# Bush says his finest moment was catching 7 lb. fish



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewsnew.html



> President George W Bush has said that his best moment in more than five years in office was catching a big fish in his own lake.
> 
> President Bush and his father
> President George W Bush (right) fishing with his father, the former president George Bush
> ...


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

so it wasnt when he caught a 70 kilos heavy saddam?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

no dude, that was a charade, he did that to make his friends richer than they already are...the 7.5 lb bass is authentic, what a true american hero...









ps, bush is a bitch...he should spend more time thinking about america and less time thinking about his golf swing and his fishing moments.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

wonder if that bass ever tried to kill his father







'


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> wonder if that bass ever tried to kill his father
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doubt it, although a bass they caught in the waters of Katrina in New Orleans might have..


----------



## Winkyee (Feb 17, 2003)

This might be an old video but it shows that something is seriously wrong with Bush..
Bush, 10 years ago and today


----------



## Fresh2salt (Jul 16, 2004)

Bush can eat sh*t !!!!


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Hi gang









Just a freindly







to all the Bush haters here


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

just a friendly







to you too...for supporting fascism in our beloved democracy...so...how retarded do i have to be to be a bush supporter? do you guys have to fail an IQ/common sense test?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> just a friendly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now im stupid because I support Bush? Once you grow up and actually put an effort in your college work and graduate you MIGHT get a real job making real money. Then you will see the light. Until then I cant do anything but point and laugh. This is something you must learn on your own


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

Dr.Zoidberg said:


> This might be an old video but it shows that something is seriously wrong with Bush..
> Bush, 10 years ago and today


Thanks for making a post about the President that actually had some kind of relevent substance!







Most posts about him are about as intelligent as a retarded infant gorilla, like the great insightful post "Bush can eat sh*t!"

I DID support Bush when he first came to office, and I beleive he was the best man for the job over both of his opponents. Even since he took office you can see a decline in his speaking skills. I always attributed it to being nervous with such large scale speeches, but a condition like that makes really good sense. I wonder why there hasn't been more coverage of an obvious condition like that. I think it really has effected his ability to do his job and should be treated if it could be. I think the President Bush of 2001 was a fantastic President, but over the past several years he has changed DRAMTAICALLY, in both his decision making and speeches, and I think this possible illness would explain this change. If he could run again I severely doubt I would vote for him (probably only if Kerry ran again or god forbid if Hilary ran), but I think he was a good President initially and maybe if this was treated he wouldn't be doing such a shitty job now.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

exodus, what has bush done that has had a positive affect on america?


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> exodus, what has bush done that has had a positive affect on america?


Hmmm, well besides the fact home ownership it at an all time high, our exonomy is reboundinf GREATLY, removed a tryanical dictator and beat out 2 horrible libs who want to turn my country into f*cking soup kitchen... then ya, he hasnt done anything positive.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

r1dermon said:


> exodus, what has bush done that has had a positive affect on america?


I'll try to answer that, even though you asked exodus

Once again - catching a 7 lb bass was the FINEST moment of his presidency. That's from the man's own mouth. Bush said that, not Al Franken or Michael Moore or any other liberal "Bush-hater"


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

ok, well, first of all, you want to talk about a soup kitchen? how much is that homeownership costing the american people? got the numbers? ok, here they are...

President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.

The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.

The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender.

man, talk about god damn socialism at its best...

economy has rebounded greatly, only because of a war which cost us 400billion dollars...

removed a tyranical dictator, well, it would've been GOOD, if he hadnt spent 400BILLION DOLLARS ON IT.

remember 9/11? i mean, you conservatives are the ones who always remind us about 9/11, terrorist killers, hijacked planes...etc...where the f*ck is osama? bush is too busy choking on pretzels and catching bass to worry about it i guess...but he's quick to push his own middleeast policy in the absense of osama.

now, my point isnt that he's done nothing positive, because he's done SOME things, but look at all the negatives! look at everything thats fucked up! if you want me to make you a list, say so, i really dont feel like it, but i'll do it to prove a point. the bad sh*t far outweighs the good sh*t.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

ESPMike said:


> ok, well, first of all, you want to talk about a soup kitchen? how much is that homeownership costing the american people? got the numbers? ok, here they are...
> 
> President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
> 
> ...


That's cause he is a liberal. Only he is more of a borrow-and-spend liberal than tax-and-spend liberal like the Democrats - hence the $8 billion deficit..


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> . I think the President Bush of 2001 was a fantastic President, but over the past several years he has changed DRAMTAICALLY, in both his decision making and speeches, and I think this possible illness would explain this change. I


How about that ? His approval ratings were in the high 90's in the weeks following 9/11. Now his rating is somewhere near 31 % and he went from being highly admired by all to a butt of every joke and a parodist's dream. What's more telling is that congressmen in his own party are trying to distant themselves from him and Cheney in fears of losing the midterm elections

[/quote]

Ok, I dont get what you were going for with the quote of what i said. All I said was that he was doing a great job at the start of his presidency, but that he has changed dramatically over the past few years. I think congressman are distancing themselves from him because of that drastic change he's made. I was just commenting on the video posted as to how it might attribute to the change in Bush's speech and decision making.


----------



## The Predator (Sep 28, 2005)

i see bush bumper stickers on cars still. I guess people cant get them off


----------



## oscared15 (Feb 3, 2006)

for all the bush haters, who would you rather have as president, that could do a better job than bush, he's not perfect but he's a hell of a lot better than a lot of other people


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

ESPMike said:


> . I think the President Bush of 2001 was a fantastic President, but over the past several years he has changed DRAMTAICALLY, in both his decision making and speeches, and I think this possible illness would explain this change. I


How about that ? His approval ratings were in the high 90's in the weeks following 9/11. Now his rating is somewhere near 31 % and he went from being highly admired by all to a butt of every joke and a parodist's dream. What's more telling is that congressmen in his own party are trying to distant themselves from him and Cheney in fears of losing the midterm elections

[/quote]

Ok, I dont get what you were going for with the quote of what i said. All I said was that he was doing a great job at the start of his presidency, but that he has changed dramatically over the past few years. I think congressman are distancing themselves from him because of that drastic change he's made. I was just commenting on the video posted as to how it might attribute to the change in Bush's speech and decision making.
[/quote]

Right, I was expanding on your original comment. I wasn't disagreeing with you.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> for all the bush haters, who would you rather have as president, that could do a better job than bush, he's not perfect but he's a hell of a lot better than a lot of other people wink.gif


oh really? so in your other life where john kerry/al gore/john mccain/<insert politician here> was president, none of them quite did as good of a job as bush has done?

well, im going to go with this assertion, a MONKEY with a diaper and a bottle of milk, could do a better job than george W bush has done. bush has done such a terrible job, that for someone to f*ck up as bad as him, they'd actually have to try and f*ck up. i mean, they'd have to come up with some kind of plot that's going to make america look terrible, then they'd have to execute the plot. with that said, for anyone else, they'd have to actually have a conscious realization that they're f*cking up, bush does not have that realization, that's what we call retardation, common amongst the group of clowns in the whitehouse at current. please display evidence that george bush is the man for the job, and that nobody else in the american government system could do as good as him. i'll guarantee you, that nobody in american government could've done worse...


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

VENOM said:


> i see bush bumper stickers on cars still. I guess people cant get them off


I have one on my car. I reapply super glue daily to prevent it from flying off in the wind.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> ok, well, first of all, you want to talk about a soup kitchen? how much is that homeownership costing the american people? got the numbers? ok, here they are...
> 
> President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
> 
> ...


... Its one thing to offer "ASSISTANCE" to your country men... Its a totally diffrent thing when the gov has to be there to help wipe your ass. Im sure your will be the 1st on the forum on the Hillary bandwagon. Thats cool, with me, but ill be damned is she ever gets my vote. I want to feel good about myself when I look in the mirror


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> Hi gang
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wish Bush would catch Bin Laden instead of fish.


