# Bush Sworn In



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Its a good day to be an American.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Indeed!
Bush is the Man!


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Gordeez said:


> Indeed!
> Bush is the Man!
> [snapback]853763[/snapback]​


A man who will destroy the earth!









p.s his daughters are fuckable though


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Gordeez said:


> Indeed!
> Bush is the Man!
> [snapback]853763[/snapback]​


I'll respectfully disagree.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

acestro said:


> I'll respectfully disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well, as long as you're respectful


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

I Love Bush


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

A dark day for humanity indeed.

Enjoy your president


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Yes, the world is going to end the day America takes ACTION against its enemies rather than stepping on eggshells.... Wait... no.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Who said anything about the world ending chicken little?

And it will take a long time for the effect's of mr Bush's policy of making enemies faster than he can kill them will be realized. I'd like to say "i'll be laughing in 15 years when it happens" but truth be told it's not funny.


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

Hail to the chief!


----------



## roffles (Jan 17, 2005)

i mean, me love bush, me love anything thats give foliage to the punani area


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Four more years








Oh well, it'll end one day.....


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Four more years
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

dan-uk said:


> A man who will destroy the earth!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





elTwitcho said:


> Who said anything about the world ending chicken little?


I believe he did.


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> Four more years
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He should amend the constitution to allow pure badasses to rule for 4 terms.


----------



## Death in #'s (Apr 29, 2003)

Judazzz said:


> Four more years
> 
> 
> 
> ...










says the man that doesent even live in america








it feels good to be an american


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mori0174 said:


> I believe he did.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Exactly, haha, thank you. *Laughs at egg on face of elTwitcho*


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Death in # said:


> :rasp: says the man that doesent even live in america
> [snapback]854016[/snapback]​


But I do live on the same planet...









Mike: bad, yes, an ass, also yes, but badass???


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

Judazzz said:


> But I do live on the same planet...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a badass Jonas.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Day of celebration.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Xenon said:


> You are a badass Jonas.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I'm trying...


----------



## mrspikes (Aug 10, 2004)

yes bush all the way......l and no offense to kerry supporters but its funny seeing people having kerry stickers on their car i mean sure its freedom of expression but i mean come on he already lost hes out of the picture...


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

mrspikes said:


> yes bush all the way......l and no offense to kerry supporters but its funny seeing people having kerry stickers on their car i mean sure its freedom of expression but i mean come on he already lost hes out of the picture...:rasp:
> [snapback]854039[/snapback]​


Yeah haha I always think that's funny too. I always laugh at them because they are fighting a non-existant battle.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Maybe these stickers are hard to remove


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> Maybe these stickers are hard to remove
> [snapback]854050[/snapback]​


One of the reasons I don't put bumper stickers on my car.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

They should get a Bush 04 sticker to apply over it. Easy fix.


----------



## mrspikes (Aug 10, 2004)

User said:


> They should get a Bush 04 sticker to apply over it. Easy fix.:nod:
> [snapback]854057[/snapback]​


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Beware bush,CHINA is on your ass.They will soon be the number 1 superpower.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

If something happens to the US better start learning Chinese or Russian, all my European friends.


----------



## mrspikes (Aug 10, 2004)

ya china is taking over all of everything.........


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

User said:


> If something happens to the US better start learning Chinese or Russian, all my European friends. :rasp:
> [snapback]854077[/snapback]​


Us brits can take care of ourselfs,we proved that in WW2.What do you think the battle of britain was about.England was the only nation in europe that hitlers forces coudnt land on









p.s the last people to succesfuly invade britain was the romans.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Did you notice the :rasp: at the end of my message?


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

User said:


> Did you notice the :rasp: at the end of my message?
> [snapback]854090[/snapback]​


As you americans say (MY BAD).


