messybuu messybuu

Janeane Garofalo is an idiot!

▼

Janeane Garofalo is an idiot!

Another rant on how stupid the Democrat Party has become.

from JoeUser Forums

It's funny how ironic people can be. Janeane Garofalo, on the Daily Show, noted how polarized the country is, and Jon Stewart something about people becoming as fanatical as those they oppose, and Janeane Garofalo then states that voting for Bush is a character flaw, for many reasons including the fact that he's religious. It must be, after all, since she hates Bush with a fanatical passion and would vote for Hussein before she'd vote for Bush. She then went on a rant in an attempt to justify her opinion.

"Anybody but Bush!" is the slogan for the liberals of 2004, which brings me to my question of the day: If anybody other than Bush would do, then why the Hell didn't you bother picking somebody decent to run against him? What about Gore or McCain (sure McCain isn't a Democrat, but remember, anybody but Bush!)? Did you all believe that since you'd vote for anybody but Bush, that everybody else would vote for anybody but Bush as well, so you didn't even bother to put somebody decent on the ballot? Have Democrats become so lazy that they don't even bother to apply even a half-ass effort?

This reminds me of the time that I had to choose between watching a movie with Steven Segal, a man I don't care to see, and a movie of bears crapping on each other. While somebody who thought of Segal as the 21st century Hitler might take the movie of the bears crapping on each other and speak of the movie as the greatest movie ever to exist, I, and others that aren't completely psychotic, will take the movie with Steven Segal and wonder why the Democrat Party didn't bother running Gore again. After all, he supposedly won, didn't he? I guess Democrats are masochists.

politics
13,495 views 36 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not running for president. I expect that job to be done by this administration which so far the june 30 deadline seems obscure and improbable. Peace in the middle east is not impossible, does that mean that it will happen any time soon, probably not. Bush's own father had enough foresight to see this and I quote
"To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day hero ... assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an un-winnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability". Strangely enough it's eerie how close his words are to the truth.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as alternatives the first one would be to go after the source more aggresively. Al Qaeda was not in Iraq as far as I know, although the blunt of our force is currently trying to stabilize a country that we now know posed a less immediate threat than Al Qaeda. I know that if I were in the military I would feel even more passionate about all these mistakes.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

Good leaders know how to choose between multiple non-ideal options.

That is why I prefer Bush to say Clinton on foreign affairs. Clinton (or Gore) would have analyzed the situation until it paralysed him (no rhyme intended).

Conservatives are becoming unhappy with Bush's leadership because he's getting wobbly. It's become more apparent that he's just winging the whole Iraq policy which is unnerving. The whole occupation phase was half-baked in my opinion.

You either take a tough position and stick to it or you take the heart's and minds approach with the plan to remove the troops. You can't pick and choose parts from either one because you'll lose respect from all sides.

Bush's political skills are...awful.

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with what you're saying Brad, except for the foreign affairs thing but you know that's my opinion.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
from the day Ashcroft was appointed in there have been hysterical charges against him as well

such ingratitude. dismantling the constitution is a dirty job...but someone has to do it.

polarization implies 2 opposing groups separated by enough distance to preclude a middle ground. ashcroft is his only source of unqualified support..
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Conservatives are becoming unhappy with Bush's leadership because he's getting wobbly. It's become more apparent that he's just winging the whole Iraq policy which is unnerving. The whole occupation phase was half-baked in my opinion

conservatives should be unhappy with bush because he isnt a conservative except when it suits his purpose.

im in total agreement with the rest of that paragraph.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
kingbee: Which parts of the constitution has Ashcroft dismenatled?
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

turning the whole Arab world against us


They were with us before? What color is the sky in *that* world?


I can state conclusively that al-qaeda was and is in Iraq. can I quote my source? No, I can't due to my job. Sorry.


     The theory that our combat units could be better used in the nebulous "going after Al-qaeda drectly" is also fallacious. This job is done strictly by intelligence and small units who do not particiapte in peacekeeping activities. Al-qaeda does not do battle formations. They can not be met in open combat by combat units. Being in Iraq actually gives us the opportunity to draw these organizations out of the woodwork to attack tempting *military* targets rather than waiting for them to attack tempting civilian* targets and reacting afterwards. Personally I *want* terrorists to make a try at SFC Calangelo's guard point and be ripped to shreds rather than have them mak a try at say a hospital or a bus full of school kids. We are here to shoulder the dangers that we don't want you to face. It is just that simple. I am in the military and it kills those of us who do serve to see people who know very little about how terror cells actually work criticize the people who do know.


    For the record it is my opinion that we as a nation do not care about peace in the middle east as a goal in and of itself. We care about peace in ouw own borders. The middle east peace process helps ensure that these bomb-toting splodeydopes keep themselves out of our country and away from you folks. It gives us an arena far from our soil to confront and kill those who want to kill you and yours.


 

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Believe me I appreciate the sacrifices that soldiers make and for that reason I think that soldiers lives are valuable and sending them into a country under false pretenses and having them die for a reason that is not neccessary is all that more terrible. The war in Iraq was not planned properly and furthermore the effect is evident in the insurgency that came after. Ahmed Chalabi was an exiled Iraqi leader who was being paid by the U.S. to provide much of the "intelligence" that created the reasons for war, now American troops have raided his offices and home in baghdad. There haven't been any leaders named yet for the June 30 deadline a little over a month away. As far as intelligence the effectiveness of that was seen with missing weapons in Iraq. I am sorry if it kills you but I am a realist and I base my opinions on facts. If you can tell me that by June 30 the presidents deadline Iraq will have it's own STABLE government then I will drop my argument. If you can tell me for sure with proof that Al Qaeda was and/or is in Iraq with proof I will drop my argument othewise making vague references will not change how I feel.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Saddam Hussein was stable. I can't give you proof because it is classified.
Reply #36 from JoeUser Forums Top
We went to war with Iraq because Saddam was not stable and posed a threat. That is what they based the war on and to say he was stable would eliminate a need for a war which proves my point... Look I am not looking to argue with you, the way the war has been handled overseas may be good enough for you but it's not good enough for me, let's leave it at that.