# Bill Clinton Interview with Chris Wallace



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

Look at this chameleon FREAK!!!

OH BTW: LOOK AT THE BLATENT LIE about republicans telling him to not worry about Bin Laden!!!


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

Why are we still foccusing on the past? This is really old news/facts. What we need to worry about it getting Bin Laden NOW.


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

Fido The Great said:


> Why are we still foccusing on the past? This is really old news/facts. What we need to worry about it getting Bin Laden NOW.


exactly.. clinton f'd up and so has bush on teh bin laden crap.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

I think Wallace sh*t his pants !!


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

[quote name='xiiutao' post='1631610' date='Sep 25 2006, 07:52 PM']
[quote name='Fido The Great' post='1631606' date='Sep 25 2006, 06:48 PM']
Why are we still foccusing on the past? This is really old news/facts. What we need to worry about it getting Bin Laden NOW.

Who said we are focusing...It's just great to hear the truth though.Just like the "shot heard round the world" was fake ( someone in left field was signaling the catcher's signals to the bench)...off topic, but same concept...old news...but very interesting to hear and EXPOSE Clinton's physcotic pig mind.

exactly.. clinton f'd up and so has bush on teh bin laden crap.

This is clearly an ignoramous statement. How was Bush fcked up? Are you fcked up?

Wait...I didnt even notice...

How is lying on camera old news?


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

bush f'd up cause its 2006(almost 07) and where is bin laden? oh thats right running free while we deal with saddam's bs in court.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> bush f'd up cause its 2006(almost 07) and where is bin laden? oh thats right running free while we deal with saddam's bs in court.


dead? who knows

Saddam doesn't deserve to rot?


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

Louie D said:


> bush f'd up cause its 2006(almost 07) and where is bin laden? oh thats right running free while we deal with saddam's bs in court.


dead? who knows

Saddam doesn't deserve to rot?
[/quote]

yes he does, of course. But I would like some Justice for 9/11 not a war in another country with a captured leader in jail. Put bin laden in jail, and take out al qaeda, and mr. bush will be a leader to be proud of.

EDIT: if bush he thinks this torture BS, and getting hte article 3 of the Geneva convention revised(or w/e is going on).


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!

Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

BlackSunshine said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

Louie D said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

No I don't want TORTURE to be a American Policy.. We haven't needed it yet.. why start now? I didn't know that my family and I needed protection from people in jail. If we are torturing people and have been since the start of the war in iraq.. I would rather be without torture cause it isn't doing sh*t.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

No I don't want TORTURE to be a American Policy.. We haven't needed it yet.. why start now? I didn't know that my family and I needed protection from people in jail. If we are torturing people and have been since the start of the war in iraq.. I would rather be without torture cause it isn't doing sh*t.
[/quote]

INFORMATION from them....you are tiptoeing around what I am saying. You have no idea...read a paper... We have learned about 5 major planned attacks as well as many others; So don't say it doesn't do sh*t--That's because you read the NY Times


----------



## Scrappy (Oct 21, 2004)

Come on guys. Everyone knows Fox news is fair and balanced.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

....more level headed than CNN/CBS


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

HAHAHAH Thanks louie! I needed a good laugh.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

BlackSunshine said:


> HAHAHAH Thanks louie! I needed a good laugh.


wait so CNN/CBS isnt left?


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Louie D said:


> HAHAHAH Thanks louie! I needed a good laugh.


wait so CNN/CBS isnt left?
[/quote]

No.

Infact its not left enough.


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

This is what we can expect if my former party the democrats take control of the government. Word games, denials, weakness. Not the the repubs are much better.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

User said:


> HAHAHAH Thanks louie! I needed a good laugh.


wait so CNN/CBS isnt left?
[/quote]

No.

Infact its not left enough.
[/quote]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...completely wrong or not


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Louie D said:


> HAHAHAH Thanks louie! I needed a good laugh.


wait so CNN/CBS isnt left?
[/quote]

No.

Infact its not left enough.
[/quote]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion...completely wrong or not








[/quote]

What is so "left" about CNN or CBS ?

What the hell is "left" about the Democratic Party ?

The US is two-party oligarchy, both parties aren't even near "left".


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

I don't know what you're talking about because I think that Clinton came off very well considering he was blackballed and cornered into answering bullshit questions.

Let's see Bush answer questions as well and as indepth.

Pac


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

PacmanXSA said:


> I don't know what you're talking about because I think that Clinton came off very well considering he was blackballed and cornered into answering bullshit questions.
> 
> Let's see Bush answer questions as well and as indepth.
> 
> Pac


How so...half the interview was agreed to be on his BS fundraiser...the rest...whatever...how are those questions BS?

Let's see how well Bush can bullshit his way out of questions as well and in depth as a pathological liar such as Clinton can.

** fixed your question


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

hey louie leave the best president who ever lived alone man

clinton did what he hadad do to survive

he let his wife make the little mans life better and all cuz 
he was getting BJ's

look at bush 
no BJ's 
and all hes doing is killing off the little man (soldiers in iraq)

its hard to think why people like bush
if any reason hes given to go to war was true 
MAYBE
but theres no truth 
theres no end either


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

louie d I guess you would be surprised that I watch fox news eh? well i do.. ;p i'm basing waht I say from my opinions about the subject not that I read or hear about.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

People can debate all night and day whether or not we should be in Iraq - It's a matter of opinion

Personally, I hate war. If it is necc. to continue there...so be it. It is getting drawn out, I agree.

Hemi all things aside with Bush

Do you really think it is respectible for a president to be getting BJs from a fat jew girl under his table? ---To represent our country? Comon bro

LOL why do you think Hillary stayed with him??/not for him...for HER image...she wanted to get involved in politics and be viewed as a loving/understanding wife.


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

i dont care who hes getting head from 
we all cant be kennedy and marilin


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> i dont care who hes getting head from
> we all cant be kennedy and marilin


thats a side thing...How about image...you don't care how the US president is viewed by others or the nation? Should cheater and president be in the same sentence?


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

louies RICH
thats why he likes bush

hey aint it funny that bush is named bush but dont get no bush

considering were like the last country that dont have nudity on regular tv 
(janets boob shocked the nation)
i dont think other countries cared

louie im just messing with you

i dont like bush though
i do like clinton 
and i hope hillary wins 
i wanna see how much more fucked up things can get

that would be a great reality show 
Bill CLinton "the first MAN"


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

it's not with no facts.. you read... The congress is revising the article 3 of the geneva convention.. it deals with what we can or can't do to POWs... I do not want america to say it's okay to torture 'terrorist' we haven't needed it for this long why start now? Torture is torture.. no matter what side of the table you are on. I think this is just adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists.

I don't flip a coin either... I guess I mis stated what I meant.. I wasn't reading directly from a article or citing a news source.. i was just going off the top of my head..


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

Hemi said:


> it's not with no facts.. you read... The congress is revising the article 3 of the geneva convention.. it deals with what we can or can't do to POWs... I do not want america to say it's okay to torture 'terrorist' we haven't needed it for this long why start now? Torture is torture.. no matter what side of the table you are on. I think this is just adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists.
> 
> I don't flip a coin either... I guess I mis stated what I meant.. I wasn't reading directly from a article or citing a news source.. i was just going off the top of my head..


Is blairing rap music torture?


----------



## Hemi (Nov 13, 2005)

im gonna go to world---.com
and exercise im freedoms


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

no but dunking someone in water actign liek you are drowning them is. The pics from abu ghraib are


----------



## thebluyak (Apr 14, 2006)

Hemi said:


> louies RICH
> thats why he likes bush
> 
> hey aint it funny that bush is named bush but dont get no bush
> ...


sh*t id rather vote for anyone the hilarys ass. The last thing we need is another Clinton in office thats for damn sure. No I dont support Bush all that strongely either and yes Im a republican and no I dont get sh*t for the tax breaks I go to college full time and work


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

The pics from abu g. were orchastrated by a few dickheads...not the government..

Would you "act" like you were drowning someone to find out if they were planning on blowing up your house/town/city/state/country?

I would.