----------



## oscar119 (Nov 26, 2005)

Fido said:


> I wish Bush would catch Bin Laden instead of fish.


Bush can't catch anything that doesn't live in water or reside on his ranch...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> ... Its one thing to offer "ASSISTANCE" to your country men... Its a totally diffrent thing when the gov has to be there to help wipe your ass.


Yeah, it's two different ways of saying the exact same thing - partisan rhetoric is a wonderful thing








Liberalism is alive and well in charge of the House of Representative, Senate and the White House.


----------



## oscar119 (Nov 26, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> That's cause he is a liberal. Only he is more of a borrow-and-spend liberal than tax-and-spend liberal like the Democrats - hence the $8 billion deficit..


Ah yes the old... "Let's not mention anything about what it's costing until it leaks out..."

Bush will go down as the all time worst presidency in history... Without a doubt in my mind..


----------



## locust (Aug 2, 2005)

keep you`re president he`s a comedy classic


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> ... Its one thing to offer "ASSISTANCE" to your country men... Its a totally diffrent thing when the gov has to be there to help wipe your ass.


Yeah, it's two different ways of saying the exact same thing - partisan rhetoric is a wonderful thing








Liberalism is alive and well in charge of the House of Representative, Senate and the White House.
[/quote]

Assisting someone and doing it for someone is two totally diffrent things.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> just a friendly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now im stupid because I support Bush? Once you grow up and actually put an effort in your college work and graduate you MIGHT get a real job making real money. Then you will see the light. Until then I cant do anything but point and laugh. This is something you must learn on your own








[/quote]

Well, I've got two degrees (about to get a third), I've had a couple 'real' jobs, plan to have more. And, yes, you are stupid for supporting the worst president in years.

Funny how the world is either Bush or Hillary to you blind pundits. Nothing like dumbing stuff down (and polarizing it) to distract from all of the issues regarding Bush's presidency.


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> . I think the President Bush of 2001 was a fantastic President, but over the past several years he has changed DRAMTAICALLY, in both his decision making and speeches, and I think this possible illness would explain this change. I


How about that ? His approval ratings were in the high 90's in the weeks following 9/11. Now his rating is somewhere near 31 % and he went from being highly admired by all to a butt of every joke and a parodist's dream. What's more telling is that congressmen in his own party are trying to distant themselves from him and Cheney in fears of losing the midterm elections

[/quote]

Ok, I dont get what you were going for with the quote of what i said. All I said was that he was doing a great job at the start of his presidency, but that he has changed dramatically over the past few years. I think congressman are distancing themselves from him because of that drastic change he's made. I was just commenting on the video posted as to how it might attribute to the change in Bush's speech and decision making.
[/quote]

Right, I was expanding on your original comment. I wasn't disagreeing with you.
[/quote]

Gotcha. Sorry I misread your original post.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

acestro said:


> just a friendly
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So now im stupid because I support Bush? Once you grow up and actually put an effort in your college work and graduate you MIGHT get a real job making real money. Then you will see the light. Until then I cant do anything but point and laugh. This is something you must learn on your own








[/quote]

Well, I've got two degrees (about to get a third), I've had a couple 'real' jobs, plan to have more. And, yes, you are stupid for supporting the worst president in years.

Funny how the world is either Bush or Hillary to you blind pundits. Nothing like dumbing stuff down (and polarizing it) to distract from all of the issues regarding Bush's presidency.
[/quote]

Well, as educated as you are, im sure you know the saying

"If your young and a republican your heartless, if your old and a liberal your brainless."

The world is Bush or Hillary? Let me dumb it down for you here. Who I vote for is not your concern. If I chose to support the Green party then so be it. If I chose to donate money to a party ,again , its not your concern


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!

you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

patriot said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


Arnt you from the UK?


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


Arnt you from the UK?
[/quote]

yeh...but we have CNN over here too


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Well, as educated as you are, im sure you know the saying
> 
> "If your young and a republican your heartless, if your old and a liberal your brainless."


"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill

Yeah, and nowhere in this quote is a reference to the current generation of fiscally irresponsible, supersized government Republicans who call themselves "conservative".


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Interesting. So what does it show when you all put Bushs' lap dog back in power?


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

patriot said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


Arnt you from the UK?
[/quote]

yeh...but we have CNN over here too
[/quote]

explains a lot.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Ron Mexico said:


> Well, as educated as you are, im sure you know the saying
> 
> "If your young and a republican your heartless, if your old and a liberal your brainless."


"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill

Yeah, and nowhere in this quote is a reference to the current generation of fiscally irresponsible, supersized government Republicans who call themselves "conservative".
[/quote]

Show me one TRUE conservative or democrat. We both know both "parties" are long long gone. 
Ya man, I agree... Bush pisses me off with him creating more bureaucracy. Never once did I say the man was a demigod.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

Xenon said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


Arnt you from the UK?
[/quote]

yeh...but we have CNN over here too
[/quote]

explains a lot.
[/quote]

go on then explain to me why bush is a good president..................take plenty of thinking time im sure you will need it


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2006)

Xenon said:


> i see bush bumper stickers on cars still. I guess people cant get them off


I have one on my car. I reapply super glue daily to prevent it from flying off in the wind.








[/quote]

Mike, you jump that fence on a thread to thread basis...how many ballots do you go through when you vote? Is there an eraser on the marking pencil?


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> i see bush bumper stickers on cars still. I guess people cant get them off


I have one on my car. I reapply super glue daily to prevent it from flying off in the wind.








[/quote]

Mike, you jump that fence on a thread to thread basis...how many ballots do you go through when you vote? Is there an eraser on the marking pencil?
[/quote]

split personality or trolling


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Well, as educated as you are, im sure you know the saying
> 
> "If your young and a republican your heartless, if your old and a liberal your brainless."


"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." - Winston Churchill

Yeah, and nowhere in this quote is a reference to the current generation of fiscally irresponsible, supersized government Republicans who call themselves "conservative".
[/quote]

Show me one TRUE conservative or democrat. We both know both "parties" are long long gone. 
Ya man, I agree... Bush pisses me off with him creating more bureaucracy. Never once did I say the man was a demigod.
[/quote]

Libertarian party seem to carry the true small government conservative agenda these days. Of course you never know what they would actually do should they actually come to power.

Here is a good blog entry about modern GOP "conservatives":



> I still have the image in my mind's eye. January 1995, and the sign behind new Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and new Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole read: "Under New Management."
> What happened? I thought these folks were conservatives. You know, smaller government, fiscal prudence. Ha! Now, there are $375 billion annual deficits, and that's with the Iraq war off budget, whatever that means. Expenditures are up 7.6 percent each of the past six years, with Medicare rising 10 percent-plus annually. And that's before Part D kicks in.
> 
> Still, citizen confidence in important federal functions is low: insecure borders, slow cancer-drug approval by Food and Drug Administration and the sorry performance of Federal Emergency Management Agency, among the areas of concern.
> ...


http://blogs.indystar.com/intouch/


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> Im sure your will be the 1st on the forum on the Hillary bandwagon. Thats cool, with me, but ill be damned is she ever gets my vote. I want to feel good about myself when I look in the mirror





> The world is Bush or Hillary? Let me dumb it down for you here. Who I vote for is not your concern. If I chose to support the Green party then so be it. If I chose to donate money to a party ,again , its not your concern


is it just me...or does anyone else see a double standard? this is typical of right-wing politics, so it should come as no surprise, just a really telling observation...i'd never vote for hillary, i like my guns.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2006)

patriot said:


> i see bush bumper stickers on cars still. I guess people cant get them off


I have one on my car. I reapply super glue daily to prevent it from flying off in the wind.








