DPC Exclusive: Favorite Photos of George W Bush

09/22/2004 10:21:31 PM · #1

The Oilygarchy, in association with Have-A-Pretzel Productions

Presents

THE FAVORITE PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

The Executive Collection

Yes, you too can get your hands on these, One of a Mind, uh, I mean one of a kind, beautiful, sharp and personally picked by the President himself.

Hurry, be the first one at your stationsâ�� gas line and impress your friends that have Hummers, Expeditions and Yukons.

See where the President launders his money

See where you'll be shopping shortly after buying these prints

Oops, how did that get in here

Just 799.99 for Republicans
And 2999.99 for Democrats, Commies, Pinkos and the Loony Left.

09/22/2004 11:01:12 PM · #2

It's posts like these that give you about zero credibility with anyone besides the "looney left." It's too bad too, because sometimes it seems like there might be a sliver of intelligence in a few of your posts.

09/22/2004 11:07:06 PM · #3

SoCAl,
This post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek and not to be taken seriously. I thought it was funny, and I'm sorry you didn't see it that way, but please don't take it seriously.

MadMordegon

09/22/2004 11:09:01 PM · #4

Originally posted by SoCal69:

It's too bad too, because sometimes it seems like there might be a sliver of intelligence in a few of your posts.

Always with the insults; hey, at least the right is consistent eh?

09/22/2004 11:44:31 PM · #5

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
It's too bad too, because sometimes it seems like there might be a sliver of intelligence in a few of your posts.

Always with the insults; hey, at least the right is consistent eh?

Ah, yes, I see the usual pattern... you and Olyuzi post thread after thread, using speculation, innuendo and namecalling to bash Bush, and the minute someone comments on it, you feel you have been insulted... Puhlease... I have had enough of your and Olyuzi's self-righteous nonsense.

For the record, I insulted no one. I simply pointed out that it is these types of posts that earn you the title of "looney left." My point was that Olyuzi would have much more credibility if he focused his efforts on more meaningful posts which were directed towards real issues and political discussion. He has demonstrated in a few posts that he is capable of this, but always resorts to these childish anti-Bush posts (Notice Olyuzi, this is not an "anti-Bush policies" post as you keep claiming) that inform no one and simply create more divisiveness.

If you choose to take this as an insult, so be it, but I think if you check my prior posts, you will see that I don't use such tactics, whether aimed at another poster or at either of the candidates. I wonder if you or Olyuzi can say the same?

Message edited by author 2004-09-22 23:45:17.

Cam

Sony DSC-F717

09/22/2004 11:58:27 PM · #6

Heh, I thought it was pretty funny.

Nice job.

09/23/2004 12:04:27 AM · #7

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
It's too bad too, because sometimes it seems like there might be a sliver of intelligence in a few of your posts.

Always with the insults; hey, at least the right is consistent eh?

Ah, yes, I see the usual pattern... you and Olyuzi post thread after thread, using speculation, innuendo and namecalling to bash Bush, and the minute someone comments on it, you feel you have been insulted... Puhlease... I have had enough of your and Olyuzi's self-righteous nonsense.

For the record, I insulted no one. I simply pointed out that it is these types of posts that earn you the title of "looney left." My point was that Olyuzi would have much more credibility if he focused his efforts on more meaningful posts which were directed towards real issues and political discussion. He has demonstrated in a few posts that he is capable of this, but always resorts to these childish anti-Bush posts (Notice Olyuzi, this is not an "anti-Bush policies" post as you keep claiming) that inform no one and simply create more divisiveness.

If you choose to take this as an insult, so be it, but I think if you check my prior posts, you will see that I don't use such tactics, whether aimed at another poster or at either of the candidates. I wonder if you or Olyuzi can say the same?

***I did not take what you said as insulting, but I did sense the anger in your post. I'm sorry that you think I don't deal with the issues most of the time, I think I do. I'm sorry that you took this post way too seriously as it was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I was trying to clear the air between the left and right and make for something funny. That was my aim, but I guess you didn't take it that way. You, or any of the other conservatives could just as easily done the same thing with John Kerry or anyone else that you think deserves lampooning. That's all this was, but if you want to remain angry, that's your choice.

