical Islam was not yet on the radar screen.

[Guest Guest]

That's a difficult comparison to make. Nixon's presidency didn't have a 9/11 to deal with, nor did he have Kuwait invaded during his term.  Also radical Islam was not yet on the radar screen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is that a bulletin from FOX News? Kuwait was invaded during G W Bush's term?

[Guest BushBacker]

Is that a bulletin from FOX News?  Kuwait was invaded during G W Bush's term?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The aftermath of Kuwait, dum dum.

[Guest Guest]

The aftermath of Kuwait, dum dum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's what YOU said when comparing RMN and GWB.

"That's a difficult comparison to make. Nixon's presidency didn't have a 9/11 to deal with, nor did he have Kuwait invaded during his term. Also radical Islam was not yet on the radar screen. "

NOTICE you spoke of Kuwait being invaded during the term. How the hell can you speak of the aftermath of Kuwait in GWB's term when it'd been over for more than 8 years?

You're just like your heroes, you talk a bunch of crap and even YOU don't understand what YOU said, DUM DUM

[Guest Radagast]

That's a difficult comparison to make. Nixon's presidency didn't have a 9/11 to deal with, nor did he have Kuwait invaded during his term.  Also radical Islam was not yet on the radar screen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I understood what you meant and I won't argue with your basic point. This isn't the 1970's. However, a few points of my own:

* Nixon had a sense of history. He was alnost his own State Department. I can't believe that even with 9/11, and maybe more so because of 9/11, he would have allowed anyone to S**K him into the situation we now find ourselves in.

* Islam did not wake up one morning and decide to become radical. There are a lot of historical factors that set the stage for where we are now, not the least of which was the creation of the State of Isreal and the methods by which it has decided to sustain itself for the past 58 years.

On that subject:

The United States contributes around $7 billion to Isreal each year. This current Isreali adventure into Lebanon works against the best interests of the US in terms of a 'democratic' Middle East. Why do we allow it? In my opinion, Democrats and Republicans alike have been bought and sold by the Isreali lobby in Washington. Isreal has a right to defend itself, no argument, but it does not have the right to indiscriminately kill women, children and others who do not in any way threaten Isreal, as it has done. It has done more damage to itself than good. Christian and Islamic alike in Lebanon, 87%, are now supporting Hezbollah. Nice work, guys!

I just think, in all these matters, if there were a bit more historical wisdom in play, we would not be fighting wars that we can not win. I can't help but think that the United States is going to pay for what Isreal has done in the past week or so.

So, I'll give Nixon his due. Like him or not, he was a statesman.

[Guest Guest]

Well, I understood what you meant and I won't argue with your basic point. This isn't the 1970's. However, a few points of my own:

* Nixon had a sense of history. He was alnost his own State Department. I can't believe that even with 9/11, and maybe more so because of 9/11, he would have allowed anyone to S**K him into the situation we now find ourselves in.

* Islam did not wake up one morning and decide to become radical. There are a lot of historical factors that set the stage for where we are now, not the least of which was the creation of the State of Isreal and the methods by which it has decided to sustain itself for the past 58 years.

On that subject:

The United States contributes around $7 billion to Isreal each year. This current Isreali adventure into Lebanon works against the best interests of the US in terms of a 'democratic' Middle East.  Why do we allow it? In my opinion, Democrats and Republicans alike have been bought and sold by the Isreali lobby in Washington. Isreal has a right to defend itself, no argument,  but it does not have the right to indiscriminately kill women, children and others who do not in any way threaten Isreal, as it has done. It has done more damage to itself than good. Christian and Islamic alike in Lebanon, 87%, are now supporting Hezbollah. Nice work, guys!

I just think, in all these matters, if there were a bit more historical wisdom in play, we would not be fighting wars that we can not win. I can't help but think that the United States is going to pay for what Isreal has done in the past week or so. 

So, I'll give Nixon his due. Like him or not, he was a statesman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So the brilliant wingnut can't spell Israel correctly? I suppose he'll tell us he spells it that way purposely.

And stop saying the US is fighting wars it can't win. The US could win any war on earth if it wasn't for whiners like you. Israel targets women and children? Give it a rest already.

[Guest Guest]

So, I'll give Nixon his due. Like him or not, he was a statesman.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I depise Nixon because there's been enough writing by his own people that suggests the winding down of VietNam was manipulated to benefit his re-election campaign rather than t save lives. I also have no sympathy for alleged leaders who think they can make up the rules as they go along, think they are above the law, and then sing the blues when they get their due.

But I will say he was a keen statesman when it came to foreign relations and opening communication with China was a wise thing, you simply cannot ignore a force that large as many tried to do, But in many other ways he was evil.

[Guest Guest]

So the brilliant wingnut can't spell Israel correctly? I suppose he'll tell us he spells it that way purposely.

And stop saying the US is fighting wars it can't win.  The US could win any war on earth if it wasn't for whiners like you.  Israel targets women and children? Give it a rest already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! Maybe this person has never read the word Israel and has just heard it on the radio and is sounding it out phonetically! Ya think? Is real, Is reul, Is reel, Iz re ul!

[Guest Radagast]

So the brilliant wingnut can't spell Israel correctly? I suppose he'll tell us he spells it that way purposely.

And stop saying the US is fighting wars it can't win.  The US could win any war on earth if it wasn't for whiners like you.  Israel targets women and children? Give it a rest already.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry my spelling was not up to snuff, it seldom is, but its obvious that you got my message. Can you spell 'A N A L'?

Oh, and if you want to have a worth while discussion, try to make a rational point rather than your usual one liners that have not been very well thought out.

[Guest Guest]

Sorry my spelling was not up to snuff, it seldom is, but its obvious that you got my message. Can you spell  'A N A L'?

Oh, and if you want to have a worth while discussion, try to make a rational point rather than your usual one liners that have not been very well thought out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your posting is nonsense, and I have to question the "well thought out" postings of someone that can't spell.

Why not just admit you're a wingnut?

Is that a good enough one liner? I learned it from you.

[Guest Radagast]

Your posting is nonsense, and I have to question the "well thought out" postings of someone that can't spell.

Why not just admit you're a wingnut?

Is that a good enough one liner? I learned it from you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ho-Hum ... we're going nowhere here ... see ya