[/quote]

Mike, you jump that fence on a thread to thread basis...how many ballots do you go through when you vote? Is there an eraser on the marking pencil?
[/quote]

split personality or trolling
[/quote]

Dont you start


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> > Im sure your will be the 1st on the forum on the Hillary bandwagon. Thats cool, with me, but ill be damned is she ever gets my vote. I want to feel good about myself when I look in the mirror
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if hillary is against civillians having guns then that atleast is a step in the right direction


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> > Im sure your will be the 1st on the forum on the Hillary bandwagon. Thats cool, with me, but ill be damned is she ever gets my vote. I want to feel good about myself when I look in the mirror
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Double standard?

summary of the above quoptes

#1 I dont care who you vote for

#2 who i vote for is none of your concern

.....


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

you're a retard, you stated that you were sure i'd be on the hillary bandwagon, then said its nobody's business who you vote for...that is what you stated.

also, patriot, not to make this a gun debate, but the second amendment is an essential freedom which some people dont understand, those people include people who've never used a gun, never needed to use a gun, never owned a gun, and only have been told stories about how guns kill people. guns are not the enemy, the enemy is the enemy, gun-control is a lot better than gun ban's.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> you're a retard, you stated that you were sure i'd be on the hillary bandwagon, then said its nobody's business who you vote for...that is what you stated.
> 
> also, patriot, not to make this a gun debate, but the second amendment is an essential freedom which some people dont understand, those people include people who've never used a gun, never needed to use a gun, never owned a gun, and only have been told stories about how guns kill people. guns are not the enemy, the enemy is the enemy, gun-control is a lot better than gun ban's.


for a start mind your manners no need to be rude!!

and if hillary is against guns then good for her in my opinion im not looking for a gun debate but the US and infact the rest of the world would be a better safer place without them...point made


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

first of all, i want speaking blunt to you, but if you want me to, i dont mind...the first sentance of that entire clip you quoted was directed towards exodus.

second of all, what do you know about guns? do you know statistics of gun crime? do you know what kind of impact guns have, more importantly, what kind of an impact taking guns away would have? im not a hunter, i dont like to kill things like that, but i like to target shoot, and i love guns. its a tool. a tool for launching a projectile. it takes a criminal to misuse the tool. just like it takes a criminal to beat someone to death with a crowbar. theyre both tools, each one has an intended purpose.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> first of all, i want speaking blunt to you, but if you want me to, i dont mind...the first sentance of that entire clip you quoted was directed towards exodus.
> 
> second of all, what do you know about guns? do you know statistics of gun crime? do you know what kind of impact guns have, more importantly, what kind of an impact taking guns away would have? im not a hunter, i dont like to kill things like that, but i like to target shoot, and i love guns. its a tool. a tool for launching a projectile. it takes a criminal to misuse the tool. just like it takes a criminal to beat someone to death with a crowbar. theyre both tools, each one has an intended purpose.


this aint a gun thread so im not willing to get into this debate but should u wish to then please feel free to start a fresh thread on the subject .

and i dont care who you were talking to calling people a retard is not nice


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i'll call people whatever i see fit. exodus knows im not serious with the name calling, it just adds flare to the argument. plus i had to stab him back after the irritans comment on a different thread.

if its not a gun debate, then dont make it one...i merely stated that i wouldnt vote for hillary because she's against gun ownership, so be it, dont start a war by stating your reasons for not liking guns...you dont live in america, how could you know whats best for us? for once, post a solid argument to something...anything at all, and then maybe people will take you serious. you never ever back anything up, you merely troll.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

stop going off subject


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

remind me what the topic was patriot...gimme a hint.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> remind me what the topic was patriot...gimme a hint.


its at the top of the thread...every body else spotted it


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> go on then explain to me why bush is a good president..................take plenty of thinking time im sure you will need it


except you? im sorry, the topic was about a 7lb fish that bush caught being his greatest moment of his presidency. you lose.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

r1dermon said:


> > go on then explain to me why bush is a good president..................take plenty of thinking time im sure you will need it
> 
> 
> except you? im sorry, the topic was about a 7lb fish that bush caught being his greatest moment of his presidency. you lose.


if you say so ....im just pleased that you listened to what i told you and stopped being rude.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2006)

What about the Global Gag Rule...Bush has to be proud of that









S.O.B


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

patriot said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


yeah, the problem is that no one knows if he was elected the first time... except his brother in Florida...


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

patriot said:


> > Im sure your will be the 1st on the forum on the Hillary bandwagon. Thats cool, with me, but ill be damned is she ever gets my vote. I want to feel good about myself when I look in the mirror
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if hillary is against civillians having guns then that atleast is a step in the right direction
[/quote]

Maybe in your opinion for your country. I dont own a gun nor do I have a current desire to own a gun, but I LOVE the fact that I have every right to own a gun to defend myself with or to enjoy as a hobby or sport if I so chose. If I remember correctly we won a war in order to establish new laws, and a new society which established a lifestyle we wanted here. Im very happy with the way we set up those laws and ideals and I'd like to keep them the way they are. And anyone that thinks that gun crime numbers will change because you ban public ownership of guns is the most ignorant and naive person I've ever met.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom said:


> in my opinion your president is a liability to all of america, but i cant decide whats worse....that you initially voted him into office or the fact that you did it again!!!
> 
> you can take a horse to water but i dont suppose you can make it drink


yeah, the problem is that no one knows if he was elected the first time... except his brother in Florida...








[/quote]

sh#t happens i suppose


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> yeah, the problem is that no one knows if he was elected the first time... except his brother in Florida...


the electoral college is a system used to elect all presidents back to George Washinton. If you don't like the system think of something better and get the country behind you. till then, stop whining about a fixed election that not even the most liberal source CAN'T substantiate.



> exodus knows im not serious with the name calling, it just adds flare to the argument.


 it cheapens the argument. it makes you look less thoughtful than your opposition. it demeans you, your opponent, and the readers. be advised.



> and if hillary is against guns then good for her in my opinion im not looking for a gun debate but the US and infact the rest of the world would be a better safer place without them...point made


any world without guns isn't safe. it's a world where clubs are about to come back into fashion. if you think that people will be safer because there are no longer guns than i invite you to review european history.



> gun-control is a lot better than gun ban's.


the lesser of two evils is still evil. it MIGHT be better but "The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."



> is it just me...or does anyone else see a double standard? this is typical of right-wing politics, so it should come as no surprise


you can bash "Right Wing" politics all you want, but the double standard doesn't stop there. all politics involve a double standard. get over it so does adult life.



> go on then explain to me why bush is a good president


why do I not trash Tony Blair? because i don't live in the UK and i feel that CNN doesn't qualify me to talk about a political leader that i've never lived under. it would be nice to see the same courtesy coming from the other side of the pond.

as far as the other assorted comments about the economy, Bin Laden, Katrina (i think i saw one somewhere), and the war, here goes.

the economy and Katrina -- these two things AREN'T THE PRESIDENT'S JOB. if you actually look in the constitution about what the American people should expect from their president, you'll see that he has two jobs. to serve as the commander in cheif of the United States Military and to serve as the head of the Executive Branch of government. which essentially keeps the other two branches in check. nowhere does it say that it's the president's job to help people buy homes, wipe people's asses with wellfare, help drowning people too stupid to leave a city under a MANDATORY evacuation order, or any other such thing. the state of the economy is something still effected by events twenty years ago and the president has no legal authority to mess with it. people need to understand the function of the office of POTUS and stop making the office out as some sort of kingship. it's not.