MadMordegon

09/23/2004 12:29:34 AM · #8

Originally posted by SoCal69:

you and Olyuzi post thread after thread, using speculation, innuendo and namecalling to bash Bush

Right, we never post anything to back up our "Bush bashing". Glad you cleared that up.

09/23/2004 12:42:18 AM · #9

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

You, or any of the other conservatives could just as easily done the same thing with John Kerry or anyone else that you think deserves lampooning. That's all this was, but if you want to remain angry, that's your choice.

First off, I am not angry. I am just pointing out the fact that the majority of the time, you do not deal with the issues. Rather, you find ways to vent your anger towards Bush by posting these types of posts. You may claim it was "meant to clear the air between the left and the right," but I don't find that to be credible given the fact that your jabs are always one sided. This one, although less hostile than others, falls right in line with your many posts in which you use namecalling and other dubious means to bash Bush and others who disagree with you. I find it interesting that despite your admission that you find Bush and Kerry to have substantially similar positions, I have never seen you make similar posts dealing with Kerry.

For the record, and as I have stated many times on these threads, my views on the issues lie across both sides of the political spectrum. I have problems with both candidates. I just find that repeated candidate bashing posts are a complete waste of bandwidth and time. Obviously, you and Mad have a different view. While I respect your right to your opinions, I find your justifications for these kinds of posts less than credible.

09/23/2004 12:43:44 AM · #10

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

Originally posted by SoCal69:
you and Olyuzi post thread after thread, using speculation, innuendo and namecalling to bash Bush

Right, we never post anything to back up our "Bush bashing". Glad you cleared that up.

Thanks for agreeing that you actually post very little of factual substance. Glad you finally see the point.

09/23/2004 01:01:59 AM · #11

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You, or any of the other conservatives could just as easily done the same thing with John Kerry or anyone else that you think deserves lampooning. That's all this was, but if you want to remain angry, that's your choice.

First off, I am not angry. I am just pointing out the fact that the majority of the time, you do not deal with the issues. Rather, you find ways to vent your anger towards Bush by posting these types of posts. You may claim it was "meant to clear the air between the left and the right," but I don't find that to be credible given the fact that your jabs are always one sided. This one, although less hostile than others, falls right in line with your many posts in which you use namecalling and other dubious means to bash Bush and others who disagree with you. I find it interesting that despite your admission that you find Bush and Kerry to have substantially similar positions, I have never seen you make similar posts dealing with Kerry.

For the record, and as I have stated many times on these threads, my views on the issues lie across both sides of the political spectrum. I have problems with both candidates. I just find that repeated candidate bashing posts are a complete waste of bandwidth and time. Obviously, you and Mad have a different view. While I respect your right to your opinions, I find your justifications for these kinds of posts less than credible.

***I honestly believe that Bush is a big threat to not just freedoms here in the US, but to life on earth as we know it. At this time I don't feel that John Kerry is that kind of threat, though I believe he needs to be watched ever so closely. George Bush comes from a family who's grandfather was a big supporter of Hitler and had his bank that was financing Hitler taken away from him under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Bush also has brothers who made money in the S&L scandal and President Bush has possibly made money through insider trading. His campaign has taken money from criminals the likes of Ken Lay of Enron fame and it's possible that he's gotten BCCI money from a third party. James Baker, close family friend and political advisor and former secretary of state is defending the Saudi government against the families of 9/11 victims and President Bush has also led us into a war that is, at best, questionable, and at worst illegal and done through deception. He's allowed terrorism to get stronger in the world, but is trying to make us believe otherwise.

I don't think John Kerry has this kind of record. He has also taken on some fights that were not only not popular, but even his own party was against him, such as he was just one of a few who was investigating the S&L scandal of the 80's where the common man, and people of this country lost billions of dollars that were not recoverable. This kind of crime happened again with Enron and other companies.

Yes, I have called GW Bush stupid and probably some other bad names. I think I can remember where the right has done thrown equally bad names around regarding some democrats. Did you ever hear the curses that Russell2563 throws around? I have been called the loony left, commie and other bad names. I haven't heard you say boo to those people.

there you go...some of the issues I've dealt with in the past and present and probably future. Can you deal?