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Exactly, haha, thank you. *Laughs at egg on face of elTwitcho*
> [snapback]854021[/snapback]​


I don't know what moron said because he's on ignore, so sure thing dude


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

dan-uk said:


> As you americans say (MY BAD).:laugh:
> [snapback]854096[/snapback]​












I try to stay away from China and Russia subjects, knowone wants that sh*t to spark or atleast not right now.


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

User said:


> :laugh:
> 
> I try to stay away from China and Russia subjects, knowone wants that sh*t to spark or atleast not right now.
> [snapback]854109[/snapback]​


no probs


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> I don't know what moron said because he's on ignore, so sure thing dude
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't know what I said, and say I am on ignore, yet you quote the ONE post of mine in which I am referring to you? Riiiiiiiight.


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)

mrspikes said:


> yes bush all the way......l and no offense to kerry supporters but its funny seeing people having kerry stickers on their car i mean sure its freedom of expression but i mean come on he already lost hes out of the picture...:rasp:
> [snapback]854039[/snapback]​


yea, Its funny...I try and pass em up and get in front of them...So they can view of the Bush 04











mrspikes said:


> ya china is taking over all of everything.........
> [snapback]854082[/snapback]​


cause theres *too many* of them....there Everywhere :laugh:


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Yeah China has numbers, ones of the reasons the US keeps the southern border open is to gain more population growth per year. Helps in the long run.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> You don't know what I said, and say I am on ignore, yet you quote the ONE post of mine in which I am referring to you? Riiiiiiiight.
> [snapback]854123[/snapback]​


No genius, the moron you quoted. I don't know what his comment was in refference to because he's on ignore. Not that I care anyway, hence why I ignored him in the first place.


----------



## ghostnote (Jul 21, 2004)

Xenon said:


> He should amend the constitution to allow pure badasses to rule for 4 terms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


NO
well, sure i dont care, i could figure out a way of leaving the country in 16 years. or the 11 and a half he has left.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

When I made a sarcastic comment about the end of the world in response to another post, YOU said :



elTwitcho said:


> Who said anything about the world ending chicken little?
> [snapback]853898[/snapback]​


HE pointed out this post, answering your question:



dan-uk said:


> A man who will destroy the earth!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Gordeez (Sep 21, 2003)




----------



## pittbull breeder (Jul 14, 2004)

is our tax money going to that 40 mil party he threw dumbass I hope he gets assasinated twice


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> When I made a sarcastic comment about the end of the world in response to another post, YOU said :
> HE pointed out this post, answering your question:
> [snapback]854195[/snapback]​


OMG OMG LOL ROFL OMG HAHAHA I GOT TEH BURNED SO [email protected]!#!

That's sad dude, that there's people who make it such a big deal of theirs to find nit picky sh*t like that so they can go "HAHAHA OMG EGG ON YOUR FACE OWNED!!!!". But way to go anyway, you can both sleep easy knowing that you "own" so much









Sorry to have been apart of the thread derailing everyone else


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> OMG OMG LOL ROFL OMG HAHAHA I GOT TEH BURNED SO [email protected]!#!
> 
> That's sad dude, that there's people who make it such a big deal of theirs to find nit picky sh*t like that so they can go "HAHAHA OMG EGG ON YOUR FACE OWNED!!!!". But way to go anyway, you can both sleep easy knowing that you "own" so much
> 
> ...


I really wish you could read what you just wrote and actually THINK about it... I made a sarcastic remark about the 'end of the world' because someone had previously said that. You decided to make a big deal about it, call me 'chicken little' and point out that I was dumb because nobody had said such - when they HAD! Pretty nit picky of you, if you ask me... You are accusing me of exactly what YOU DID IN THE BEGINNING! Calling me out on a stupid detail! Only difference is that you look f*cking stupid because you were wrong! So now you have to resort to more sarcasm - Nobody said anything about being 'owned'.

Grow up


----------



## Atlanta Braves Baby! (Mar 12, 2003)

May god be with us!


