Results 31 to 40 of 44
-
11-05-2008, 01:07 AM #31
well put
-
-
11-05-2008, 01:08 AM #32
Yeah, people seem tired of Nader, Barr is kinda unknown, and Ron Paul withdrew, so thr turnout was pretty bad.
-
11-05-2008, 01:17 AM #33
it is my prayer that one day, america will wake up and understand how little bush had to do with the crap our country is in. The current state we are in would have never happened if congress (both sides) would have listened to bush at any time of his 8 years. Instead, they ignore his warnings, the country goes to crap, and he gets blamed anyway.
-
-
11-05-2008, 01:20 AM #34
He lied to us about Iraq. We're paying for that domestically and abroad.
-
11-05-2008, 01:23 AM #35
every intelligence agency in the world said the same thing. He was guilty for believing it. (If you believe that he had them make up the information then we can agree to disagree). Our economy doesnt suck because of Iraq. The causes of the economy are 90% not bush's fault and yet he gets blamed for them.
-
-
11-05-2008, 01:26 AM #36
And rightly so. The President is the face of our country, and it is unrealistic to expect the blame to go elsewhere.
No matter what the 'facts' or 'numbers' say, the President is the person with the most responsibility to face the people when things happen. Whether that's right or not is another story.
-
11-05-2008, 01:28 AM #37
Well...I don't want to get into a debate...but the billions in Iraq could be spent better...domestically. That's all I have to say. :)
-
-
11-05-2008, 01:29 AM #38
why is it unrealistic to expect the blame to go where it belongs? I get why bush gets blamed but that doesn't make it right.
If it isn't his fault, it isn't right that he gets blamed. If he did it, or stood by and let it happen when he could have stopped it then sure. But when it was things that were out of his control, it isnt ok for him to get blamed. IMO
-
11-05-2008, 01:31 AM #39
I have no problem agreeing to that. But, with bush already giving out more tax returns then anytime in recent history (I could be wrong) the money would have only gone to those already receiving government hand outs so the middle class never would see it anyway.
everyone talks about the national debt but that doesn't effect any of our lives. The debt has been in the trillions for years. It getting bigger doesn't change our lives.
-
11-05-2008, 01:32 AM #40
Well Nader lost all of his credibility after 2000 (which is why we might have seen the decline in third party voting in 2004) I was actually a big supporter of Bill Richardson/Clinton since neither of the got passed the primaries, it was an easy decision and for me the right one. I am counting on seeing Ron Paul's turnout being higher than Nader's.
-
Originally Posted by tylermckinzie 
