Let's not forget GW's accomplishments! (long)

[Superman]

Well Mark, I've assumed that Bush is going to win, but now I'm not so sure. He has put all his eggs in one backet (Iraq Warlord) and that seems to be unravelling fast. And we still have not seen June 30 yet! And before November it sounds like he'll have to ask congress for more Iraq money. His performance record on issues like environment, social security and health care appears abysmal. And if everyone voted this time like they voted last time, he loses. So, enjoy your victory dance now.

[350HP930]

LOL, this administration has been so awful I almost forgot about the little offensive things like the lie that bush went into hiding cause the terrorists called in with AF1's secret codeword.

[techweenie]

As I suspected, not a single, cogent rebuttal to a single line of the original post.

Somebody claims there's no "World Court" but obviously hasn't been reading much. The U.S. was a signatory to the formation of an International Criminal Court. GW Bush "unsigned" the agreement, effectively abandoning the commitment to participate, but the court was formed anyway on April 11, 2002.

Next?

[lendaddy]

I cringe at the thought of the bile that will flow in here on election night. If you need a shoulder to cry on guys...............I'll be at a party

All your books, 60 minutes B.S. and still Bush contines to improve in the polls. Now you know how we felt in '96

[ZAMIRZ]

Why anyone would vote in this election is beyond me, you're either voting for the dumba$$ with experience or the liar.

The funny thing about everyone who rips on GW is that they don't stop to think of what the alternative would've been......Al Gore, and I cringe at the thought of him handling a situation like 9/11. I'm not all for what GW has done, but just thinking about what Gore would've done just makes me thankful we got the lesser of two crappy candidates back in 2000.

[350HP930]

I didn't vote for gore but in retrospect I think I would have preferred him at the helm instead of bush.

[lendaddy]

350, considering you believe Bush is the second coming of Hitler and is attempting to take over the world, I would imagine you would prefer Gore. You funny

Originally posted by techweenie
As I suspected, not a single, cogent rebuttal to a single line of the original post.

A cogent retort may have occurred had there been cogent topics of discussion. Instead, you chose to spew forth the standard liberal rhetorical lies and horse crap that the DNC is supplying. Eveything you posted is laughable.

[lendaddy]

I read the rebuttal, that guy has some serious time on his hands! He did some good work, so if you really want rebuttals read your own link.

[techweenie]

"Eveything you posted is laughable."

So you didn't notice that I authored several of the lines myself based on revelations in Woodward's book, and altered and deleted others based on fairness concerns.

Of course you didn't. It seems inconceivable to people who get their political views from talk shows that somebody could think and act independently.

Again, no cogent criticism of any single point.

[turbo6bar]

Here's my rebuttal: I'm voting for GWB. I hope he gets his second term, because I feel he is the better candidate. If the Independents had a good candidate with a legitimate shot, I would vote Independent in a heartbeat. Again, if Bush is such a lousy leader, why are the Democrats struggling to hand him his a$$ on a platter?

based on revelations in Woodward's book

Now there's a credible source. Much more unbiased than any other news source. Your accusations were all Clintonesque blather. Can't rebut something that comes out of a butt.

[lendaddy]

No, I for one did not. Post which are yours and we'll give em a looksee

Anyway, have you noticed the irony of you guys loving Woodward so much? In his interviews he says he has no doubt that Bush believes every bit of what he says, always. Doesn't that shoot down all your claims of him being a liar? No soup for you

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
As I suspected, not a single, cogent rebuttal to a single line of the original post.

Somebody claims there's no "World Court" but obviously hasn't been reading much. The U.S. was a signatory to the formation of an International Criminal Court. GW Bush "unsigned" the agreement, effectively abandoning the commitment to participate, but the court was formed anyway on April 11, 2002.

Next?

Did you ever consider that if you only posted one crazy idea at a time...someone might try to rebut it. By posting many at one time, it is just too much effort...especially since most have already been discussed here.

As far as the "World Court" is concerned...if the US does not participate...effectively, it doesn't exist.

[ronin]

Originally posted by techweenie
"Eveything you posted is laughable."

So you didn't notice that I authored several of the lines myself based on revelations in Woodward's book, and altered and deleted others based on fairness concerns.

Of course you didn't. It seems inconceivable to people who get their political views from talk shows that somebody could think and act independently.

Again, no cogent criticism of any single point.

the one thing that will bring any liberal to the breaking point is when he (or she) fails in his endeavor to raise the ire of his adversaries with half-hearted attacks and weak attempts at slander. the reason why you are not getting the "rebuttals" you seek is because those that know better have decided to engage in more important things instead of wasting their time explaining away once again that which does not exist in the first place

[djmcmath]

That is good info, but what about Nader? I was under the impression that a chunk of the vote would likely go to him? Would that be undecided vote, last minute (prviously unpolled) vote? Incumbent or challenger takes the hit? I wonder if the polls are phrased "Bush v Kerry" or "Who are you planning on voting for?"

Dan

[techweenie]

"As far as the "World Court" is concerned...if the US does not participate...effectively, it doesn't exist."

This depth of ignorance is breathtaking. Here's a headline from not more than 10 days ago:

"President Bush Acknowledges Importance of World Court Ruling Regarding Mexican Foreign Nationals"

[fintstone]

Originally posted by techweenie
"As far as the "World Court" is concerned...if the US does not participate...effectively, it doesn't exist."

This depth of ignorance is breathtaking. Here's a headline from not more than 10 days ago:

"President Bush Acknowledges Importance of World Court Ruling Regarding Mexican Foreign Nationals"

Did you read the article? If you did, I am sure it said that President Bush called President Fox and talked to him about it which is all that happened. Only a liberal article making their typical stretch of the truth. How anyone could in any way construe a phone call where they don't even know what was said as acknowledging anything...much less a "World Court" agreement that out country has refused to ratify is amazing. The assume their ignorant readers cannot read well enough to get past the headline. The depth of ignorance is breathtaking.

Obviously if we refuse to ratify it....we will not abide by it's results except when it either benefits us or behooves us to politically. And why should we? The proponents of the "court" have made it clear that they would try our citizens for crimes any time they disagree with what we do in the US...ie go to war, implement the death penalty, etc..

[ronin]

to add, the hypocrisy here is that those who are always telling the US to stay out of the affairs of other sovereign nations are at the same time championing the World Court as a means to do the same to the US

anyone notice that the abbreviation for World Court is W.C.? oh, the irony

[techweenie]

Ah, good points. Thank you.

I think it's more than just the phone call, but maybe that's because it's tied to some other maneuvering on a U.N. vote that Bush wants from Fox. As you know, they have a longstanding personal relationship.

From the San Diego Tribune (sorry, I don't know if that's a 'liberal newspaper' or not):

"Fox, a strong opponent of the death penalty, has said he believes the United States will comply with the ruling.

Fox's spokesman, Agustin Gutierrez, wouldn't give more details of the conversation.

In Washington, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the presidents discussed the meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission now under way in Geneva, where Honduras has sponsored a resolution criticizing Cuba for a crackdown on dissidents and calling on the country to accept a visit by an international human rights monitor. The commission is expected to vote on the proposal later this week.

"They agreed on the importance of passing a Cuba resolution at that meeting and working together to improve the human rights situation," McClellan said.

Late last month, Mexico's lower house agreed to send a recommendation to President Vicente Fox asking that Mexico abstain from voting on the resolution."