----------



## diddye (Feb 22, 2004)

pittbull breeder said:


> is our tax money going to that 40 mil party he threw dumbass I hope he gets assasinated twice
> [snapback]854205[/snapback]​


Well "dumbass"...its not our tax money...its privately donated funds...and if anybody cares...clintons parties cost even more.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/200501...03531-1062r.htm

"When the cost is adjusted for inflation, Mr. Clinton's second-term celebration exceeds Mr. Bush's by about 25 percent. "

"The significant majority of funding for this year's festivities, including nine officials balls, are from private donations and tickets for events held by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, a similar setup to fund raising Mr. Clinton used to underwrite his inauguration. "


----------



## roffles (Jan 17, 2005)

dan-uk said:


> Us brits can take care of ourselfs


we also have the full power of europe backing us


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> call me 'chicken little' and point out that I was dumb because nobody had said such - when they HAD! Pretty nit picky of you, if you ask me... You are accusing me of exactly what YOU DID IN THE BEGINNING! [snapback]854223[/snapback]​


Yeah except one thing, I'm not the one going "hahaha look at the egg on his face" or saying anything but a comment in passing over the slight detail, because unlike your loser ass I'm not looking for minor little details for the sole purpose of trying to making other people look stupid. In fact I never "pointed out you were dumb" at all because I've got better things to do than look for minor sh*t to jump all over like yourself and moron. The two of you make good company, both of you need to get f*cking lives









If you'd like to continue this do it in Private Message and leave the thread alone already. The entire forum isn't for you to try and slam people on minor details because you've got nothing better to contribute but pedantic greaseball lonely bitter nerd bullshit. Send me a private message or shut up


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

roffles said:


> we also have the full power of europe backing us
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As long as you (or any other country that has them) has nukes you wouldn't have to worry about being taken over by any other country. Not until one of them builds a missile defence system that would negate the concept of mutually assured destruction.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Yeah except one thing, I'm not the one going "hahaha look at the egg on his face" or saying anything but a comment in passing over the slight detail, because unlike your loser ass I'm not looking for minor little details for the sole purpose of trying to making other people look stupid. In fact I never "pointed out you were dumb" at all because I've got better things to do than look for minor sh*t to jump all over like yourself and moron. The two of you make good company, both of you need to get f*cking lives
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, and I am the "pedantic greaseball lonely bitter nerd" "loser ass" ?? If you were so concerned about me "Slamming people on minor details" on "the entire forum" then why was that post even necessary? You could have just sent IT through PM. It seems like you just want to get the last word in. The point is, you took an obvious jab at me, and I snapped right back. So cut the flame-war bullshit, grow up, quit escalating the sh*t and saying that it's all me.

Moving on...



pittbull breeder said:


> is our tax money going to that 40 mil party he threw dumbass I hope he gets assasinated twice
> [snapback]854205[/snapback]​


That's got to be the worst thing I've heard all day. This is your PRESIDENT we are talking about. I never liked Clinton but I certainly didn't wish death upon him. And no, the events are funded by private donations.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> As long as you (or any other country that has them) has nukes you wouldn't have to worry about being taken over by any other country. Not until one of them builds a missile defence system that would negate the concept of mutually assured destruction.
> [snapback]854590[/snapback]​


The US is slowly building MDS, it would also defend Canadian terrorities. Although, the shield won't be un-penetratable it would offer some protection. Infact the first missle defence test failed, doesn't that make you feel secure?











> we also have the full power of europe backing us


C'mon, you guys know the US would help if needed.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

User said:


> The US is slowly building MDS, it would also defend Canadian terrorities. Although, the shield won't be un-penetratable it would offer some protection. Infact the first missle defence test failed, doesn't that make you feel secure?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


From alot of the stuff I've seen it's almost impossible to get that thing to work and is going to be not much more than a money pit, hence why I hope Canada doesn't sign on to it. ICBMs can counter the missile defence system by simply breaking up into several pieces leaving "dummy" targets for the system to try and stop as well as the actual warhead itself. It's an awesome thought to be nuke-proof but I just don't see it being doable, and I guess it's fine for you guys who spend obscene amnounts of money on millitary research in hopes of getting one or two good ideas out of an ocean of bad ones, but sh*t our millitary barely gets enough money to put bullets in our rifles let alone to invest in something like this. Oh well, nobody would bother wasting a nuke on Canada anyway