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

hmmm no i would call the cops.. but i know what you mean.. I am not a soldier and I don't 'technically' represent the US. but if someone in my house was going to kill my family I would do w/e is needed.

With that said, we are in a war were this seems to be our last tactic to win. We need torture to get info now, but what did we do before this? We have a battle plan and strategy for the war. Something I think this war lacked. =\


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.

Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?

Enjoy.

Pac


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> hmmm no i would call the cops.. but i know what you mean.. I am not a soldier and I don't 'technically' represent the US. but if someone in my house was going to kill my family I would do w/e is needed.
> 
> With that said, we are in a war were this seems to be our last tactic to win. We need torture to get info now, but what did we do before this? We have a battle plan and strategy for the war. Something I think this war lacked. =\


lemme ask another question

if you had to the chance to prevent 9/11...and you were chief of military defense...you would not question these terrorists??

if they didnt talk...would u let them go

you would not "torture" them...if that sissy sh*t is what you cal it


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

PacmanXSA said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.
> 
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


I'd have to agree that clintons personal life is his own, and to be a president and do what he did was terrible. But I think he left office with US being highly regarded, and I believe when bush leaves office the US will not be so honorable.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

PacmanXSA said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. *I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.
> *
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


How could you make that statement!!! " I bet"

Bush has an image of being real...straight up...not afraid to make EVERYONE happy by adapting to his situation. There's something "better" about Bush.


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

Louie D said:


> hmmm no i would call the cops.. but i know what you mean.. I am not a soldier and I don't 'technically' represent the US. but if someone in my house was going to kill my family I would do w/e is needed.
> 
> With that said, we are in a war were this seems to be our last tactic to win. We need torture to get info now, but what did we do before this? We have a battle plan and strategy for the war. Something I think this war lacked. =\


lemme ask another question

if you had to the chance to prevent 9/11...and you were chief of military defense...you would not question these terrorists??

if they didnt talk...would u let them go

you would not "torture" them...if that sissy sh*t is what you cal it
[/quote]

I don't believe everyone at these jails, and what not are terrorists. To prevent 9/11 I think bush should of did something about Bin laden before hand. Repubs susposely mocked clinton for not doing enough, and when they get in office they ignore him for 9 months, and then 9/11 happens. I believe more should of been down abuot 9/11 then what happend. I think the american people were mislead to go into iraq, being ignorant about facts or not.. it was all misleading looking back on it now. I don't point the blame for that anywhere I'm just saying we are 'stuck' in this war now, and we want to make torture tactics a good thing.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Was Clinton right ?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002



> He then told Wallace: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you've asked this question of. ... Tell the truth." Wallace replied, "Have you ever watched Fox News Sunday, sir? ... We ask plenty of questions." Clinton later stated, "[Y]ou people ask me questions you don't ask the other side," to which Wallace responded, "That is not true." In fact, in dozens of interviews over the past five years with senior Bush aides, Wallace and former host Tony Snow have repeatedly failed to ask pressing questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue Al Qaeda in the eight months prior to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- and in the years since.
> 
> Here is a list of senior Bush administration officials interviewed on Fox News Sunday since September 11, 2001. (White House press secretary Tony Snow previously hosted the program. Wallace succeeded him in December 2003.):
> 
> ...


----------



## thebluyak (Apr 14, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.
> 
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


I'd have to agree that clintons personal life is his own, and to be a president and do what he did was terrible. But I think he left office with US being highly regarded, and I believe when bush leaves office the US will not be so honorable.
[/quote]

You know what, some of the most honorable men we ever know at the time where hated and looked down on. Hero's are never popular at the current time.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

User said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. * I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it;* Clinton just got caught.
> 
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


prove it...


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Louie D said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. *I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.
> *
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


How could you make that statement!!! " I bet"

Bush has an image of being real...straight up...not afraid to make EVERYONE happy by adapting to his situation. There's something "better" about Bush.
[/quote]

That's a joke. Bush is currently the laughing stock of the world. Don't believe me? Get out of your precious U.S. for 15 minutes and check yourself into reality. Regarding the above, I didn't make a statement, I made a half-assed remark. Glad you liked it.

Pac


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

left and right is so stereotypically bull... I don't claim to be anything .. I registered as a repub.. but that was because I didn't know anything about politics .. ;p I agree that 'lefts and 'rights' have very very far out views, but to just call someone that to degrade them is retarded. ;p


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

PacmanXSA said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. *I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it; Clinton just got caught.
> *
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


How could you make that statement!!! " I bet"

Bush has an image of being real...straight up...not afraid to make EVERYONE happy by adapting to his situation. There's something "better" about Bush.
[/quote]

That's a joke. Bush is currently the laughing stock of the world. Don't believe me? Get out of your precious U.S. for 15 minutes and check yourself into reality. Regarding the above, I didn't make a statement, I made a half-assed remark. Glad you liked it.

Pac
[/quote]

Oh thats right... your not American so that gives you the right to tell us how to run our country and what we are doing wrong. God it gets old hearing you whine about the same sh*t.


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

PacmanXSA said:


> I challenge you to point out how Bush has had a better "image" than Clinton did. * I bet you most of the men in the office were doing it;* Clinton just got caught.
> 
> Bush has prepped the world for a HUGE conflict in Asia. Did Clinton?
> 
> ...


prove it...
[/quote]

JFK ;p


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Oh thats right... your not American so that gives you the right to tell us how to run our country and what we are doing wrong. God it gets old hearing you whine about the same sh*t.


Oh that's right, bypassing the U.N. and invading countries is your own affair.

Give me a break. I seriously couldn't care less, however parading Bush around as a success is a total shot to anyones credibility in any form of logical reasoning and is typically the result of media related brainwash.

Get the bleach.

Pac


----------



## xiiutao (Jan 8, 2006)

Jewelz said:


> Was Clinton right ?
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/items/200609240002
> 
> ...


_

OF COURSE they ahve been interviewed lol Fox is reaping all the benefits from this Administration cause this Administration LOVES fox. ;p

EDIT: BTW READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH IN YOUR SOURCE

"But beyond this exchange, the Fox News Sunday interviews listed above have almost entirely ignored several key questions regarding the Bush administration's efforts to pursue bin Laden and Al Qaeda."_


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

PacmanXSA said:


> Oh thats right... your not American so that gives you the right to tell us how to run our country and what we are doing wrong. God it gets old hearing you whine about the same sh*t.


Oh that's right, bypassing the U.N. and invading countries is your own affair.

Give me a break. I seriously couldn't care less, however parading Bush around as a success is a total shot to anyones credibility in any form of logical reasoning and is typically the result of media related brainwash.

Get the bleach.

Pac
[/quote]

Your damn right it is. Spare me with the UN. The UN is a crock of sh*t and by you using them in conversation just proves my point about you.


----------



## PacmanXSA (Nov 15, 2004)

Ex0dus said:


> Oh thats right... your not American so that gives you the right to tell us how to run our country and what we are doing wrong. God it gets old hearing you whine about the same sh*t.


Oh that's right, bypassing the U.N. and invading countries is your own affair.

Give me a break. I seriously couldn't care less, however parading Bush around as a success is a total shot to anyones credibility in any form of logical reasoning and is typically the result of media related brainwash.

Get the bleach.

Pac
[/quote]

Your damn right it is. Spare me with the UN. The UN is a crock of sh*t and by you using them in conversation just proves my point about you.
[/quote]

Which is what? Proof of reason and legitimacy?









Pac


----------



## Doddridge (Aug 7, 2006)

User said:


> Oh thats right... your not American so that gives you the right to tell us how to run our country and what we are doing wrong. God it gets old hearing you whine about the same sh*t.


Oh that's right, bypassing the U.N. and invading countries is your own affair.

Give me a break. I seriously couldn't care less, however parading Bush around as a success is a total shot to anyones credibility in any form of logical reasoning and is typically the result of media related brainwash.

Get the bleach.

Pac
[/quote]

Your damn right it is. Spare me with the UN. The UN is a crock of sh*t and by you using them in conversation just proves my point about you.
[/quote]

Which is what? Proof of reason and legitimacy?