I'm sorry if you don't like my style of communication, but I always deal with the issues. I

09/23/2004 01:07:30 AM · #12

In addition, SoCal, you seem to deal with things in strictly democrat/republican terms, just black and white. I have dealt with the issues, and have denounced the dems most of the time and have called them the same as Republicans in many instances. In the case of GW Bush though, I think he goes way too far and has pushed the envelope way to the right without regard for the welfare of the people of this country. His constituency is the corporations and make no mistake about that.

Ever since our first confrontation over Mr. Hinzman I have not heard you take on issues. You just complain and whine about me and MadMordegon. Get over it.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/23/2004 01:46:50 AM · #13

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

There's nothing to get over. You're right, you have not heard me take on the issues. The reason is that I do not wish to ram my viewpoints down everyone else's throats as you and Mad seem so eager to do repeatedly. If someone is truly interested in my opinion, I am more than happy to have a civilized discussion about my views. My posts on here are not complaints... I am merely pointing out that these types of posts do little, if anything, to inform or persuade. As such, they do you a huge disservice and really diminishes your credibility.

Why is it that Bush is so dangerous? What position does he take that is so different from Kerry's that makes him such an evil person in your mind? What ties does he personally have, what actions has he taken and what stances has he taken that are so different from John Kerry? On the flip side, what is it that Kerry has shown us that makes him a better potential leader in your mind? You know that merely claiming a candidate's acquaintances or family members have ties to one organization or another, without more, says nothing at all about the candidate. Do you truly believe that John Kerry's family and acquaintances have no dubious ties either? If you do, then you are truly naive. Come on, stop slinging mud and deal with facts.

If I have not said it before, I will go on the record now with this statement. I disagree with these candidate bashing posts whether they come from the left leaning or the right leaning posters. It just so happens that the majority are the former and so easier to respond to. I don't wish to argue with you over this, since my posts obviously have no impact on your desire to continue to post based on speculation, innuendo and name-calling. If you feel you must continue to do so, you are certainly entitled. But don't try and play it off as humor designed to "clear the air," and don't get your drawers in a bunch if someone calls you on it.

Dmaskeze

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

09/23/2004 02:27:17 AM · #14

coo... Me from UK, ME find funny, haha haha

09/23/2004 02:50:59 AM · #15

Originally posted by SoCal69:

***I guess you're above it all, SoCal, what can I say? As political rant policeman who points out who is not discussing in a civilized fashion I wonder why you haven't said anything to others who use profanity on a regular basis or the people who have flung names at me or others on the left. Now I may have called George Bush a few names, but can't remember calling others here names.

Originally posted by SoCal69:

Why is it that Bush is so dangerous? What position does he take that is so different from Kerry's that makes him such an evil person in your mind? What ties does he personally have, what actions has he taken and what stances has he taken that are so different from John Kerry? On the flip side, what is it that Kerry has shown us that makes him a better potential leader in your mind? You know that merely claiming a candidate's acquaintances or family members have ties to one organization or another, without more, says nothing at all about the candidate. Do you truly believe that John Kerry's family and acquaintances have no dubious ties either? If you do, then you are truly naive. Come on, stop slinging mud and deal with facts.

***I am dealing with facts and have stated some of them above. The S&L and BCCI scandals took place in the 80's and early 90's during the Reagan/Bush I years. I don't have to tell you that, I'm sure you know it. It is ALLEGED that Bush took part in insider trading with his company, Harken Energy. Bush is ALLEGED to have dealings with some of the BCCI crooks and has taken money from, and is close friends with Ken Lay, another white collar criminal who has walked away from Enron with 342 million dollars of his companies money while the workers of Enron went broke.

GW Bush's brothers have both walked away with S&L money from their respective institutions that eventually folded, leaving their depositors and the taxpayers of this nation to foot the bill. GHW Bush took part in Iran-Contra and selling arms to Saddam Hussein. It seems to me there is quite a bit of corruption in this family! And I do think that Prescott Bush's support for the Nazi's during WWII is very telling and is much to be concerned about. Geez, a bigger deal was made by the right for Bill Clinton's BJ from Monica.