Rigo shut the f*ck up already


----------



## WorldBelow07 (Dec 16, 2004)




----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> No genius, the moron you quoted. I don't know what his comment was in refference to because he's on ignore. Not that I care anyway, hence why I ignored him in the first place.
> [snapback]854162[/snapback]​


YES! I am so happy to be on his ignore list.























I also love my new nickname, "moron".
















enrigo, you are completely right. I have pointed out many of the stupid things he does simply because he does the SAME things to me, and that is how i ended up on the ignore list.


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> From alot of the stuff I've seen it's almost impossible to get that thing to work and is going to be not much more than a money pit, hence why I hope Canada doesn't sign on to it. ICBMs can counter the missile defence system by simply breaking up into several pieces leaving "dummy" targets for the system to try and stop as well as the actual warhead itself. It's an awesome thought to be nuke-proof but I just don't see it being doable, and I guess it's fine for you guys who spend obscene amnounts of money on millitary research in hopes of getting one or two good ideas out of an ocean of bad ones, but sh*t our millitary barely gets enough money to put bullets in our rifles let alone to invest in something like this. Oh well, nobody would bother wasting a nuke on Canada anyway
> Rigo shut the f*ck up already
> [snapback]854616[/snapback]​


Except for the last sentence, I agree with ya. While it sounds good on paper, it won't offer any real protection. The biggest threat to us is not a nuke launched from thousands of miles away, but one detonated from the ground within our borders. Spend that money on taking SERIOUS efforts to seal our borders, kick up security screening, and kick out people who are here illegally. Too bad neither party has any intention of doing those things


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> well, as long as you're respectful
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I don't have to be...







j/k









I didn't like the alternatives anyway. Oh well.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

elTwitcho said:


> As long as you (or any other country that has them) has nukes you wouldn't have to worry about being taken over by any other country. Not until one of them builds a missile defence system that would negate the concept of mutually assured destruction.
> [snapback]854590[/snapback]​


It depends on what kind of nukes. Some countries have more advanced ones than others, good point tho.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Except for the last sentence, I agree with ya. While it sounds good on paper, it won't offer any real protection. The biggest threat to us is not a nuke launched from thousands of miles away, but one detonated from the ground within our borders. Spend that money on taking SERIOUS efforts to seal our borders, kick up security screening, and kick out people who are here illegally. Too bad neither party has any intention of doing those things
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When you consider the size of the border and the sheer amount of immigrants coming in to the states (I don't think terrorists would even have to come in illegally, they could probably come in on Student Visas) I don't think it's even possible to secure the country. Honestly I think if terrorists ever do get their hands on a nuke it'd be too late to stop it from happening, which is scary as sh*t considering the poor security and corruption in Russian Nuclear Weapons storage facilities.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Enriqo_Suavez said:


> Except for the last sentence, I agree with ya. While it sounds good on paper, it won't offer any real protection. The biggest threat to us is not a nuke launched from thousands of miles away, but one detonated from the ground within our borders. Spend that money on taking SERIOUS efforts to seal our borders, kick up security screening, and kick out people who are here illegally. Too bad neither party has any intention of doing those things
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While thats true, its good to kept Russia and China in scope. IMO I don't believe any party will seal US borders until something catastrophe happens which is foolish. Its all about votes, not greater security.