Bin Laden and the war -- not found. get over it. pick on one thing that we havn't done. keep in mind that in the following the facts are: we've put Bin Laden's terror network out of business financially, logistically, and crippled their training, recruiting, infiltration, and aqusition ability. they are no longer major players. we've also allowed a country oppressed, brutalized, terrorized, (and living in mighty bad conditions of squalor i might add), to hold the first democratic elections in generations. the cost was great and is still rising but these people wanted to be free. any people allowed to freely choose will ALWAYS choose to raise their families in peace without having to worry about a dictator they didn't elect getting them killed or using biological or chemical weapons on them as Saddam did in the 80's killing tens of thousands of Kurds.

you might not like President Bush but who ever is elected in two years, pray that they follow through on half of what they say. the only thing the president hasn't done that was a campaign promise was to adopt a fair tax system where people pay sales tax and nothing else. that will never happen because if the US did actually do that, we wouldn't be able to fund programs that are doomed to fail like wellfare, medicare, medicade, social security, NAFTA, anti-drug campaigns, affirmative action, college loan programs, unemployment, WIC, and various other initatives that reach into MY paycheck every two weeks. i work an AVERAGE of 60 hours a week and if i'm luck i take home 60% of my pay because of my overtime. if i were to work less my take home would go up. the government takes from me according to my ability and gives to other according to their need. don't talk to me about socialism in the white house and about a president that's cut government spending more aggressively than the last three presidents.

now i'm sure that many of you are just chomping at the bit to refute all i've said here. that's what makes the internet great. all i ask is that you reply with the same respect that i've given you. i've not called anyone any names or done anything else disrespectful. if you want an honest discussion, then have at me, but otherwise just start screaming NUH UH and get over it.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

mdrs said:


> > yeah, the problem is that no one knows if he was elected the first time... except his brother in Florida...
> 
> 
> the electoral college is a system used to elect all presidents back to George Washinton. If you don't like the system think of something better and get the country behind you. till then, stop whining about a fixed election that not even the most liberal source CAN'T substantiate.
> ...


wow !! i just cant be bothered reading all that can you condense it down to less than 15 words please?

its like war and peace!!


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> wow !! i just cant be bothered reading all that can you condense it down to less than 15 words please?


you should hear me talk. when i don't have to type and check spelling and punctuation, the gloves come off.


----------



## patriot (Apr 17, 2005)

mdrs said:


> > wow !! i just cant be bothered reading all that can you condense it down to less than 15 words please?
> 
> 
> you should hear me talk. when i don't have to type and check spelling and punctuation, the gloves come off.


why dont you go for office


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2006)

mdrs said:


> > wow !! i just cant be bothered reading all that can you condense it down to less than 15 words please?
> 
> 
> you should hear me talk. when i don't have to type and check spelling and punctuation, the gloves come off.


Just wait till Twitch shows up :laugh:


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > wow !! i just cant be bothered reading all that can you condense it down to less than 15 words please?
> 
> 
> you should hear me talk. when i don't have to type and check spelling and punctuation, the gloves come off.


Just wait till Twitch shows up :laugh:
[/quote]










It really wasnt that long of a post Patriot. Each was a scentance after a quote except for his last point.

mdrs good post with some good points. I agree the constitution doesnt point out the President's responsibilities such as helping in a natural disaster, but lets face the facta that times have changed and the Presdent's responsibilities are far greater then originally stated in the constitution. Regardless, I agree with alot of your points. Im not a big fan of Bush's recent moves, but I think alot of people failt o see the good he has done over his years and office and single out the problems. In all I'm glad we went to Iraq, but I definately think the war was poorly managed and we should be out of there by now, I want the boys to come home now. I also don't fault the President for not finding Bin Laden. It WILL happen eventually, and he has done some good things in preventing future terrorist attacks here, such as the development of the Department of Homeland Security which I think was a much needed addition.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

mdrs said:


> > yeah, the problem is that no one knows if he was elected the first time... except his brother in Florida...
> 
> 
> the electoral college is a system used to elect all presidents back to George Washinton. If you don't like the system think of something better and get the country behind you. till then, stop whining about a fixed election that not even the most liberal source CAN'T substantiate.


yeah, right...
I love how people... Like you... think everything is the way it appears... and... that things cant get better.

The truth is... no one knows. You have no idea if the election was fixed or not. And I mean it is possible both times... he was never a popular president... even his first day... there were protests.

Of course, they were never aired


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

patriot, another prime example of why you shouldnt post.

mdrs, do you think that people with a history of violence should be able to go to their local wal mart and buy a gun? no background checks, no nothing like that? when i speak of gun control, im saying we NEED safety buffers, such as background checks, random inspections...etc...this is not infringing on our right, its simply being safe about it. taking a pro-active approach to gun-crime, instead of a reactive approach. that's my stance anyway. anyone who wants to take away the guns doesnt see that only the law abiding citizens will turn them in, then the criminals will have them all.

i understand that both parties share in the double standard, hypocracy role, however it seems to me that when i point out facts to republicans to refute their argument, it doesnt apply to them or their party...its obvious watching o'reilly, he'll cut someone off who's making a point against his argument. and i hate to say, the majority of people who i come into contact with who are republican, are absolutely clueless and IMO, a poor representation of any kind of political party. but its the only people i see, so what conclusions am i supposed to come to? for every smart republican there are 10 dumbasses?

i agree with the tony blair thing, i could trash on him all day, but i dont because i dont live there.

the whole thing with katrina, bush made it a national disaster, and sent in the military, so yes, any kind of f*ck up down there falls on his shoulders. hence national guard being called in.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Ex0dus said:


> nowhere does it say that it's the president's job to help people buy homes, wipe people's asses with wellfare, help drowning people too stupid to leave a city under a MANDATORY evacuation order, or any other such thing.


Yeah, nice take on the Katrina situation. A national disaster that the nation's leader doesn't have to be responsible for, right.

I also take offense (as a Louisiana resident) at the "too stupid" comment on the people of New Orleans. He wasn't asked to save people, just to help save there homes after the storm. They are still trying to rebuild here, with little federal help and much federal "f*cking-up".


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> Yeah, nice take on the Katrina situation. A national disaster that the nation's leader doesn't have to be responsible for, right.


now what should the president take the blame for? global warming? the hurricane? the tens of millions of dollars appropriated to the NO region over the last 12 years that were spent by YOUR governor for porkbelly projects? should he be blamed for the response of FEMA? no president has ever put anyone into FEMA in any capacity. its a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. or should he be blamed because he didn't teach every single of the people caught there how to swim?

should he be blamed for the governor sending the RED CROSS away from NO with a convoy of trucks and supplies while Nagin was screaming profanity over the radio about how there was no help?



> I also take offense (as a Louisiana resident) at the "too stupid" comment on the people of New Orleans. He wasn't asked to save people, just to help save there homes after the storm. They are still trying to rebuild here, with little federal help and much federal "f*cking-up".


i consider a group of people who refuse to evacuate when the government tells them disaster is immentent unwise. i consider the same group of people ungrateful when they shoot at rescue helicopers, loot the neighborhood, and kill each other. i consider them stupid when they blame anyone else for the choices they made. even without tv, radio, phone, internet, or a damn telegraph, it wasn't a mystery as to what was about to happen. they CHOSE to stay there.



> mdrs, do you think that people with a history of violence should be able to go to their local wal mart and buy a gun?


no. do you really think criminals would go to a local walmart to buy a gun if they could? supposing they do and aren't allowed, do you think that they'll decide to not commit crime because they can't get guns? to say that gun control will fix the problem of violent crime is to say that guns are the problem. people are the problem. people are also very resourceful. if you take a criminal's guns, he'll come up with another way to ply his trade. in Japan, China, North Korea, South Korea, North Vietnam, South Vietnam, and Taiwan, martial artists were criminals. the most effective hand to hand and improvised weapon combat systems in the world came out of that area.



> I love how people... Like you... think everything is the way it appears... and... that things cant get better. The truth is... no one knows. You have no idea if the election was fixed or not. And I mean it is possible both times... he was never a popular president... even his first day... there were protests.


if it's foolish to believe that things are as they seem, isn't it just as foolish to believe that things AREN'T as they seem? i think that in 6 years of a president that's "never been popular" i'd think that people would have turned up something along those lines. and as for the protests that "were never aired", why is that the government's fault? first off, why does any protest deserve news time? and in what way did the government call up the channel 5 news station and say "don't air that anti-presidential protest or we'll smack ya."? if there are liberal points out there that don't get the air time that they deserve, take it up with the media. don't blame the government because the privately owned news media doesn't air what you want.

and when did i say that things can't get better? i'm the one saying that things have gotten better.