Pac
[/quote]

the U.N. is a broken and corrupt system as evidenced by the congo rape scandal and oil for food payoff money. The UN has done NOTHING to help world problems, they only act like their helping so they can squeeze more money out of it. And bypassing the UN? you mean because russia and france wouldn't give their say so? but then again i wouldn't either if i had sold millions of dollars of illegal weapons to iraq either.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Louie D said:


> Do you really think it is respectible for a president to be getting BJs from a fat jew girl under his table? ---To represent our country? Comon bro


Do _you_ really think that lying to your own citizens as well as all your allies about crucial issues, that preaching democracy, morals and values while at the same time raping those principles behind everyone's backs, that starting an illegal, unjustifyable war in Iraq that claimed more American lives than 9/11 itself (not even going to talk about the civilian death count), that running a war in such an inadequate, amateurish and irrresponsible way that the entire world suffers from its drawbacks because it only lead to an increased global insecurity, that screwing over your own citizens with regularity, that not giving a shyte about the vast majority of Americans, that being ridiculed, loathed, hated and despised by just about the entire world, that being responsible for the character assasination and destruction of the credibility of your own country - do you honestly believe all that is even remotely comparable to getting a BJ in the White House (which is immoral indeed, but which hasn't killed, even injured a single human being, let alone made the world a much less safe and much more polarized place, or skullfucked America's credibility or image to death)?
If so, you really have one severly messed-up outlook on reality, dude (something which is directly correlated to the degree of support to the Bush admin).

btw: Fox News has *nothing* whatsoever to do with journalism - it's not objective, it's biased, it's not independent, it doesn't verify its sources nor the contents of what it broadcasts (how else can a news network keep broadcasting lie upon lie upon lie?) and it's giving opinions where it should stick to dishing out facts. It's a f*cking shame that in a democratic country so many actually see a steaming pile of crap such as Fox as a reliable news source, in fact as journalism - it tells us a lot, unfortunately...

btw2: those calling American politics/politicians (GOP or Dem), or American news networks left(ist), don't even have the slightest clue what 'political left' means.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

judazz and pac









I dont think most Americans have any idea how the rest of the world views Bush. But ofc they dont need to care, they are the One and Only SuperPower so GL HF!!

Just know that most Europeans view Bush as a low form of primate...


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

C0Rey said:


> I dont think most Americans have any idea how the rest of the world views Bush.


No, they do - or at least most Americans feel the same way according to his second term approval ratings. Even with his ridiculous scandal, Clinton left the office with 65 % rating.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

C0Rey said:


> judazz and pac
> 
> 
> 
> ...


it may be true that the world at large doesn't really like our president. hell, a good bit of us don't like him either. however, a good bit of europeans opinions of our president don't matter one little bit. the US rarely fields a president that the world likes. it's been the case many times in the past and it'll be the case again. most of europe didn't like clinton much either. it happens. thank God you have to vote in the US to elect our president. europe has taken its turn on all of our presidents.

as a sidenote: most americans view the european opinion of most everything as useful as the EU, UN, and a third nipple. this is also something that's been historically common since the inception of my country.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

yeah im shure alot of people in Europe will dislike any president America elects, but IMO Bush stands out.

i dont think we minded Clinton... the BJ scandal wasnt really that much of a blow to europeans.. pun intended.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

C0Rey said:


> yeah im shure alot of people in Europe will dislike any president America elects, but IMO Bush stands out.
> 
> i dont think we minded Clinton... the BJ scandal wasnt really that much of a blow to europeans.. pun intended.


sure he stands out. he's currently the only president. clinton stood out. as did most of our other presidents. and it's not like the europeans didn't laugh at clinton. hell everyone laughed at clinton. you have to agree with that.


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

Judazz before you get on your fcking high horse about the war and your obviously biased opinions about how America is handlging itself, read what WHO i was talking to about getting a BJ. It wasn't just getting a BJ...way to look over all the facts. There were tons of sexual harrassment cases filed against him because ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE AFRAID. he is a pig. We are focusing this thread on HIM ...NOT Bush...so stop continuing to derail.

AND BTW- There is no evidence at ALL that Repubs were "mocking" him to stop going after Bin Laden


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

mdrs said:


> yeah im shure alot of people in Europe will dislike any president America elects, but IMO Bush stands out.
> 
> i dont think we minded Clinton... the BJ scandal wasnt really that much of a blow to europeans.. pun intended.


sure he stands out. he's currently the only president. clinton stood out. as did most of our other presidents. and it's not like the europeans didn't laugh at clinton. hell everyone laughed at clinton. you have to agree with that.
[/quote]

yeah shure we laughed.









but we also laugh when we hear bush answer any questions ragarding well most stuff, cmon how can you take him seriously? imo hes a joke. america is not but HE is. how you re-elected him im not shure, or did you??


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Louie D said:


> Judazz before you get on your fcking high horse about the war and your obviously biased opinions about how America is handlging itself, read what WHO i was talking to about getting a BJ. It wasn't just getting a BJ...way to look over all the facts. There were tons of sexual harrassment cases filed against him because ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE AFRAID. he is a pig. We are focusing this thread on HIM ...NOT Bush...so stop continuing to derail.
> 
> AND BTW- There is no evidence at ALL that Repubs were "mocking" him to stop going after Bin Laden


not only that but i love that people always love to claim that President Bush lied to the people. one would think that since US law states all the intel documents that the president looked at congress looked at. they voted to deploy US troops and have voted to send more. and yet my president lied? this doesn't seem to make sense. to me.

and i also love that someone who doesn't live in my country has the gall to talk to me about how my country's politics work. not only do YOU not understand political theory but you also don't like to support an arguement with little things like facts. start citing references for your informed and unbiased opinions, won't you?


----------



## maddyfish (Sep 16, 2006)

xiiutao said:


> it's not with no facts.. you read... The congress is revising the article 3 of the geneva convention.. it deals with what we can or can't do to POWs... I do not want america to say it's okay to torture 'terrorist' we haven't needed it for this long why start now? Torture is torture.. no matter what side of the table you are on. I think this is just adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists.
> 
> I don't flip a coin either... I guess I mis stated what I meant.. I wasn't reading directly from a article or citing a news source.. i was just going off the top of my head..


Torture them for all we can get them dump them in the ocean. Terrorists aren't human, and don't deserve mercy, or human rights.

They ARE NOT POWs, they are terrorists. You have to be fighting uniformed in a nations' army to be a POW.

As far as adding fire for the terrorists, I'm all for setting fire to all terrorists, killing their families, killing everyone they've ever met, and destroying their homeland.


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

maddyfish said:


> it's not with no facts.. you read... The congress is revising the article 3 of the geneva convention.. it deals with what we can or can't do to POWs... I do not want america to say it's okay to torture 'terrorist' we haven't needed it for this long why start now? Torture is torture.. no matter what side of the table you are on. I think this is just adding fuel to the fire for the terrorists.
> 
> I don't flip a coin either... I guess I mis stated what I meant.. I wasn't reading directly from a article or citing a news source.. i was just going off the top of my head..


Torture them for all we can get them dump them in the ocean. Terrorists aren't human, and don't deserve mercy, or human rights.

They ARE NOT POWs, they are terrorists. You have to be fighting uniformed in a nations' army to be a POW.

*As far as adding fire for the terrorists, I'm all for setting fire to all terrorists, killing their families, killing everyone they've ever met, and destroying their homeland.*
[/quote]
im about as anti terror as anyone, but thats just retarded. starting to sound like some german dictator, what was that guys name again?