Now I'm not saying that John Kerry is a perfect man for the job, but can you show me his corruption? He volunteered for VietNam, unlike the president, and also spoke out against the war. He also investigated the S&L scandal, despite the objections from people in his own party. So far, John Kerry has not led this country into a war that was not needed and looks to a quagmire. Can you tell me why you think that George Bush has leadership qualities after 4 miserable years of his presidency? We were attacked for the first time on our soil since WWII under his watch. We now have a Patriot Act that is taking our civil rights away. People of Arab dissent are being detained without any formal charges filed against them by the government and the country is going to go broke! We have gone from a surplus to a big deficit that promises to get bigger and bigger and bigger. Then these politicians currently in office will walk away from it all one day, much richer, and with the citizens of this country to pay the bill and shoulder the burden. They want to privatize social security and invest it!? Outrageous, is what I say.

Now, can you show me what leadership qualities George Bush has that we should vote for him come November?

My opinion is we are headed towards a totalitarian state in the US. I"m not the first one to speak out against what's going on, many have before me and they are quite worried.

Originally posted by SoCal69:

If I have not said it before, I will go on the record now with this statement. I disagree with these candidate bashing posts whether they come from the left leaning or the right leaning posters. It just so happens that the majority are the former and so easier to respond to. I don't wish to argue with you over this, since my posts obviously have no impact on your desire to continue to post based on speculation, innuendo and name-calling. If you feel you must continue to do so, you are certainly entitled. But don't try and play it off as humor designed to "clear the air," and don't get your drawers in a bunch if someone calls you on it.

***Speculation, huh? I guess George Bush was speculating on WMD's and an al Qaeda connection with Iraq. Innuendo and name calling? Start calling out some of the people on the right who have been doing it for years, such as Rush Limbaugh, Shaun Hannity. You want civilized discussion, seek out the people on the left such as Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Noam Chompsky, etc...

I also suggest that you start dealing with the issues and stop trying to be policeman unless you can do that job fairly and apply your skills equally to both sides.

09/23/2004 03:46:21 AM · #16

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Yes, many of the accusations and claims you have made as fact have been based on information that has not been verified one way or the other, or are from sources which are likely to be biased. Hence the word speculation. As for WMDs, you seem to be focused on this claim that Bush lied (knowingly misstated facts), yet you ignore much of the evidence out there that places equal blame on Congress, the UN and even John Kerry. Thus far, there is no hard conclusive evidence that Bush or anyone else knowingly misrepresented facts to Congress or to the UN. To make such absolute claims contrary to any established evidence is speculation. You can distort the facts any way you like to support your position, but if you are claiming facts, you should use facts. Let's not mention the fact that you seem to place absolutely no blame on the rest of the U.S. Government, which includes both Congress and John Kerry (as well as the U.N. and other national agencies and international organizations. But you must be right...this was strictly a Bush conspiracy and there must be no doubt that he duped the Congress, UN, and the rest of the world. Geez man, get a grip on reality.

As for name calling... I never claimed that you were insulting other members... just pointing out your penchant for posting in a particular fashion. I'm sorry you are taking this so harshly. As I said before, my intent was to point out that you have the capability of presenting valid arguments to support your point in many instances, and I for one never said I disagree with many of your positions. In fact, I try not to actually state my positions much either way because they are based on my views, beliefs and circumstances and do not really provide that much help to others. What I was trying to point out that if you want to persuade people, you are going about it the wrong way. The same is true for those that post similarly from the other perspective.

As for those in the public eye and in the media, I have no intent on calling them out... How you got to that from my post here which was directed at the people on this forum I don't quite understand.

As for Bush, again, what you are citing are, in your own words, allegations. Allegations have been made about Kerry as well. My answer is that at this point, they are allegations, and they will be given in my mind the appropriate weight based on that fact. The same is true of any allegations brought forward against Kerry. If you really want to know my opinions so badly, here they are...

I see Kerry and Bush as essentially the same candidate. Both have similar stances on most of the issues, much of which I disagree with. However, there are a few minor points which draw me over to the Bush side, since I have to pick one of the two essentially.

First and foremost... taxes. I personally am tired of paying half of my earnings to the government. Based on this, I think the choice is already made. I know you will argue that Kerry is only going to raise taxes on the rich (his claim is those that make $200k/year), yet he hasn't mentioned that one of his proposed increases to SS contributions will affect those who make significantly below $100,000. I know that you realize that the country is equally divided by these two candidates, yet you seem to think that those that don't see your point of view (half the country) are either uninformed, uninterested or naive. I assure you that is not the case. The reason the country is divided is that neither candidate has proven himself to be significantly better than the other.