> the whole thing with katrina, bush made it a national disaster, and sent in the military, so yes, any kind of f*ck up down there falls on his shoulders. hence national guard being called in.


can you elaborate on this? i've read this over many times and can't make any sense of what you were trying to say.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> if there are liberal points out there that don't get the air time that they deserve, take it up with the media. don't blame the government because the privately owned news media doesn't air what you want.


this is why private contributions to campaigns should be banned. parties/candidates should be supplied with tax payer money, campaign contributions f*ck sh*t up.



> can you elaborate on this? i've read this over many times and can't make any sense of what you were trying to say.


are you too narrowminded to see that nobody said katrina was bush's fault? bush's fault comes with the response, which was terrible. what i was trying to say is, you said new orleans and katrina was not bush's problem because thats not the presidents role, i said the president made it his problem when he sent the army in...being the commander and chief and all...

and yes, i do believe that if there were no background checks, criminals would have no problem obtaining a gun legally from a local wal-mart, and then going straight home and shooting their friend/neighbor or whatever following a minor dispute over a donut or the TV controls. once again, i favor limited control, meaning, mandatory background checks, waiting periods in some cases, and definately regitration of firearms.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> > if there are liberal points out there that don't get the air time that they deserve, take it up with the media. don't blame the government because the privately owned news media doesn't air what you want.
> 
> 
> this is why private contributions to campaigns should be banned. parties/candidates should be supplied with tax payer money, campaign contributions f*ck sh*t up.
> ...


right. people shouldn't be allowed to use their money to back someone they think should be president. and what tax levied on the american taxpayer should pay for campaigning? i should be expected to foot the bill for someone i don't think should be in office. sounds like increased freedom to me. and what does campaign reform have to do with the news media? if you want to make an argument, make one. don't infer things.

criminals that want to commit crimes do get the guns illegally. you seem to think that it's not possible. what about harsher punishments for those who traffic illegal firearms? or harsher punishments for those who use the guns to commit crimes. someone who's about to commit a double murder over the remote or donuts won't care about getting the gun illegally. the vast majority of people who will not own a gun without doing so legally are people who aren't going to commit a crime. i won't buy an ak-47 from the back of someone's van. but i'm not going to shoot at a cop with it either. how many criminals think to themselves "sure the two life sentances were bad but i REALLY wish that they hadn't gotten me on those gun charges."?

you can call me narrowmined all you want. you can attack me all you want if you can't come up with an arguement. that's fine. don't expect me to take you seriously. you tend to be the first one in a debate to start name calling. why is that?

the president sent in the national guard because the people wanted him to. any politician will only do what the people demand. why don't you tell me what could have been done better? why don't you tell me what you would have done?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

> right. people shouldn't be allowed to use their money to back someone they think should be president. and what tax levied on the american taxpayer should pay for campaigning? i should be expected to foot the bill for someone i don't think should be in office. sounds like increased freedom to me. and what does campaign reform have to do with the news media? if you want to make an argument, make one. don't infer things.


you should absolutely be expected to foot the bill for someone you dont believe should be in office, just like you should be expected to foot the bill for an attorney for those accused of gun crimes, who you dont think should be on the street. there's no fairness if one guy has more money than the other, more donations and contributions, thats bullshit, it drowns the other guy out, why do you think we have an electoral college? its because smaller states would never ever ever matter in a million years to anyone running for office, now, every vote counts. at some point, it gets rediculous, and im sure the american people as a whole do not want people "buying" the presidency...republicans also recieve 54% to 46% over the dems for campaign contributions. everything should be equal playing field.



> criminals that want to commit crimes do get the guns illegally. you seem to think that it's not possible. what about harsher punishments for those who traffic illegal firearms? or harsher punishments for those who use the guns to commit crimes. someone who's about to commit a double murder over the remote or donuts won't care about getting the gun illegally. the vast majority of people who will not own a gun without doing so legally are people who aren't going to commit a crime. i won't buy an ak-47 from the back of someone's van. but i'm not going to shoot at a cop with it either. how many criminals think to themselves "sure the two life sentances were bad but i REALLY wish that they hadn't gotten me on those gun charges."?


harsher penalties are fine, longer jail terms are fine, then the people are not on the streets to fail a background check, so its not as much of an issue. but you expect people to get life sentances for posessing an illegal weapon? we dont have the jailspace or the time to prosecute them all. its just not going to happen anytime soon. the fact is there are dangerous people on the street, its not hard to find a gun, but its hard enough, it would be so much easier if you could just walk into wal-mart, but a shotgun and slugs, and go home and murder your wife. its not buying the gun illegally, so you dont have to worry about undercover cops or anything...its just a good idea to keep those things out of reach of criminals.



> the president sent in the national guard because the people wanted him to. any politician will only do what the people demand. why don't you tell me what could have been done better? why don't you tell me what you would have done?


well, i'd love to tell you what i'd do, but i wasnt in president bush's situation...he's in the whitehouse for a reason, i've never been a president, so i cannot speculate about what i would've done, i can only observe what has been done, and what has been done is unsatisfactory to the majority of the american people. your argument was that it wasnt bush's problem. my argument was that bush made it his problem by sending in the national guard. can you refute this?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> > right. people shouldn't be allowed to use their money to back someone they think should be president. and what tax levied on the american taxpayer should pay for campaigning? i should be expected to foot the bill for someone i don't think should be in office. sounds like increased freedom to me. and what does campaign reform have to do with the news media? if you want to make an argument, make one. don't infer things.
> 
> 
> you should absolutely be expected to foot the bill for someone you dont believe should be in office, just like you should be expected to foot the bill for an attorney for those accused of gun crimes, who you dont think should be on the street. there's no fairness if one guy has more money than the other, more donations and contributions, thats bullshit, it drowns the other guy out, why do you think we have an electoral college? its because smaller states would never ever ever matter in a million years to anyone running for office, now, every vote counts. at some point, it gets rediculous, and im sure the american people as a whole do not want people "buying" the presidency...republicans also recieve 54% to 46% over the dems for campaign contributions. everything should be equal playing field.
> ...


fair? are you serious? that's your arguement? we have an electoral college because of the little fact that we're not a true democracy which would be a mob vote, we're an elected republic. it's a different model of government. i am totally willing to pay for lawyers in a court case since those people willingly violated a law enforced by my government. it is lunacy to say that it's the same as paying for an election. there isn't even a shred of similarity. when democrats win an election, there's no complaining of buying an election. when "rich" republicans win, it's fraud.

i don't think there should be a life in prison. if someone does something so horrible that they have no place in society, they should die. no ifs and or buts. there is no reason to support someone that our judicial system has said will never be a productive member of society. and i'm going to say something that you might not understand but i want you to think about. if you were going to commit a violent crime, would you want a gun from a store with a papertrail or would you want a gun bought with cash from someone who doesn't have to keep and inventory, keep track of all purchases for tax reasons, and will never be questioned by law enforcement because he's just a guy in a van? if you even hesitate in that decision, you're not being a good criminal.

i can refute your argument. bush sent the national guard in at the bidding of the people. that doesn't mean that he's personally responsible to the country because there were military units there. it doesn't mean that because there were military units in NO, that the entire disaster response is now on his shoulders. at MOST you could say that he's responsible for the military units there as the CIC. and you have only said that the response was terrible. you've yet to mention even one single instance of poor judgement. you can say that he did a bad job but not how. you can say that the response was poorly handled but can't mention even one thing that you would like to see done differently. do you even know what was done that you don't like. when asked to provide a different approach, you hide behind the fact that you're not the president and can't offer an different ideas. but you can offer critisisms. and with what evidence can you show me that the majority of the American people are not happy with the response. if you're going to tell me about percentages, you had better be able to back them up with facts. i don't think that you've done the research to make the arguements you're making. can you refute that?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

mdrs said:


> > Yeah, nice take on the Katrina situation. A national disaster that the nation's leader doesn't have to be responsible for, right.
> 
> 
> now what should the president take the blame for? global warming? the hurricane? the tens of millions of dollars appropriated to the NO region over the last 12 years that were spent by YOUR governor for porkbelly projects? should he be blamed for the response of FEMA? no president has ever put anyone into FEMA in any capacity. its a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. or should he be blamed because he didn't teach every single of the people caught there how to swim?
> ...