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

C0Rey said:


> Judazz before you get on your fcking high horse about the war and your obviously biased opinions about how America is handlging itself, read what WHO i was talking to about getting a BJ. It wasn't just getting a BJ...way to look over all the facts. There were tons of sexual harrassment cases filed against him because ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE AFRAID. he is a pig. We are focusing this thread on HIM ...NOT Bush...so stop continuing to derail.
> 
> AND BTW- There is no evidence at ALL that Repubs were "mocking" him to stop going after Bin Laden


not only that but i love that people always love to claim that President Bush lied to the people. one would think that since US law states all the intel documents that the president looked at congress looked at. they voted to deploy US troops and have voted to send more. and yet my president lied? this doesn't seem to make sense. to me.

and i also love that someone who doesn't live in my country has the gall to talk to me about how my country's politics work. not only do YOU not understand political theory but you also don't like to support an arguement with little things like facts. start citing references for your informed and unbiased opinions, won't you?
[/quote]


----------



## C0Rey (Jan 7, 2006)

Im not gonna engage in discussing the whole picture, but the fact you get so bent out of shape when someone criticizes or even just comments on Bush, America or not killing everyne that lives in the middle east, just shows youre realy dumb or just insecure.

thats it for me louie, you can go back to not standing me now...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

terrorist prisoners are prisoners of war. if we have a GWOT and we get prisoners, they're prisoners of war. that being said, TORTURE THE f*ck OUT OF THEM. if we have to torture 1000 terrorists to save 1 civilian, it's worth it. terrorists aren't in this for the fun. and from what i've read, we're finding that asking them nicely just doesn't quite work. maybe we should have oprah or rosie or jessie jackson ask them?

The cruelty of war makes for peace - Publius Statius



C0Rey said:


> Im not gonna engage in discussing the whole picture, but the fact you get so bent out of shape when someone criticizes or even just comments on Bush, America or not killing everyne that lives in the middle east, just shows youre realy dumb or just insecure.
> 
> thats it for me louie, you can go back to not standing me now...


if you're not going to discuss the "whole picture" what little part of it would you feel comfortable with? i can go all day.


----------



## Judazzz (Jan 13, 2003)

Louie D said:


> Judazz before you get on your fcking high horse about the war and your obviously biased opinions about how America is handlging itself, read what WHO i was talking to about getting a BJ. It wasn't just getting a BJ...way to look over all the facts. There were tons of sexual harrassment cases filed against him because ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE AFRAID. he is a pig. We are focusing this thread on HIM ...NOT Bush...so stop continuing to derail.


Yeah, I'm biased indeed, and you wanna know why? Because that mentally challenged f*ck-up you call your president is also screwing up _my_ planet (and don't nag about sources: they're all over the place, and if you don't see them, you choose to do so). Whatever he's doing to his own people I couldn't care less about - after all, you elected that fool into office, and if you wanna play with fire, you gotta be prepared to get burned (and damn you are). But what he does outside of his national borders, what affects the planet I live on in a negative way (and there's plenty), yeah, that pisses me off.
And biased or not, all the things I mentioned are facts - read an objective, actual piece of journalism for a change, and you'd see









mdrs: you wonder why I have the 'gall' to talk about your politics? The same reason you think you have the right to judge anything non-American. And also because your politics affect the planet I live on. His decisions have impact on where I live, so that entitles me to an opinion (just like it entitles anyone else to an opinion). If you don't like it, fence off your country, put a roof on top of it, and STFU








Oh, and don't nag about sources: they're alll around, in news papers, web sites, news broadcasts - abundant like flies on crap. If you are unable to find them, so be it...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> mdrs: you wonder why I have the 'gall' to talk about your politics? The same reason you think you have the right to judge anything non-American. And also because your politics affect the planet I live on. His decisions have impact on where I live, so that entitles me to an opinion (just like it entitles anyone else to an opinion). If you don't like it, fence off your country, put a roof on top of it, and STFU
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh i don't wonder why you have gall. i expect it. you are ignorant of history, global relations, and political theory. but you have good intentions. go pave the road to hell with them.

and i can't find your resources because you say things like "fox news doesn't validate sources" and yet you CAN'T back that up with hard data. i can't find your sources because you never seem to have any, friend. i know there are a lot of resources out there to be read and interpreted and reused. i was just wondering if you're so informed why YOU don't use them.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

"Terrorist" depends on point of view...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon. the difference beween terror and guerilla tactics are that guerilla tactics are aimed at military personell. the cole was an act of war. the bombings in tanzania, london, kenya, new york, and others were terror attacks.

"Terrorist attacks" are usually characterized as "indiscriminate", "targeting of civilians" or executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" is often used to assert that the political violence of an enemy is immoral, wanton and unjustified. According to the most common definition of terrorism typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts and non-governmental organizations, "terrorists" are actors who don't belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't adhere to the laws of war and who are, therefore, regarded as "rogue actors".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

I understand what terrorist means... but it depends on "who" is targetted.

I would imagine that there are Sunnis that think the US is a large terrorist group. Considering that Iraq wasnt friendly to terrorists... as was once a popular argument for going to war with Iraq...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom said:


> I understand what terrorist means... but it depends on "who" is targetted.
> 
> I would imagine that there are Sunnis that think the US is a large terrorist group. Considering that Iraq wasnt friendly to terrorists... as was once a popular argument for going to war with Iraq...


they could think that but they'd be wrong. not only does the US not target civilians to instill fear in the public. so even though they have a different point of view, it's wrong.

i wasn't quoting that because i didn't think you knew what a terrorist was. i quoted that because it helped illustrate the mutually exclusive difference beween terrorist and guerilla. civilians are the key. anyone who differs with that has a lot of walls to break down.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

mdrs said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon.
[/quote]

*cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*

Sorry, still sick









Haha "lefty this, pig that". It never gets old.

Looks like Judazzz already won this thread, though.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
[/quote]

*cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*

Sorry, still sick









Haha "lefty this, pig that". It never gets old.

Looks like Judazzz already won this thread, though.








[/quote]

sure did the same way you usually do. he spouted some uninformed, unsubstantiated rhetoric and stopped replying. tell me where the Bush administration targets civilians and not military. show me one single instance in print where the military was ordered to gun down, bomb, or otherwise kill normal everyday people.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

mdrs said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
[/quote]

*cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*

Sorry, still sick









Haha "lefty this, pig that". It never gets old.

Looks like Judazzz already won this thread, though.








[/quote]

sure did the same way you usually do. he spouted some uninformed, unsubstantiated rhetoric and stopped replying. tell me where the Bush administration targets civilians and not military. show me one single instance in print where the military was ordered to gun down, bomb, or otherwise kill normal everyday people.
[/quote]

Im sorry he cant be on the site 24/7 to reply to your post within 15 minutes.

BTW, the Bush Admin comment was clearly bait, silly Republicans get bent all out of shape.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
[/quote]

*cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*

Sorry, still sick









Haha "lefty this, pig that". It never gets old.

Looks like Judazzz already won this thread, though.








[/quote]

sure did the same way you usually do. he spouted some uninformed, unsubstantiated rhetoric and stopped replying. tell me where the Bush administration targets civilians and not military. show me one single instance in print where the military was ordered to gun down, bomb, or otherwise kill normal everyday people.
[/quote]

Im sorry he cant be on the site 24/7 to reply to your post within 15 minutes.

BTW, the Bush Admin comment was clearly bait, silly Republicans get bent all out of shape.
[/quote]

same as usual. you're good at making an arguement, you really are. i dig that about you. why don't you do it? you say it was only bait so you don't have to defend it. you express how "typical" it is when someone attacks you but you're cool with baiting people into a discussion you can't back up. i understand he can't be on the site and don't need you to defend him. but he did make a couple comments and stop posting so i'm curious as to how he won.

but you won't reply to this. you might post something but i've noticed in every thread you and i post in that you largely ignore what i say and take on the points you can spout pacifist ideals at. stick around and go back and forth with me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

mdrs said:


> "Terrorist" depends on point of view...


a terrorist is a person who for whatever reason uses terror as a primary weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
[/quote]

*cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*

Sorry, still sick









Haha "lefty this, pig that". It never gets old.

Looks like Judazzz already won this thread, though.








[/quote]

sure did the same way you usually do. he spouted some uninformed, unsubstantiated rhetoric and stopped replying. tell me where the Bush administration targets civilians and not military. show me one single instance in print where the military was ordered to gun down, bomb, or otherwise kill normal everyday people.
[/quote]

Im sorry he cant be on the site 24/7 to reply to your post within 15 minutes.