----------



## the_w8 (Jul 28, 2003)

f*ck china, i really dont caRE for bush at all


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

dan-uk said:


> Us brits can take care of ourselfs,we proved that in WW2.What do you think the battle of britain was about.England was the only nation in europe that hitlers forces coudnt land on
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 reminds me of a sopranos episode, tony and crew is kicking the living hell out of this hisitic jew (forgot the reason)..but the hisitic jew is on the floor and looks up and says "my people have survived hundreds of years of you people and everyone else trying to wipe us out and we outlasted you all, tell me what ever happened to the roman empire"..tony smiles and says your looking at them


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

So anyway, back to the topic - Bush country -


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Filo said:


> It depends on what kind of nukes. Some countries have more advanced ones than others, good point tho.
> [snapback]854816[/snapback]​


Although my government doesnt admit it,i think they are using VX GAS in our nukes.After all it was the brits that ivented it


----------



## jonscilz (Dec 2, 2004)

elTwitcho said:


> Who said anything about the world ending chicken little?
> 
> And it will take a long time for the effect's of mr Bush's policy of making enemies faster than he can kill them will be realized. I'd like to say "i'll be laughing in 15 years when it happens" but truth be told it's not funny.
> [snapback]853898[/snapback]​


and were suffering the consequences of clintons bullshit policies today through our shitty economy - while everybody sits on their asses and blames bush for where the economy is they dont realize the state of the economy is a result of what happened over 5-10 years ago... learn a little about economy and politics before you go spouting your flaming liberal propaganda...


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

jonscilz said:


> and were suffering the consequences of clintons bullshit policies today through our shitty economy - while everybody sits on their asses and blames bush for where the economy is they dont realize the state of the economy is a result of what happened over 5-10 years ago... learn a little about economy and politics before you go spouting your flaming liberal propaganda...
> [snapback]855512[/snapback]​


I'm not talking about the economy or Bill Clinton you simp


----------



## jonscilz (Dec 2, 2004)

wtf is a simp anyway. youre cool


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

jonscilz said:


> wtf is a simp anyway. youre cool
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=simp

Anything else?


----------



## jonscilz (Dec 2, 2004)

yea there is... is that picture in your ava of you?


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

No


----------



## jonscilz (Dec 2, 2004)

lucky... im done


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

dan-uk said:


> Us brits can take care of ourselfs,we proved that in WW2.What do you think the battle of britain was about.England was the only nation in europe that hitlers forces coudnt land on
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Laughable. Obviously you have a 3 year olds grasp of World War Two history.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

:laugh: bush country:


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> So anyway, back to the topic - Bush country -
> 
> :nod:
> [snapback]855393[/snapback]​


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: bush country:
> [snapback]855604[/snapback]​


People like that were Democrats, but since Dems thought they weren't adequately educated so they jumped ship.









Republicans today are Democrats of the past, just read past speeches of past Democratic Presidents you'll see resemblance.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

User said:


> People like that were Democrats, but since Dems thought they weren't adequately educated so they jumped ship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...










riiiiight.. the day i see a retarded democrat in a cowboy hat is the day i will jump ship, Wesly Clark "08"


----------



## dan-uk (Oct 31, 2004)

Xenon said:


> Laughable. Obviously you have a 3 year olds grasp of World War Two history.
> [snapback]855585[/snapback]​


a 3 year olds grasp,its FACT my friend :rasp:


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Liquid said:


> :laugh: riiiiight.. the day i see a retarded democrat in a cowboy hat is the day i will jump ship, Wesly Clark "08"
> [snapback]855634[/snapback]​


You won't see any, they all switched sides which is more votes for GOP. 50 years ago democrats held the south, midwest, now they can't win sh*t there, its bad since population and electoral votes are growing there.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

User said:


> You won't see any, they all switched sides which is more votes for GOP. 50 years ago democrats held the south, midwest, now they can't win sh*t there, its bad since population and electoral votes are growing there.
> [snapback]855644[/snapback]​


if it is true that all the retards in cowboy hats switched republican,







then i am proud to be a democrat..

When I grow up, I wanna be president!


----------



## Xenon (Nov 15, 2002)

rock on W.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I f*cking love how Democratic insist they shoot themselves in the foot.









Democratic principles are certainly set high, please keep those principles and your sure to have another Republican President in 4 years. What induces this altered consciousness of red staters I'll never know, just keep it up!