Yeah, you're pretty dumb if you think everyone in New Orleans stayed put and shot at helicopters. More like 0.0001 percent there buddy. You're missing my very clear point that people need help after the disaster. This is a HUGE port for the country and a major center of culture for this country and the levees are only barely going to be improved over last year. I never stood up for the governor or the mayor either.

You are obviously extremely insensitive to the plight of people here with your snide comments.

I'm not as one-sided and blind. There are a number of things Bush has and is doing right about this situation, but he could have done more earlier as well.

To continue being civil on my side (even though you joke about Bush teaching people of New Orleans how to swim), chew on this:



> In recent years, Bush repeatedly sought to slice the Army Corps of Engineers' funding requests to improve the levees holding back Lake Pontchartrain, which Katrina smashed through, flooding New Orleans. In 2005, Bush asked for $3.9 million, a small fraction of the request the corps made in internal administration deliberations. Under pressure from Congress, Bush ultimately agreed to spend $5.7 million. Since coming to office, Bush has essentially frozen spending on the Corps of Engineers, which is responsible for protecting the coastlines, waterways and other areas susceptible to natural disaster, at around $4.7 billion.


here's more stuff you can refute and huff and puff about as you make more unkind remarks at people suffering from natural disasters:



> As recently as July, the White House lobbied unsuccessfully against a plan to spend $1 billion over four years to rebuild coastlines and wetlands, which serve as buffers against hurricanes. More than half of that money goes to Louisiana.


Also the combining of FEMA with homeland security didn't exactly make for an efficient entity.

Remind me, who put that together?....


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Do you want to continue generalizing and make fun of this baby?

Maybe Bush should have taught her how to swim? Maybe she was shooting at helicopters?

Or, maybe money that goes to levees and wetlands is money well spent.

I see you took a good long read and left, maybe you're ashamed, maybe you're trying to dig up some other facts, or maybe (probably) you're aware that you made insensitive and wrong remarks about a noble city that did suffer directly and indirectly from the current White House.

Ready to feel even stupider?...

Your brilliant comment:



> should he be blamed for the response of FEMA? no president has ever put anyone into FEMA in any capacity.


An actual fact:



> In 2001, President George W. Bush appointed Joe M. Allbaugh as the director of FEMA


Can someone point me in the direction of one of those 'owned' smileys?....

No, I'm not done, this is a very emotional thing for people down here.



> January 2001: Bush appoints Joe Allbaugh, a crony from Texas, as head of FEMA. Allbaugh has no previous experience in disaster management.


and then...



> After less than two years at FEMA, Allbaugh announces he is leaving to start up a consulting firm that advises companies seeking to do business in Iraq. He is succeeded by his deputy and former college friend, Michael Brown, who has no previous experience in disaster management and was fired from his previous job for mismanagement.


yeah, there's more. Responses to disasters are only problematic if preparation is undermined, and it was. Sorry to give you more facts, but you did request them.



> Summer 2004: FEMA denies Louisiana's pre-disaster mitigation funding requests. Says Jefferson Parish flood zone manager Tom Rodrigue: "You would think we would get maximum consideration....This is what the grant program called for. We were more than qualified for it."
> 
> June 2004: The Army Corps of Engineers budget for levee construction in New Orleans is slashed. Jefferson Parish emergency management chiefs Walter Maestri comments: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay."
> 
> June 2005: Funding for the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is cut by a record $71.2 million. One of the hardest-hit areas is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

i'll do it for you ace...










the electoral college was created to bring EQUALITY to elections. in todays media-soaked society, we NEED a balance, campaign contributions are bullshit, you want a president, pay for him to run. you have no problem paying for a bunch of people you dont know, getting houses in bush's housing act...no problem paying for a war in iraq, which you'll never see a return on that money, no problem paying for a bunch of stupid crap that bush has set in place...yet you have a problem shelling out 1% more of your return to pay for two people to have a fair chance at exposure? thats what its all about...exposure...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

r1dermon said:


> i'll do it for you ace...


Thanks







But let me add that Bush is pushing a hefty rebuilding bill and that he was the first to demand a complete evacuation. Joking about people's plights here just isn't funny though and saying Bush isn't responsible at all for the suffering here is also wrong.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2006)

This thread is a clear example of what I think is the worst legacy Bush will leave behind: *Polarization*. Not only on a national scale, but now its happening on an international scale.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> This thread is a clear example of what I think is the worst legacy Bush will leave behind: *Polarization*.


Excellent use of coloring to illustrate your point..


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

We wont see a return from the war in Iraq? 
Have you seen what the economy is doing lately? Theres your return right there bud.

-Great depression.... WWII.... <-----


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2006)

Roman expansion = Collapse of Roman Empire...


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Roman expansion = Collapse of Roman Empire...


What one? Western, Central or Eastern OR the actual "Empire"?
Cause the collapse of the actual "Empire" is credited to Diocletian


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2006)

If Rome hadnt got greedy with its expansion, it wouldnt have been so thinned out military and economically wise.

Please explain how the fall was infact Diocletian's fault...He and his co-emperors were in power during the twilight of Rome, not during it's Golden Age.



Ron Mexico said:


> This thread is a clear example of what I think is the worst legacy Bush will leave behind: *Polarization*.


Excellent use of coloring to illustrate your point..:laugh:
[/quote]

I try :laugh:


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> If Rome hadnt got greedy with its expanded, it wouldnt have been so thinned out military and economically wise.
> 
> Please explain how the fall was infact Diocletian's fault...He and his co-emperors were in power during the twilight of Rome, not during it's Golden Age.


... You Said the "Empire"... The fall of the "Empire" was infact direct result of Diocletian. After his death the Empire was split into East and West. If you wanna really get technical, Romans didnt succumb till the 1400s when the Ottomans defeated them.








The Western empire fell in the 400s when some emperor I cant remember was forced to abduct the throne by the Germans.


----------



## oscar119 (Nov 26, 2005)

Ex0dus said:


> We wont see a return from the war in Iraq?
> Have you seen what the economy is doing lately? Theres your return right there bud.
> 
> -Great depression.... WWII.... <-----


I'd rather be in a financial slump and not have the something like 2k dead and 20k wounded americans.. A war IMO is not a well thought way to get the economy to bounce back.. Unless of course you don't give a crap about soldiers because it doesn't affect you.

That's like me loosing my money in a gambling spree, borrowing some money from a friend, buying a gun and robbing a bank to get my money back.

Sure a war is good for all the defense companys, but what about all our jobs lost to overseas, immigrants coming in. All the issues that can be voted on and fixed without anyone dying. But wait that affects big business and big business = rebuplican so we'll just let that fall to the wayside.

Bush is just a pawn in the rebuplican game, all presidents are to some extent. But Bush lets it shine through that he is just a puppet and doesn't have the actual brains to get anything done or even make a worthwhile suggestion. Rebuplicans in both past elections played the game dirty to get their guy into office. Not that both partys aren't accused of this or play up some points on issues to some degree but the rebublicans took it to a whole nother level with the florida vote and again having onlookers at polling places..


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

GT45FD3S said:


> We wont see a return from the war in Iraq?
> Have you seen what the economy is doing lately? Theres your return right there bud.
> 
> -Great depression.... WWII.... <-----


I'd rather be in a financial slump and not have the something like 2k dead and 20k wounded americans.. A war IMO is not a well thought way to get the economy to bounce back.. Unless of course you don't give a crap about soldiers because it doesn't affect you.