BTW, the Bush Admin comment was clearly bait, silly Republicans get bent all out of shape.
[/quote]

same as usual. you're good at making an arguement, you really are. i dig that about you. why don't you do it? you say it was only bait so you don't have to defend it. you express how "typical" it is when someone attacks you but you're cool with baiting people into a discussion you can't back up. i understand he can't be on the site and don't need you to defend him. but he did make a couple comments and stop posting so i'm curious as to how he won.

but you won't reply to this. you might post something but i've noticed in every thread you and i post in that you largely ignore what i say and take on the points you can spout pacifist ideals at. stick around and go back and forth with me.
[/quote]

Im not sure exactly what you are trying to argue here :laugh: You are just throwing out little attacks. Partly for that reason, I sometimes ignore what you say. To be honest, most the time Im going at it with Scrap or if Im lucky, Fargo (always interesting, very smart guy) and will skim through until Im back oin track for my own argument. Sorry if Im ignoring you, but these threads sometimes go for 20+ pages and I have school and work everyday.

So, for this post, I will attempt to rebuttle some of the insinuations you made.

About the bait. I said what I said as a JOKE because people consider me a HIPPY on this site, and stereotypically, this is what a hippy would say. I actually said it to try and lighten things up even if it meant I was the one getting laughed at. Obviously the Bush Admin arent terrorists, atleast not by the global definition. They may be a lot of things, but I dont think they would be so bold (whether they want to or not) as to go after civilian populations openly. But there is no discussion there, atleast not in nmy mind, just like its not worth discussing whether 9/11 was a conspiracy or not.

BTW, it IS typical that Scrap uses a personal attack as part of his argument. Anyone, no matter which side of the argument they are trying to argue, can see that in any political thread hes been a part of. And its not just a little jostle, he likes to take it to another level.

About Judazzz winning. In my *opinion*, Judazzz used the best balance of logic and reasoning, and defended himself without posting ignorant junk like "other" members. This could have gotten nasty, and Im sure it would if Twitch was here







but he was able to keep his emotions in check. For this reason, I considered him the winner of the thread. BTW, if youve been on the net a long time, you know winning a thread is more of a l337 speak joke then an actual statement...


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> Im not sure exactly what you are trying to argue here :laugh: You are just throwing out little attacks. Partly for that reason, I sometimes ignore what you say. To be honest, most the time Im going at it with Scrap or if Im lucky, Fargo (always interesting, very smart guy) and will skim through until Im back oin track for my own argument. Sorry if Im ignoring you, but these threads sometimes go for 20+ pages and I have school and work everyday.
> 
> So, for this post, I will attempt to rebuttle some of the insinuations you made.
> 
> ...


little attacks? i didn't attack you. i think you'll find that i don't normally do that to anyone.

you're 100% about scrap he does take stuff too far. i won't argue that he's out and out wrong when he does that but you won't recall me doing that.

and you can talk about logic and reason all you want but i think you can agree that sources are important. they're how you PROVE that you actually have some credible source for specific points in any arguement. if you use an arguement like "i don't have to quote my sources, they're out there" you're screaming that you can't. people who read about this sh*t want to post to prove it. every different link i put up no matter how obvious proves that i actually read about this. it proves that i spend the time learning what i can so that i can carry and arguement of my beliefs based on understanding of religion, history, current events, and how they all relate to each other. it's fine to argue a point or hold to a belief just understand what you're defending and how to do it effectively. can you read or speak any foreign languages? use that to learn.

it's just that i can't see logic when someone states the same opinions in the same way i could hear on the street. iraq is bad. war is bad. bush is stupid. he's a mental retard. people who argue about this more often than not, don't understand the history of these people. they don't understand the religion. if you don't know that stuff, then you just don't know what's going on.

i'm not attacking you, btw. it's the same conversation no matter religion, politics, philosophy, or anything else. people take a stance and don't understand it and get mad when they're not taken seriously.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Louie D said:


> *cough cough BUSH ADMIN cough*
> 
> Sorry, still sick
> 
> ...


Nobody's won anything. What all this is showing me is that the past two administrations - both outright awful - have continued blaming each other instead of uniting as Americans to confront the Islamofacists, North Koreans, and the resurgence of Communism in South America. In the process, thousands upon thousands of people carry the Bush vs. Clinton arguments out into the public fray, further perpetuating a senseless debate. Let's be real, both Clinton and Bush's administrations have been packed with golden globalists that are willing to compromise America's borders, national identity, and constitutional foundations. It's really that simple. Just to take 2 quick examples. Madaline Allbright was a firm supporter of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, whose trade tribunals have generally met secretely and attempt to regulate international commerce, usurping constitutional authority much the same way that King George did to ignite the AMerican Revolution. To quote Allbright, from a Sept, 2001 lecture.



> I think that there are basically four groups of countries. The largest group is composed of countries that believe in an *international system*, believe in a *set of rules and regulations*, and have diplomatic contacts. We might not all agree with each other about the form of government, but on the whole we agree on the fact that *we're part of a system*.


In other words, an international system that overrides the US constitution.
http://www.hws.edu/news/speakers/transcrip...onversation.asp

Now, Sec of State Condeleeza Rice, is a major player in the North American Union, as is Michael Chertoff, chief of homeland security, and 
Carlos Gutierrez, the sec. of commerce.To quote the right-wing _New American_,



> Like NAFTA and CAFTA, to which it is intimately tied, this new "partnership" is intended to be an ongoing, constantly evolving process to bring about the economic, political, and social "integration" and "convergence" of the three nation states(US, Mexica, and Canada) into a supranational regional system of governance that will then be merged into a larger regional system for the entire hemisphere -- which includes the proposed FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). It is this dangerous, subversive process that should command every American's immediate serious attention.


http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/publi...icle_2239.shtml (This is a fantastic article).

In other words, a multinational system governed by international bureaucrats to override constitutional law.

This is why neither border security nor American manufacturing was ever a top priority in either administration. It's really all that simple. Both administrations are traitorous and to argue one against the other is a waste of time. We should be fighting for real leadership, which is what most Americans want. Who cares if Clinton won the argument on FOX, or if Bush is a man of conviction? Their priorities are twisted an unamerican to say the least.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

> i'm not attacking you, btw. it's the same conversation no matter religion, politics, philosophy, or anything else. people take a stance and don't understand it and get mad when they're not taken seriously.


So true. Even worse, they take a stance on something they dont understand because they want to be a part of the image it allows them. For example, I know a lot of real hippies, and I argue with them a lot on how Afgahnistan IS a noble war. They seriously dont have any points to make besides that "war is bad". They think this simply because they want to fall under the category of peace loving human beings.

Unfortunately, I will admit that I do not understand 100% (or even half that :laugh: ) how the world works right now...or the connections between the ideals, religions and histories some countries have, but I feel as a 17 year old I have a better grasp on "the issues" then most grown men on this site, and I feel that I reinforce my veiws with enough logical thought to atleast command a little respect. Its too bad most members on this site on capable of this. The result? We get the degenerate verbal wars which are so common on this site.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

DannyBoy17 said:


> > i'm not attacking you, btw. it's the same conversation no matter religion, politics, philosophy, or anything else. people take a stance and don't understand it and get mad when they're not taken seriously.
> 
> 
> So true. Even worse, they take a stance on something they dont understand because they want to be a part of the image it allows them. For example, I know a lot of real hippies, and I argue with them a lot on how Afgahnistan IS a noble war. They seriously dont have any points to make besides that "war is bad". They think this simply because they want to fall under the category of peace loving human beings.
> ...


yeah. i see your point about verbal war. if you want to learn why the middle east is the way it is read about the romans, egyptians, sassanids, ottoman turks, iranians, the muslim brotherhood, HAMAS, hezbollah (hizb-allah), al-quaeda, read the koran, torah, and the bible, and there's a lot of stuff i missed. read about he un, kofi anan, and the league of nations too. real important. kofi anon sucks, in my opinion. people don't do that, though. they just watch the news and take a stance. i don't respect that kind of misinformed bullshit no matter who it comes from.


----------



## Oscar5001 (Sep 22, 2005)

Louie D said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

It's on Fox news so that makes it accurate? It blows my mind how anyone with half a brain can back this illegal war mongering administraton we currently have in place. It's always something with these assholes and all of us and our childern and their children will have to deal with the reprocussions. Funny how after 9/11 Bin Laden was "Our number one priority" now it's "Tell you the truth I don't know where he is and I don't really care". We would rather invade a soverign nation based on a slew of lies. Truth is we don't want to capture Bin Laden because our "War on Terror" would lose it's poster boy making it harder to justify our actions in the name of "justice". The real axis of evil is America and Israel. The real terrorists are our governments.