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

That's nice Liquid - this kind of attitude of idiotic generalization and arrogance towards "retards" of the South or whatever is one of the greatest reason why the Democratic party lost control of the White House, Senate and the House and is now perhaps in worse shape than Colts offense was in Foxboro last weekend.

BTW, what do you think - you're some kind of great intellectual that's better than all these ******** ? Not if your spelling and grammar is any indication of your intellect


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I don't understand the consciousness that people in the South, Midwest, far north as Montana are considered retards and uneducated. This massive generalization shows ignorance and lack of intellectual ability. I guess this makes liberal democrats feel superior, when really location doesn't equal education or retardation.

I've traveled through Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisana, Texas, Oklahoma, these people aren't stupid their fun, confident and respectful.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> That's nice Liquid - this kind of attitude of idiotic generalization and arrogance towards "retards" of the South or whatever is one of the greatest reason why the Democratic party lost control of the White House, Senate and the House and is now perhaps in worse shape than Colts offense was in Foxboro last weekend.
> 
> BTW, what do you think - you're some kind of great intellectual that's better than all these ******** ? Not if your spelling and grammar is any indication of your intellect
> 
> ...


well could give two flying shits about my spelling, thought you knew that if not now you do, if it makes you feel like a man to correct my spelling







more power to you..

wesley clark is southern and i support him 150% why?? because hes not a retard in a cowboy hat, he's a realist with moe wisdom in his left pinky then the whole bush lot.. not an idiotic generalization, its a known fact bush is a retard that likes to flaunt his cowboy hat







makes him feel good..am i better then him??.. well, when my country called, i answered unlike him, so regardless of how the tv commercials with bush in a cowboy hat looking l;ike a tough guy makes you feel, if we're dealing with reality i'd say actions speak louder then words, but the sad part is 9 times out of ten, we're not dealing with real time, we're dealing with the bullshit you are so willing to eat.


----------



## elTwitcho (Jun 22, 2004)

User said:


> I don't understand the consciousness that people in the South, Midwest, far north as Montana are considered retards and uneducated. This massive generalization shows ignorance and lack of intellectual ability. I guess this makes liberal democrats feel superior, when really location doesn't equal education or retardation.
> 
> [snapback]855692[/snapback]​


Generalization showing ignorance and lack of intellectual ability? Or that location doesn't equal education? Yes it does, and it's not a generalization, it's a fact.

Mississipi

Education % 
Education less than 9th grade: 14 
Education between 9th and 12th grades: 21 
High school diploma or equivalent: 28 
Received some college - no degree: 19 
Received Associates Degree: 5 
Received Bachelors Degree: 9 
Attended graduate school: 4

Alabama

Education % 
Education less than 9th grade: 12 
Education between 9th and 12th grades: 20 
High school diploma or equivalent: 29 
Received some college - no degree: 19 
Received Associates Degree: 5 
Received Bachelors Degree: 9 
Attended graduate school: 5

Texas

Education less than 9th grade: 12 
Education between 9th and 12th grades: 16 
High school diploma or equivalent: 26 
Received some college - no degree: 23 
Received Associates Degree: 5 
Received Bachelors Degree: 13 
Attended graduate school: 6

Colorado

Education less than 9th grade: 5 
Education between 9th and 12th grades: 11 
High school diploma or equivalent: 27 
Received some college - no degree: 26 
Received Associates Degree: 7 
Received Bachelors Degree: 17 
Attended graduate school: 8

Utah

Education less than 9th grade: 3 
Education between 9th and 12th grades: 13 
High school diploma or equivalent: 27 
Received some college - no degree: 31 
Received Associates Degree: 7 
Received Bachelors Degree: 13 
Attended graduate school: 6

You're going to tell me that locality doesn't equal education based on these statistics? I never pegged you as the ultra political correct type, what's next, black people on average have the same poverty levels as white people?