That's like me loosing my money in a gambling spree, borrowing some money from a friend, buying a gun and robbing a bank to get my money back.

Sure a war is good for all the defense companys, but what about all our jobs lost to overseas, immigrants coming in. All the issues that can be voted on and fixed without anyone dying. But wait that affects big business and big business = rebuplican so we'll just let that fall to the wayside.

Bush is just a pawn in the rebuplican game, all presidents are to some extent. But Bush lets it shine through that he is just a puppet and doesn't have the actual brains to get anything done or even make a worthwhile suggestion. Rebuplicans in both past elections played the game dirty to get their guy into office. Not that both partys aren't accused of this or play up some points on issues to some degree but the rebublicans took it to a whole nother level with the florida vote and again having onlookers at polling places..
[/quote]

You have no clue how this war is effecting me or my family. I have several life long buddies serving in the Middle East, I have both uncles in Iraq right now as well. 
As sadistic as it sounds, war is good for the economy in general, not just certain sectors. Low wage, low skill jobs lost overseas? Who cares. People find other jobs of they become part of the skilled sector. Like I said earlier, at 1st free trade will suck because of loss of jobs, but in the end more americans benefit from it. 
Quit crying about the election. The media has investigate and investigated. IF there was a real story behind any of that sh*t, it would be in print. In the 1st election, the re-re-recount by the AP showed Bush did indeed win Florida by substantial votes?
Ya lets talk about low down sh*t people do to win elections. You mean like Gore and his cronies trying to get abstentee ballots thrown out, knowing the large majority of them were from service men and women who typically dont vote democrat. Ya, deny our fighting men and women,real winners.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

no war will fix the economy, any thought to the contrary is just another view of the broken window falacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy



> the electoral college was created to bring EQUALITY to elections. in todays media-soaked society, we NEED a balance, campaign contributions are bullshit, you want a president, pay for him to run. you have no problem paying for a bunch of people you dont know, getting houses in bush's housing act...no problem paying for a war in iraq, which you'll never see a return on that money, no problem paying for a bunch of stupid crap that bush has set in place...yet you have a problem shelling out 1% more of your return to pay for two people to have a fair chance at exposure? thats what its all about...exposure...


the electoral college wasn't created to bring equality to elections. it was created to make votes easier to tally and to make it harder to tamper with elections. i said that we shouldn't be paying for people's houses, if you'd read my posts. and what "stupid crap" are you talking about. be specific. and i like to believe that my fellow American citizens are intellegent enough to seek out information about canidates that doesn't involve campaign sources. i like to think that people do their homework before voting. if they don't i dont see how a government sponsered tv commercial will do the trick. many would be presidents also use a lot of things like religion when running for office. i don't think the government should be paying for that. and i still have yet to hear you offer a better arguement than it's not "fair" the way it is now. i think that it's fair to let me donate my money as i see fit. i think that you want to criminalize private donations because you feel that if Kerry had more money, he'd be in the oval office now. i don't think that it has anything to do with actual right and wrong. how can you support freedom while taking basic freedoms away from people?

ace, you've given me quotes from an undisclosed source and touted them as fact. fine. where did they come from? and if you read my post, you'll see that i never said everyone in NO was shooting at rescue choppers. but some were. and did you respond to the looting or the murdering? no, you didn't. and you have yet to say why the Katrina was even a federal responsiblity much less an executive one. neither of you have. i'm waiting. call me insenitive. i've been called worse. that baby you put up a pic of would have been better served had her daddy evacuated like the government tried to do.



> This thread is a clear example of what I think is the worst legacy Bush will leave behind: Polarization. Not only on a national scale, but now its happening on an international scale.


and how is that President Bush's legacy? why is it a bad thing to believe in something. if more Americans weren't spineless existentialists, the country would be a better place.

and i left the site last night not because i had some sort of remorse for being "mean" to people who chose to endure what was coming but because i had to sleep. just wanted to clear up that cute little remark as well.

and i really do love how people who disagree with me call me narrowminded, insensitive, stupid, one sided, blind, and a few others i don't remember. i disagree with your OPINIONS people. be adults and disagree with mine without turning this into a petty name calling contest. it demeans all of us when you do.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

wait the hell up a second...how can you tell me that i support taking away freedoms if you're condoning the presidency of a man who put in place the patriot act? dont even talk to me about taking away freedoms.
donating to a party is a way to swing a vote, voting has nothing to do with who has more money, in your perfect world where everybody does their homework and researches before they vote, there would be no campaign donations, because they wouldnt sway sh*t, but the fact is, its an advertisement society, advertise your face enough, and people will eventually farmiliarise themselves with you enough that they'll just throw down a dot on a paper for no other reason than they like your commercial. trust me, that's how it works. i've spoken to people who said they just couldnt picture tipper gore in the whitehouse as first lady, thats why they voted for bush...THIS IS THE KIND OF IDIOCITY WE LIVE IN TODAY. people DONT do their homework before voting, its a fact, it will never change, people are way too high strung over paying all their bills, their filling their gas tank...etc...to take the time to research these people. the only info they have on them is from groups like moveOn and swiftvets.com. those are two of the several hundred. why the hell does bush need people from vietnam to dog on kerry's credentials? why doesnt he debate him and show him up with his ill skillz in fuzzy math. i'll tell you why, because companies pay for him to get in office so that he can push an agenda which suits THEIR needs, this is why donations are complete bullshit.

earthquake occurs, 3 million people die in america, you think bush should do
a) go work on his golf swing
b) send aid and reassure the people of the country that they're doing everything in their power to assist...
it doesnt take a genius to figure out president bush's responsibilities lie a lot further than whats said in print.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> wait the hell up a second...how can you tell me that i support taking away freedoms if you're condoning the presidency of a man who put in place the patriot act? dont even talk to me about taking away freedoms.
> donating to a party is a way to swing a vote, voting has nothing to do with who has more money, in your perfect world where everybody does their homework and researches before they vote, there would be no campaign donations, because they wouldnt sway sh*t, but the fact is, its an advertisement society, advertise your face enough, and people will eventually farmiliarise themselves with you enough that they'll just throw down a dot on a paper for no other reason than they like your commercial. trust me, that's how it works. i've spoken to people who said they just couldnt picture tipper gore in the whitehouse as first lady, thats why they voted for bush...THIS IS THE KIND OF IDIOCITY WE LIVE IN TODAY. people DONT do their homework before voting, its a fact, it will never change, people are way too high strung over paying all their bills, their filling their gas tank...etc...to take the time to research these people. the only info they have on them is from groups like moveOn and swiftvets.com. those are two of the several hundred. why the hell does bush need people from vietnam to dog on kerry's credentials? why doesnt he debate him and show him up with his ill skillz in fuzzy math. i'll tell you why, because companies pay for him to get in office so that he can push an agenda which suits THEIR needs, this is why donations are complete bullshit.
> 
> earthquake occurs, 3 million people die in america, you think bush should do
> ...


if people are so blindly led by cheap commercials and campaign flash why do you want to feed into it?  why have another government program that encourages people to be lazy and go totally on superficial BS? if you really know "how it works" why do you say that if people can't donate to a campaign then it will end corruption in politics? how will telling the American people that they don't have the right to spend their money as they wish make politicians go straight? and don't give me the patriot act. that's a distraction away from the fact that you are in favor of taking one more basic freedom away from Americans. you're telling me that the elections aren't fair because the losing side doesn't have good enough commercials so the government should give them money so they can have better commercials. i don't want to encourage commercials over actually caring enough to look into someone. and the defense of being to overworked to do research as to who will lead the free world is comical at best. life is only getting easier for the average american. that's why we have things like a national weight problem. because for generations the amount of people who don't to real WORK is increasing. and in an age where you can look up stats on via your cellphone there is NO EXCUSE for being underinformed about anything that you want to know about. there are a lot of websites other than the two you mentioned that one could do research on.

the president doesn't need to debate with Kerry. the majority of the voting body declared Kerry the loser in '04. there is no need for a debate.

as far as your earthquake scenario goes... i think that the entire thing is preposterous. i think that like any politician, he'd do as much as was easy while looking good in the eyes of the majority. whatever party affiliation, that's what public figures do.

so the President should take on more responsibility? he should have more power? the president should have more power to do more? is that what you're saying? he should unilateraly take on more power to violate the constitution and micromanage government agencies that already exist and we alreay pay for? i'm rather sure that if he were to do that, you'd be all over the power hungry dictator.