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

Oscar5001 said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

It's on Fox news so that makes it accurate? It blows my mind how anyone with half a brain can back this illegal war mongering administraton we currently have in place. It's always something with these assholes and all of us and our childern and their children will have to deal with the reprocussions. Funny how after 9/11 Bin Laden was "Our number one priority" now it's "Tell you the truth I don't know where he is and I don't really care". We would rather invade a soverign nation based on a slew of lies. Truth is we don't want to capture Bin Laden because our "War on Terror" would lose it's poster boy making it harder to justify our actions in the name of "justice". The real axis of evil is America and Israel. The real terrorists are our governments.
[/quote]

rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. very unoriginal, at that. mass assumptions and again NO HARD DATA backing up one single thing you say. prove the government lied. PROVE IT IN WRITING if you're soooo right. you provide random quotes with no links taken in completely different context. once again, you twist words provide no way to read ALL of the quote, and call it fact. that's a mirror trick, it's not logic.


----------



## Ex0dus (Jun 29, 2005)

Judazzz said:


> Judazz before you get on your fcking high horse about the war and your obviously biased opinions about how America is handlging itself, read what WHO i was talking to about getting a BJ. It wasn't just getting a BJ...way to look over all the facts. There were tons of sexual harrassment cases filed against him because ALL OF THE WOMEN WERE AFRAID. he is a pig. We are focusing this thread on HIM ...NOT Bush...so stop continuing to derail.


Yeah, I'm biased indeed, and you wanna know why? Because that mentally challenged f*ck-up you call your president is also screwing up _my_ planet (and don't nag about sources: they're all over the place, and if you don't see them, you choose to do so). Whatever he's doing to his own people I couldn't care less about - after all, you elected that fool into office, and if you wanna play with fire, you gotta be prepared to get burned (and damn you are). But what he does outside of his national borders, what affects the planet I live on in a negative way (and there's plenty), yeah, that pisses me off.
And biased or not, all the things I mentioned are facts - read an objective, actual piece of journalism for a change, and you'd see









mdrs: you wonder why I have the 'gall' to talk about your politics? The same reason you think you have the right to judge anything non-American. And also because your politics affect the planet I live on. His decisions have impact on where I live, so that entitles me to an opinion (just like it entitles anyone else to an opinion). If you don't like it, fence off your country, put a roof on top of it, and STFU








Oh, and don't nag about sources: they're alll around, in news papers, web sites, news broadcasts - abundant like flies on crap. If you are unable to find them, so be it...
[/quote]

Thats right. I forgot... how silly of me. You have the view that "hugs for terrorists" will in some way make you safe from them.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

Oscar5001 said:


> The real axis of evil is America and Israel. The real terrorists are our governments.


I'm interested, given the general lack of ethics among all nations, in how America and Israel can be singled out as the real terrorists. Would that make Al Queda, Hezbollah, and Hamas premillenial choir boys?


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

Louie D said:


> Look at this chameleon FREAK!!!
> 
> OH BTW: LOOK AT THE BLATENT LIE about republicans telling him to not worry about Bin Laden!!!


lmfao, bill is still pissed about the conspiracy to get him impeached among the republican party...bill laid down the FACTS, about bin-laden and the inquiry which was not assumed until 9 months after he left office. the bombing of the USS cole was not connected to bin laden until clinton was history, period. the fbi and the cia were at fault, not clinton. but i'll be sure to take the next thing bush says out of context and call him a narsosistic freak chameleon liar. it'll be a good time.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Ah a super thread! World against US and Bush against Clinton and Bin Laden. This thread is a boring ass repost. If you haven't noticed, everytime there is a thread like this it gets no where.

REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST!

In before the lock!


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

> lmfao, bill is still pissed about the conspiracy to get him impeached among the republican party...bill laid down the FACTS, about bin-laden and the inquiry which was not assumed until 9 months after he left office. the bombing of the USS cole was not connected to bin laden until clinton was history, period. the fbi and the cia were at fault, not clinton. but i'll be sure to take the next thing bush says out of context and call him a narsosistic freak chameleon liar. it'll be a good time.


you have attacked the president personally numerous times before it's okay. now what facts did clinton lay down? did you actually read the memo he put out? i did and it's nothing exactly revolutionary. and they don't even spell bin laden's name or al qaeda right. they really knew what they were fighting.

and as for the conspiracy: exactly how did the republicans plan to get him to sexually assault numerous women and then lie to the public about doing it on tv? this isn't like how you say the president lied. he looked at the same info that congress did. congress voted. that's the way government works. clinton looked into a camera and said "I did not have sexual realations with that woman..." how did they get him to lie like that?


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

EGADS!!!

NOT ANOTHER ONE OF THESE THREADS!



Louie D said:


> Ah a super thread! World against US and Bush against Clinton and Bin Laden. This thread is a boring ass repost. If you haven't noticed, everytime there is a thread like this it gets no where.
> 
> REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST! REPOST!
> 
> In before the lock!


/agrees


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

Republicans are truly obsessed about Clinton cheating on his wife 8 years after it hapenned.. .
Must be all those goody two shoes Republican politicians who have never cheated on their wives.. or solicited sex from minors online.. or used drugs..or gotten DUIs..not that it's any of our business - after all they are the party of "morals"


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Saints won.


----------



## Rigor_mortiZ_Rhom (Dec 21, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> Republicans are truly obsessed about Clinton cheating on his wife 8 years after it hapenned.. .
> Must be all those goody two shoes Republican politicians who have never cheated on their wives.. or solicited sex from minors online.. or used drugs..or gotten DUIs..not that it's any of our business - after all they are the party of "morals"












Jewelz FTW!!!


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

acestro said:


> Saints won.


They're the new hope for America.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Jewelz said:


> I dont think most Americans have any idea how the rest of the world views Bush.


No, they do - or at least most Americans feel the same way according to his second term approval ratings. Even with his ridiculous scandal, Clinton left the office with 65 % rating.
[/quote]

Have felt the same way for some time. Also, I have noted that the more educated my friends are... the more likely they are to dislike Bush. I find that frightening considering he got re-elected.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

he sexually assaulted them? so he forcefully grabbed their head and thrust it onto his piece as they slobbered all over it? no...this is how it went down...clinton said you have a nice ass monica, monica said "hey, this might be a good chance to make something of myself, since im just a stupid fat slutty intern", and she said, hey bill, lemme do ya. that's not sexual assault, thats having sex...and why should he have to admit it to the nation anyway, its not my business, i dont care who he has sex with, he lied about it just like any other guy would've lied about it, and he shouldnt have been questioned about it in the first place...how would you like it if the government gave your house a call and asked you if you'd been cheating on your wife...? now, imagine that there are a million cameras on, countless retarded pundits calling you a sexual deviant and an immoral whoremonger (i like that word)...what a lame ass excuse to impeach someone...if thats what happens when you get your dick sucked in the whitehouse, i hope one day i'll see what happens when you lie to the country about WMD's and get more than 2000 soldiers KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED DEAD NOT LIVING DEAD KILLED as a result...i really hope bush goes down for treason...i wonder what kind of odds vegas has on it...


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Fargo said:


> Republicans are truly obsessed about Clinton cheating on his wife 8 years after it hapenned.. .
> Must be all those goody two shoes Republican politicians who have never cheated on their wives.. or solicited sex from minors online.. or used drugs..or gotten DUIs..not that it's any of our business - after all they are the party of "morals"
> 
> 
> ...












Jewelz FTW!!!
[/quote]

agreed. FTW


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

/read the thread

/got angry

/is going to move on now and save the enaml on his teeth..