Source: National Institute for Literacy

http://www.nifl.gov/


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Never said the education levels wasn't low, I'm far from being PC. I was trying to suggest that education level based on your voting party might shed light.

Mississipi 
60% Republican 40% Democrat, is the 60% education levels low? Is the 40% low in education? Or is it mixed combination?

Alabama 
63% Republican 37% Democrat, again which side would have the lowest education of the two?

Texas almost identical to the two listed above.

Georgia 
58% Republican 41% Democrat.

Montana 
59% Republican 39% Democrat

Wyoming 
69% Republican 29% Democrat

California 
54% Democrat 45% Republican, is 45% of voters in California un-educated?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Liquid said:


> well could give two flying shits about my spelling, thought you knew that if not now you do, if it makes you feel like a man to correct my spelling
> 
> 
> 
> ...


first, you are correct, normally I could care less about spelling, except this case because you're coming of like you consider yourself superior to all these ******** in red states

second, why are we talking about Bush ? what I was referring to was the generalizations you were making about entire population of red states, not just one person


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

Jewelz said:


> first, you are correct, normally I could care less about spelling, except this case because you're coming of like you consider yourself superior to all these ******** in red states
> 
> second, why are we talking about Bush ? what I was referring to was the generalizations you were making about entire population of red states, not just one person
> [snapback]855770[/snapback]​


im juggling five things at once here at home why such a slow responce...but, in my mind bush feeds to the public that he's a cowboy tough guy, dont know if its a texas thing or what, but it disgusts me when backed with some of the kind of decisions that he's made. i got nothing against ******* cowboys with common sence, sh*t i've got some close friends that are ********. but i do have something against ignorant ******** that support bush blindly just because he's a "good ol' boy" and "so called" lives by murphy's law.. its only natural for me to believe that alot of the bush vote came from this types of ignorance, while anouther large chunk came from hipocrit hard core bible goers and the other chunk came from the fear that bush fed off on in middle america..

as for the cowboy votes..the thing that dissapointed me, was you want to be and respect cowboy tough guy sh*t, go right ahead nothing wrong with a culture, im italian and its funny to me sometimes when i look at myself how it doesn't take much for me to unload some of my ghinny f*ck you up tough guy ignorance if called for, every culture has something simular to this that they're proud of..but for god sakes, why stand behind a flat out corrupt p*ssy that dodged the draft.. i would think that tough guy cowboys would be able to smell p*ssy 100 miles a way, its one thing if he was a p*ssy, but a smart p*ssy... but uhhh he's a f*cking dumb bitch







.. and as for the ignorant church goers i can understand (forgive them lord, they dont have a friggin clue)

i guess the only thing that struck me hard is a large chunk of the democratic vote, came from the fruity ass **** in america, i dunno democrats have a lot of sh*t they need to fix and one thing is to get the hell away from richard simmons..but for now wesly clark is a democrat, therefor so am i


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Liquid said:


> i guess the only thing that struck me hard is a large chunk of the democratic vote, came from the fruity ass **** in america, i dunno democrats have a lot of sh*t they need to fix and one thing is to get the hell away from richard simmons..but for now wesly clark is a democrat, therefor so am i
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Democrats sure get the gay votes.


----------



## Liquid (Aug 24, 2004)

User said:


> Democrats sure get the gay votes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 you almost converted me there :laugh: but i go where clark goes.

actually if anything im just as pissed at the democratic party as i am with bush and his administration...kerry might be a semi flake but anything is better then bush and he is a veteran which commanded my respect, but







secretly(not to cause waves amongst his own party during election) i was extremely pissed that clark was not taken more seriosly.. its too f*cking bad he wasn't given a chance especially in a time we need him the most, this country will learn the hardway..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Politics, bah! Party affiliation is just for the dogmatic in my opinion, I can't categorize myself that way. I just find Bush to be kinda unintelligent and I find the war on Iraq to be suspect (don't go on about WMD and terrorism, I'm just stating my opinion).