I hear many of you saying that we need higher taxes to offset the record deficit. Well my answer to that is simple. The government can cut services and spending in any number of places and make an attempt to live within its means (this goes for both parties). Don't balance the deficit by making me pony up any more. I also find Bush's proposal for personal SS accounts appealing. I think it time to allow people the opportunity to take more control over their incomes.

As for the war... I never said I supported the decision to go to war, nor did I oppose it. However, I am of the opinion that, since we are there now, we must stay the course. John Kerry's timetable for withdrawal will do more harm than good. These terrorists respect only one thing, and that is strength. If we withdraw, I believe we will be paying a hefty price for a long time to come. As for the current handling of the war? I think there is too much political and diplomatic intervention. The military is in there... let them do their job the way they were trained and stop tying their hands.

Now, these are the issues that are of importance to me and the areas where the candidates actually differ on their positions. These do not revolve around whether Bush didn't complete some small part of his military service 30+ years ago, whether Kerry did or didn't deserve his medals from vietnam or whether Bush was allegedly involved in some shady business transactions or whether someone's family has ties to anyone else. I focus on the issues which are relevant to me and my family. If you and Mad want to get your panties in a bunch over these irrelevant, ancient matters because they are truly so important to you that they override other more current issues, knock yourselves out. If you truly think Kerry is any more ethical than any other politician in congress, go for it. For someone who claims to "deal with the issues," I wonder why you care so much more about Bush being AWOL or his families' ties and connections rather than more relevant current issues.

That being said, please note, I don't care whether you vote for Bush or Kerry. I have no agenda which I am trying to push on the members who read these threads. You keep asking for my opinion on the issues despite the fact that I told you I had no reason to post them. Well there they are. Now you have them. I have tried to make the simple point to you that your posting methods do nothing but draw you scorn and criticism and that you are capable of providing much more persuasive discourse if you really were interested in discussion rather than bashing.

As I said before, I am not going to argue these issues with you because such an argument will not change my mind nor will it change yours. I have stated what I think of your and mad's posts several times, since you are the two who seem to post these most often. If you choose to take offense, so be it. In the end, it is still my opinion and I am free to state it, just as you are free to ignore it.

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

09/23/2004 07:30:31 AM · #17

Why don't you 3 just use email? :D

jenesis

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/23/2004 08:04:55 AM · #18

Originally posted by jonpink:

Why don't you 3 just use email? :D

Sounds like an EXCELLENT idea to me!

Oh wait, I forgot about the "Ignore" feature... Carry on men! :-)

Message edited by author 2004-09-23 08:14:48.

mrorange002

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

09/23/2004 08:17:23 AM · #19

jonpink

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2

09/23/2004 10:33:14 AM · #20

Extremely decent political site

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

09/23/2004 11:37:55 PM · #21

09/23/2004 11:59:35 PM · #22

SoCal, just a couple of points I would like to make to your post above.
First, in politics, it's sometimes very hard to determine what the facts truly are. Part of these discussions here on DPC are arguments to ascertain the facts, if in fact (pun intended) they can be ascertained. A good deal of discussion and exposition of issues involve, both here and in the media, analysis. We each bring to these discussions, our own views and understandings of the issues (and I believe you've stated that above someplace).

These discussions may get heated, but that is because of the passions we all feel for the subjects. It's part of the territory. Again, it happens on both sides of the fence.

Secondly, any of these candidates can, and do, make whatever pronouncements they think will gain favor with the voters, and so we are left to our own analyses and judgements to ascertain how a politician/candidate is behaving, or will behave. That's where the history, and family ties, of these people come into play. While I agree with you that John Kerry probably has some skelatons hidden in his closet, right now we really don't have much in that way on him. On the other hand, it seems to me that we have a lot on Bush, and I do believe that his family and the people he surrounds himself with, and from whom he's associated with in the past and present, are good indicators of how suspect his leadership is.

That said, I will try my hardest to post with facts and not innuendo or arrogance. Thanks for the constructive criticism. I give it an 8 :)

mrorange002