/would rather just post whore it up then argue with stubborn people on both sides taht will never agree or see the others point from a level point of view


----------



## mdrs (May 1, 2006)

r1dermon said:


> he sexually assaulted them? so he forcefully grabbed their head and thrust it onto his piece as they slobbered all over it? no...this is how it went down...clinton said you have a nice ass monica, monica said "hey, this might be a good chance to make something of myself, since im just a stupid fat slutty intern", and she said, hey bill, lemme do ya. that's not sexual assault, thats having sex...and why should he have to admit it to the nation anyway, its not my business, i dont care who he has sex with, he lied about it just like any other guy would've lied about it, and he shouldnt have been questioned about it in the first place...how would you like it if the government gave your house a call and asked you if you'd been cheating on your wife...? now, imagine that there are a million cameras on, countless retarded pundits calling you a sexual deviant and an immoral whoremonger (i like that word)...what a lame ass excuse to impeach someone...if thats what happens when you get your dick sucked in the whitehouse, i hope one day i'll see what happens when you lie to the country about WMD's and get more than 2000 soldiers KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED KILLED DEAD NOT LIVING DEAD KILLED as a result...i really hope bush goes down for treason...i wonder what kind of odds vegas has on it...


sexual assault = http://www.wendymcelroy.com/mises/sexandstate.html

again, read before you post.

again, prove the president lied about WMDs. prove the president fabricated evidence to deceive congress and the american people. if you can't then stop throwing around theories disguised as facts.

again, just read SOMETHING before you post. i could call you a transvestite but without being able to prove it, it's just slander.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

nismo driver said:


> /read the thread
> 
> /got angry
> 
> ...



Welcome to Acestro-land.


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

acestro said:


> Saints won.


They're the new hope for America.
[/quote]
really?








[/quote]

Yes, really. Don't you see if they go far this year it will be one of the great sports miracles, given the tragedy of Katrina. Let's derail the thread even further and blame Bush for Katrina again.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

/tops


----------



## Oscar5001 (Sep 22, 2005)

mdrs said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

It's on Fox news so that makes it accurate? It blows my mind how anyone with half a brain can back this illegal war mongering administraton we currently have in place. It's always something with these assholes and all of us and our childern and their children will have to deal with the reprocussions. Funny how after 9/11 Bin Laden was "Our number one priority" now it's "Tell you the truth I don't know where he is and I don't really care". We would rather invade a soverign nation based on a slew of lies. Truth is we don't want to capture Bin Laden because our "War on Terror" would lose it's poster boy making it harder to justify our actions in the name of "justice". The real axis of evil is America and Israel. The real terrorists are our governments.
[/quote]

rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. very unoriginal, at that. mass assumptions and again NO HARD DATA backing up one single thing you say. prove the government lied. PROVE IT IN WRITING if you're soooo right. you provide random quotes with no links taken in completely different context. once again, you twist words provide no way to read ALL of the quote, and call it fact. that's a mirror trick, it's not logic.
[/quote]

Where are the WMD's? The basis of the entire war.


----------



## r1dermon (Mar 9, 2005)

and being the most fair dude on fox is, in the words of dane cook, like being the smartest kid with downsyndrome...it just doesnt hold weight.


----------



## BlackSunshine (Mar 28, 2006)

Oscar5001 said:


> HAHAHAHAH Clinton issuing the OWNAGE!!
> 
> Its sad tho how the current adminstration is spending more time trying to point blame rather then just deal with the issue and working their little agendas. That is seriously the problem with our goverment. two faced idiots.


How so...solid facts...this IS Fox news; not the current administration...and Chris Wallace is the most fair dude on Fox

The "torture" is BS. We haven't heard all of the methods, but ALL were in line. If playing Eminem and spraying water to these terrorists is "torture", you sir are INSANE. Get the facts, not what Rosie O'Donnell tells you. They are doing TO PROTECT YOU and your family.

If this "torture" could of prevented 9/11....would you have ok'd it?
[/quote]

It's on Fox news so that makes it accurate? It blows my mind how anyone with half a brain can back this illegal war mongering administraton we currently have in place. It's always something with these assholes and all of us and our childern and their children will have to deal with the reprocussions. Funny how after 9/11 Bin Laden was "Our number one priority" now it's "Tell you the truth I don't know where he is and I don't really care". We would rather invade a soverign nation based on a slew of lies. Truth is we don't want to capture Bin Laden because our "War on Terror" would lose it's poster boy making it harder to justify our actions in the name of "justice". The real axis of evil is America and Israel. The real terrorists are our governments.
[/quote]

rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric. very unoriginal, at that. mass assumptions and again NO HARD DATA backing up one single thing you say. prove the government lied. PROVE IT IN WRITING if you're soooo right. you provide random quotes with no links taken in completely different context. once again, you twist words provide no way to read ALL of the quote, and call it fact. that's a mirror trick, it's not logic.
[/quote]

Where are the WMD's? The basis of the entire war.
[/quote]

LOL! good answer. I love how these blind supporters are arguing aganst general knowlage of current events calling for "proof".

mdrs- How about you Provide "PROOF" that there ARE WMD's in IRAQ. See it is Bush that made the claims of their existance in his justifications of sending us to IRAQ in the first place.. There for it falls in his hands to provide that "proof". How can we prove there is somthing not there when it is not there. Thats just a retards logic. Oh wait..... Now it makes sense.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

acestro said:


> /tops












Hey, just a simple question here...why is it that Republicans are all over Clinton for this whole sexual assualt thing, which he was impeached for...and yet, they let these other politicians get away with whatever with a simple "its thier private life, none of our business". I dont think Ive ever heard a real explaination for this


----------



## Fargo (Jun 8, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Hey, just a simple question here...why is it that Republicans are all over Clinton for this whole sexual assualt thing, which he was impeached for...and yet, they let these other politicians get away with whatever with a simple "its thier private life, none of our business". I dont think Ive ever heard a real explaination for this


Hannity on Clinton and Kosovo:

"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999

"My question to you is from all reports that I have been able to dig up, 2,000 killed in Kosovo in the last year. We keep hearing the president refer genocide, ethnic cleansing, comparisons to Adolf Hitler. Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?"
- Hannity, March 26, 1999

"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
- Hannity, April 1, 1999


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

To answer the questions about WMDs - Iran is close to developing WMDs soon, a country which was made stronger by the invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam's Sunni regime. Now Iraq is controlled by Shiites and is allied with Iran.


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

Fargo said:


> Hey, just a simple question here...why is it that Republicans are all over Clinton for this whole sexual assualt thing, which he was impeached for...and yet, they let these other politicians get away with whatever with a simple "its thier private life, none of our business". I dont think Ive ever heard a real explaination for this


Hannity on Clinton and Kosovo:

"But you know what? There's a lot of massacres going on in the world. As you know, 37,000 Kurds in Turkey, over a million people in Sudan. We have hundreds of thousands in Rwanda and Burundi. I mean, where do we stop?"
- Hannity, March 24, 1999

"My question to you is from all reports that I have been able to dig up, 2,000 killed in Kosovo in the last year. We keep hearing the president refer genocide, ethnic cleansing, comparisons to Adolf Hitler. Is the president purposefully using propaganda and hyperbole to garner the American public for support?"
- Hannity, March 26, 1999

"But if you know - every mistake we've made up to this point, there's no stated goal. There's no definition of success. All these important things. There's no exit strategy. One mistake after another. Why would you go in deeper when we have not been successful up to this point? That seems to me to be folly."
- Hannity, April 1, 1999
[/quote]

Ok, but whats different between now and then? Things are worse then they were then, but Americans seem to love Bush. Why hasnt he been impeached?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Ok, but whats different between now and then? Things are worse then they were then, but *Americans seem to love Bush.*


Who gave you that stupid idea ?



> Why hasnt he been impeached?


Because he hasn't lied *under oath*


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

Is that the only means by which one can be impeached?

And I say Americans love Bush because he's still the pres, elected twice and its not like much has changed since the last election? Also, there seem to be a ton of supporters on this site.


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Did poll. Half and half, repub and demo

Kerry and Gore weren't good alternatives.



nismo driver said:


> /tops


awesome.