Kerry, however, was about as entertaining as driftwood, Gore wasn't much better. Oddly enough, I kinda liked Carter and Reagan, for different reasons. I just wonder what the real reasons are for people that are hardcore Democrat or Republican (nice, I'm challenging everyone instead of one side







).


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

I'd catergize myself as Republican on military and defense, Democrat on some social and privacy issues. I'm neither total right or left, I like some Bush policies others I can't stand. I'm more centralist and libertarian, unfortunally third parties aren't welcome.


----------



## mori0174 (Mar 31, 2004)

User said:


> I'd catergize myself as Republican on military and defense, Democrat on some social and privacy issues. I'm neither total right or left, I like some Bush policies others I can't stand. I'm more centralist and libertarian, unfortunally third parties aren't welcome.
> [snapback]856099[/snapback]​


i'd have to agree with you on that one. I cant agree completely with either side.


----------



## WolfFish (Jun 30, 2004)

i couldn't read all of this horse. I got to the bit where someone said the brits are safe or something?









America has so many f*cking nukes, we would all die. Infact ameriica could nuke the world, but its an empty threat. Plus they are destroying the planet quick enough already so they can save them to have a big dick after death.


----------



## roffles (Jan 17, 2005)

User said:


> C'mon, you guys know the US would help if needed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


of course, we are teh best friends!


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

acestro said:


> Politics, bah! Party affiliation is just for the dogmatic in my opinion, I can't categorize myself that way. I just find Bush to be kinda unintelligent and I find the war on Iraq to be suspect (don't go on about WMD and terrorism, I'm just stating my opinion).
> 
> Kerry, however, was about as entertaining as driftwood, Gore wasn't much better. Oddly enough, I kinda liked Carter and Reagan, for different reasons. I just wonder what the real reasons are for people that are hardcore Democrat or Republican (nice, I'm challenging everyone instead of one side
> 
> ...


I would rather have a lame duck in office than a war monger. BUsh was great all those months before 9/11, just sittin around, chillin...

a co-worker asked me about Bush today, and she said to me "how can so many people vote for someone who makes up the truth, and has not been honest with the public."

She went on to talk about "why didnt he testify on public TV in front of the 9-11 comission, and why did he make cartoon pictures to convince the world that Saddam had chemical mobile labs?"

I just said, well, hes DUBYA! He does what he wants and people still like him because hes an all hat no cattle cowboy. Drives a big Ford and sticks it to the EPA!


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

User said:


> I'd catergize myself as Republican on military and defense, Democrat on some social and privacy issues. I'm neither total right or left, I like some Bush policies others I can't stand. I'm more centralist and libertarian, unfortunally third parties aren't welcome.
> [snapback]856099[/snapback]​


Cool, that's an intelligent response. Kind of makes me wonder about the patriot act for the privacy issues. But why aren't third parties welcome? Seems that more choices are good (yes I'm being intentionally naive).


----------



## Enriqo_Suavez (Mar 31, 2004)

acestro said:


> Cool, that's an intelligent response. Kind of makes me wonder about the patriot act for the privacy issues. But why aren't third parties welcome? Seems that more choices are good (yes I'm being intentionally naive).
> [snapback]856162[/snapback]​


The founding fathers did not want a party system at all. And third parties aren't welcome meaning they are a threat to the republican and democrat power, so both parties team up to try and shut them out


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

To ever have centralism, centralists would have to hijack the Republican or Democratic party to have a shot.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Really though, its best Democrats stay left, Republicans stay right. Real centralists can sway it either way, which is logical.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

User said:


> Really though, its best Democrats stay left, Republicans stay right. Real centralists can sway it either way, which is logical.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


centralist=independent?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Filo said:


> centralist=independent?
> [snapback]856507[/snapback]​


More or less, Yes.


----------



## Brendan (Oct 7, 2004)

bush is the man


----------



## syd (Nov 6, 2004)

Xenon said:


> Its a good day to be an American.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a bad day not to be.


----------

