dizzy, 5/19/2007,6:55:59 PM, wrote:

Why do the Democrat Senators have such derogatory terms and
descriptions about the Executive Branch politicians?

--
“An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought.”
~ Simon Cameron

dizzy, 5/19/2007,6:56:46 PM, wrote:

Tell us what you think of them.

larry moe 'n curly, 5/19/2007,7:39:22 PM, wrote:

Tawana Brawley is one good example. Sharpton has never apologized for
his actions in that case.

" dbu.," <nsp (AT) einp (DOT) com> wrote

And what happens if a Democrat is elected in '08, and you start bitching &
moaning, bashing him or her??

Cathy

Cathy F., 5/19/2007,8:48:33 PM, wrote:

Then they probably deserve it.

badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote


haha
haha
haha
haha
haha
haha
haha
haha

And your president does not? A middle aged child who'd flunk a 7th grade
English class?

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Oh, but Mr. Incomeptent aka GWB aka Shrub doesn't? Yeah, right.

But that's not the point. Dbu keeps having fits because people find fault
w/ GWB & his administration, & actually dare (gasp!) to voice their
displeasure, calling them on those faults. But what happens if dbu doesn't
agree with the next president & his/her administration and voices his
disagreements? No double standard there??

Cathy

Cathy F., 5/19/2007,10:00:57 PM, wrote:

The double-standard is the politicians that voted to give the President
the authority to take the fight to the terrorists then do a complete
about face for political gain.

--
“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much
trouble to put makeup on two faces.” ~ Maureen Murphy

"badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

That logic applies in spades to the current president, who has done nothing
well in his two terms except to get elected, by hook or by crook. The work
of administration of a large and powerful country doesn't seem to interest
him at all judging by the record to date.

tak, 5/19/2007,10:57:12 PM, wrote:

He's done well to prevent more attacks within the US. He's eliminated
thousands of terrorists and messed up their financial networks. He's
removed a totalitarian regime that despite what you may think was
primed to aid and abet the terrorists in expanding their capabilities.
He's expanded the economy of the US tremendously by cutting taxes on
ALL Americans and therefore increased the revenues exponentially. He
has constantly exposed the Democrats for the hypocritical and
America-loathing group of pandering politicians they are. He has
prevented socialized medicine from gaining a foothold.

I will admit there are certain things he's not done well. He has
failed miserably in dealing with illegal immigration. Government has
grown too large. Energy policies have not been planned properly. He
has not allowed the military to do what is necessary to end violence in
Iraq swiftly.

Do not let your mind be influenced by the negative partisanship
emanating out of Washington and the liberal press agencies. Use your
God-given brains to process current events and compare them to
historical facts. There are far more positive accomplishments by
George W. Bush that outweigh the negative ones and that is a far cry
from the previous one.

--
"Unfortunately I can not totally agree with comrade Stalin." ~ Famous
Last Words