FTW


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Is that the only means by which one can be impeached?
> 
> And I say Americans love Bush because he's still the pres, elected twice and its not like much has changed since the last election? Also, there seem to be a ton of supporters on this site.


in all fairness kerry wasnt exactly a strong opponent, if it had been a better candidate things woudl be differtn and teh two party system that favors the incumbant really screwed our choices, had tehre been another republican running things might ahve been differnt, bush didnt exaclty win by a land slide either..


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

Fargo said:


> Saints won.


They're the new hope for America.
[/quote]
really?








[/quote]

Yes, really. Don't you see if they go far this year it will be one of the great sports miracles, given the tragedy of Katrina. Let's derail the thread even further and blame Bush for Katrina again.
[/quote]

You mean blame Bush as the head of a government that denied funding to build levees only MONTHS before the storm? Or the Bush who appointed 'Good Ol' Boy' buddies to positions like the head of FEMA (qualified or not).

Dangit Fargo, you tricked me.


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> Is that the only means by which one can be impeached?
> 
> And I say Americans love Bush because he's still the pres, elected twice and its not like much has changed since the last election? Also, there seem to be a ton of supporters on this site.


I am not sure about the impeachment thing, maybe someone else can answer that

I would say Bush is more unpopular as any two term president has been in recent history.. the majority of supporters that he does have don't "love" him either, but rather think of him as the lesser of the evils


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

bush has also had alot of support from the mindless evangelical sheep that will just do what there told by god

i wnat to knwo what bush has done here in the US not related to tehwar on terror..

has there been anything to fix health care? education?

does eh realise hes teh president of the US not the world?


----------



## Jewelz (Feb 24, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> bush has also had alot of support from the mindless evangelical sheep that will just do what there told by god
> 
> i wnat to knwo what bush has done here in the US not related to tehwar on terror..
> 
> ...


[Kanye] George Bush doesn't care about black people [/Kanye]


----------



## Guest (Sep 26, 2006)

That seems to be the truth, nismo. Apparently there is only one non-Christian in the whole party, well two, but one of them doesnt recognize his Jewish history.

I'll be honest, I dont even understand how the American parties work anymore. Seems like the Republicans are pseudo-conservatives with little fiscal responsibility, and tendencies for war (very unChristian like, one would think), and the Dems are a party all about fighting for the people, and yet none of them are willing to take a stand on an issue (which seems very unliberal?).


----------



## acestro (Jul 7, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> That seems to be the truth, nismo. Apparently there is only one non-Christian in the whole party, well two, but one of them doesnt recognize his Jewish history.
> 
> I'll be honest, I dont even understand how the American parties work anymore. Seems like the Republicans are pseudo-conservatives with little fiscal responsibility, and tendencies for war (very unChristian like, one would think), and the Dems are a party all about fighting for the people, and yet none of them are willing to take a stand on an issue (which seems very unliberal?).


I think you have a better grip than 90% of Americans.


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

DannyBoy17 said:


> That seems to be the truth, nismo. Apparently there is only one non-Christian in the whole party, well two, but one of them doesnt recognize his Jewish history.
> 
> I'll be honest, I dont even understand how the American parties work anymore. Seems like the Republicans are pseudo-conservatives with little fiscal responsibility, and tendencies for war (very unChristian like, one would think), and the Dems are a party all about fighting for the people, and yet none of them are willing to take a stand on an issue (which seems very unliberal?).


dems are just struggling to gain approval like a party with a lot of ideas but no willingness to commit because there not sure if it will gain support or push them further away and the most oputsopken ones or atleast themost publisized ones are generally to the way far left so then everyone assumes taht all ddems have these extremely socially liberal view..

the dems are have become more socially libberal and fiscally responsable, they try to appeal to the masses but in reallity are just as out of touch as the republicans that try to appeal to the weatlthy and socially conservative..

bith parties are totatlly out of wack though..

the dems want the govt to "protect everyone" but dont want the govt to "control everyone" which is totally contridictory..

for example hillary is always sqauking about violence on tv and video games and basically act like the govt should be everyones parents but then gets bent about policy that infrindges on ourfreedoms like wiretaps and certain parts of teh patriot act..


----------



## [email protected]° (Jun 16, 2004)

nismo driver said:


> /read the thread
> 
> /got angry
> 
> ...


I agree on every point here Nismo...

In BOLD is why I don't even bother posting in these threads!!


----------



## LouDiB (May 22, 2006)

I did not mean anything racist....more of an adjective...if she was Catholic...so be it...if she was black...OK.


----------



## User (May 31, 2004)

Judazzz said:


> Do you really think it is respectible for a president to be getting BJs from a fat jew girl under his table? ---To represent our country? Comon bro


Do _you_ really think that lying to your own citizens as well as all your allies about crucial issues, that preaching democracy, morals and values while at the same time raping those principles behind everyone's backs, that starting an illegal, unjustifyable war in Iraq that claimed more American lives than 9/11 itself (not even going to talk about the civilian death count), that running a war in such an inadequate, amateurish and irrresponsible way that the entire world suffers from its drawbacks because it only lead to an increased global insecurity, that screwing over your own citizens with regularity, that not giving a shyte about the vast majority of Americans, that being ridiculed, loathed, hated and despised by just about the entire world, that being responsible for the character assasination and destruction of the credibility of your own country - do you honestly believe all that is even remotely comparable to getting a BJ in the White House (which is immoral indeed, but which hasn't killed, even injured a single human being, let alone made the world a much less safe and much more polarized place, or skullfucked America's credibility or image to death)?
If so, you really have one severly messed-up outlook on reality, dude (something which is directly correlated to the degree of support to the Bush admin).

btw: Fox News has *nothing* whatsoever to do with journalism - it's not objective, it's biased, it's not independent, it doesn't verify its sources nor the contents of what it broadcasts (how else can a news network keep broadcasting lie upon lie upon lie?) and it's giving opinions where it should stick to dishing out facts. It's a f*cking shame that in a democratic country so many actually see a steaming pile of crap such as Fox as a reliable news source, in fact as journalism - it tells us a lot, unfortunately...

*btw2: those calling American politics/politicians (GOP or Dem), or American news networks left(ist), don't even have the slightest clue what 'political left' means.*
[/quote]

I'm glad to know that someone else understands that.


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

DannyBoy17 said:


> /read the thread
> 
> /got angry
> 
> ...



Welcome to Acestro-land. 








[/quote]

ace, if you dont like these threads, why even bother? I mean, I generally dislike 90% of MMA/gun/car threads, but its not like I go in and post random sh*t until the thread is closed.

I mean, I actually enjoy these threads because no one I know who is my age is interested in this kinda stuff.

[/quote]

He does this a lot...not sure why he gets away with it though...


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2006)

Well I mean its sometimes funny, and hes a funny guy. But I would rather he posted his opinion on the issues at hand rather then do this...


----------



## nismo driver (Jan 27, 2004)

Fido The Great said:


> /read the thread
> 
> /got angry
> 
> ...



Welcome to Acestro-land. 








[/quote]

ace, if you dont like these threads, why even bother? I mean, I generally dislike 90% of MMA/gun/car threads, but its not like I go in and post random sh*t until the thread is closed.

I mean, I actually enjoy these threads because no one I know who is my age is interested in this kinda stuff.

[/quote]

He does this a lot...not sure why he *gets away with it though...*
[/quote]

/wonders what "gets away with" means exactly

/doesnt think ace is doing anythign wrong to be "getting away with" something


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

nismo driver said:


> /read the thread
> 
> /got angry
> 
> ...



Welcome to Acestro-land. 








[/quote]

ace, if you dont like these threads, why even bother? I mean, I generally dislike 90% of MMA/gun/car threads, but its not like I go in and post random sh*t until the thread is closed.

I mean, I actually enjoy these threads because no one I know who is my age is interested in this kinda stuff.

[/quote]

He does this a lot...not sure why he *gets away with it though...*
[/quote]

/wonders what "gets away with" means exactly

/doesnt think ace is doing anythign wrong to be "getting away with" something
[/quote]

Don't worry about the post you quoted Nismo, Fido posted it. He's probably still bitter for being called a "post-whore".


----------



## Fido (May 21, 2003)

I am i am.


----------



## b_ack51 (Feb 11, 2003)

Fido The Great said:


> I am i am.


Group hug for Fido everyone.


----------

