View Single Post
  #31  
Old 06-03-2005, 09:54 PM
Franko914's Avatar
Franko914 Franko914 is offline
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 320
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re: Laura vs. Hillary in 2008?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ct91rs
I'll say whatever it takes. That doesn't mean we need to waste money taking over a country that was not the cause.
So who is to decide what is waste and what is not? The funding was approved by our representatives, no? Cheap shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ct91rs
After this proposition you then say that our main reason we are in Iraq is for oil. I didn't even say it.
I'll say it, "We are there for the oil." As for Halliburton, give me a short list of companies that can do a better, as good, or nearly as good a job? Cheap shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ct91rs
We we went to fight the terrorists.
That was a reason, but the justification was for the oil. With the porous Iraqi borders allowing the flow of terrorists into Iraq, those are terrorists not attacking the US. Half-assed cheap shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ct91rs
As for being President, the only reason he was elected was because of his name and family connections. He had nothing to run on. The country didn't want a democrat after Bill's fiasco, so they had a choice between two rather poor candidates. Why did Bush get the Republican nomination over McCain? Because he was a more qualified candidate?
He wasn't only elected, he was also reelected. The people who elected and reelected him aren't as shallow as you think or hope. The election and reelection obviously proved that he was more qualified than McCain, especially in dealing with 9/11. Cheap shot.

You've got to get over the fact that he won, and won again -- obviously, you didn't vote for him???...
__________________
US Supreme Court Upholds the First Gun Law: The Second Amendment
Reply With Quote