----------



## Pied (May 11, 2006)

I love the fact that everyone looks to bush as taking away american freedoms with the patriot act. Let's forget about the congressmen, and senators who signed off on it. And why shouldn't one talk to you about personal freedoms. These exchanges of ideas and disputes are what allow people to become smarter and better rounded. If you just want to hearpeople agree with you and tell you how right you are that's great, everyone likes being right but to assume that someone doesn't have a valid point of view off hand is exactly why we get no where time and again.

Donating to a party is not a way to swing a vote. It is a way to support an ideal that you believe in. Now maybe there are certain individuals that you don't want to have a say in how this country is run and you want to silence their voice by making it harder for them to give money. As for seeing someones face and becoming more attached because of the ammount you see them I give you this example. How many times have you seen bush? Do you like him more now?

It sounds like you are saying that no one does their homework before they vote. It has been my experience that people who do vote and vote consistently do their homework.

As for companies backing candidates. Name one that is backed by a large company, union (which is a type of company), or lobyist group. I will: Ross Perot.

Earthquake happens: people die, hurricane happens: people die, avalanch happens: people die, tidal wave happens: people die, giant asteroid hits the planet: people die. We look for the president to be helpful in these types of situations but shoving godlike responsibility onto any man I don't care if its Carter, Clinton, Bush, Reagan or any other man is very unfair. Yes the president has alot of power yes he should do good things with that power (duh). I've shirked on responsibility before because had I tried to take it on at that time I would have failed. I don't expect anymore from any other man.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

> ace, you've given me quotes from an undisclosed source and touted them as fact. fine. where did they come from? and if you read my post, you'll see that i never said everyone in NO was shooting at rescue choppers. but some were. and did you respond to the looting or the murdering? no, you didn't. and you have yet to say why the Katrina was even a federal responsiblity much less an executive one. neither of you have. i'm waiting. call me insenitive. i've been called worse. that baby you put up a pic of would have been better served had her daddy evacuated like the government tried to do.


You can keep on waiting and, yes, you are being called insensitive. I think the odus is on you regarding the presidential appointments and FEMA. You want facts, you get facts, and now you want to know exactly who said them, where they got their information, etc. etc. Sounds like the runaround so many people I know got from FEMA. A true waste of time. Show me who appointed the FEMA director in 2001 and I'll continue. Disprove the reallocation of funds and I'll continue.

btw, I'm just as unhappy with Blanco if that makes your pundit mind feel any better.

also, isn't it weird how bush supporters pop up out of the blue with 1 or 10 posts?







Seems like someone might have been 'recruiting'.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

I'll give you this one reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Brown

Notice the part where it says Bush appointed Brown in January 2003. Yeah, 'that' Brown...

What's the problem with admitting you were 100% wrong in saying FEMA has never had anyone appointed by the President? That they were completely different entities?

.... Because, um, you were 100% wrong...

Funny how you get upset about where the info comes from when it directly refutes the foundation of your argument. You're discredited in my view and I dont feel the interest in continuing to research your facts for you.







No one can disagree with you without doing a f*cking term paper to support their argument. Give me a break.

And what's wrong with this criticism? I'm not liberal, I can point out things Bush has done right. He finally (although very late) appointed someone with emergency experience to head FEMA (yeah, the President still appoints people to FEMA :laugh: ). He is also pushing for much money for rebuilding. I give credit where credit is due, but I'm not going to always argue against a democrat/republican or always support one either. So, so stupid.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

what congress signed off on the patriot act!? not one led by democrats...one led by republicans who were fooled into believing it was the right thing to do...

and i agree with ace, no matter what i say, its not good enough for you if i dont get down and suck bush's balls. so im done here...

ps, your argument is wrong. booya!


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

ace - about FEMA, you were right. refute the rest of what i said. i stand corrected and i do sincerely thank you for bringing that to my attention. you can call me any name you want. people in NO who didn't leave when disaster was immenent made a bad call. now they want a hand out from the federal government for what? and as far as doing research to actually support an arguemnet goes i think it's funny that you think you shouldn't. when i disagree, i show info on why so that you know i'm actually preparing for a response. i do this because a) it shows that i put thought and consideration into what i'm saying b) it shows respect for the person i'm debating with. i continue to show that respect by not calling people names when the don't agree with me. read every post i've put up, i've never personally attacked anyone. but most who disagree with me do. and I'M stupid?

r1dermon - i reply to you because you make me laugh. you have weak arguements. the only one in this thread that actually argues like an adult is ace. you can't stop yourself from resorting to name calling and vulgarity. you get anrgy because you make claims that aren't true and i find evidence and post it. could you just once respond in a way that shows any sort of respect? you mostly insult people and that makes those who agree with you look very bad.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

dude, you need to open your eyes. you've demeaned me in this thread as well, so the road goes both ways. not only that, but i can sit here and say all your points are garbage as well, just because you dont necessarily agree with my points doesnt mean that they're not good...your points suck...so there... how can you find holes in my gun control argument? you can't, so you just continue with all this babble about how its necessary to have no restrictions...go re-read and educate yourself, if you dont support my argument, you obviously have no idea what happens in real life. take care...for the last time, im done with this thread, if you feel the need to continue, please PM me.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

one more tidbit...

The Bush Administration, without ever charging him with a crime, arrested US citizen José Padilla at an airport in Chicago, held him on a naval brig in South Carolina for two years, denied him access to a lawyer and prohibited any contact with his friends and family.

Source: news.findlaw.com

this is why i dont like the patriot act, or the bush administration...you call that freedom?


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> one more tidbit...
> 
> The Bush Administration, without ever charging him with a crime, arrested US citizen José Padilla at an airport in Chicago, held him on a naval brig in South Carolina for two years, denied him access to a lawyer and prohibited any contact with his friends and family.
> 
> ...


he wasn't arrested on the order of the President. he's not being detained by the administration. he's being detained by the United States Government. the courts that have heard the case have ordered his continued imprisonment. if he's aquitted, MAYBE he'll have grounds for some sort of reparations. until then, he's a suspected terrorist the the judicial system feels should be kept in jail. you might not like the patriot act but it had nothing to do with this. it was more about a lot precedents set by other presidents like Truman.

and we're not talking about an american who gave the government no reason to be suspicious. this is a man who's been convicted of violent crimes and is known to have hung out with other suspected terrorists. AND the guy was on the end of his middle eastern vacation where he was in the wonderful locales of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Pad...ed_terrorist%29

your link didn't work, by the way. i did a search in that website's search engine to actually get to anything written about Padilla.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

I just wanted to add one more thing.










^^


----------



## Guest (May 13, 2006)

^Sheep


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

DannyBoy17 said:


> ^Sheep


^


----------



## ESPMike (Mar 23, 2005)

Im feeling kinda lazy tonight so I havent read the whole thread, but one thing that does piss me off is everyone blaming the Katrina mess on Bush. Do you people expect the man to prevent natural disasters too? I think the person who is really at fault for Katrina is the retard who decided to build a major city BELOW SEA LEVEL!







Dee Dee Deeee.


----------



## Handikapped (Nov 5, 2004)

houston we have a genius, wow bush is smart, a whole 7.5 lb bass,


----------



## CichlidAddict (Jul 1, 2005)

Handikapped said:


> houston we have a genius, wow bush is smart, a whole 7.5 lb bass,


Way to dig up a month and a half old thread genius.


----------

