|
||||||||
|
Title: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 6th, 2006, 12:25am "In other words, I don't think people ought to be compelled to make the decision which they think is best for their family" Washington Post 12-11-2002 I will try to make this's a daily humor sort of post so all you, well you know who you are can maybe get a laugh out of this too. Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 3:54am ::) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 6th, 2006, 4:23am LIKE I said Jonny, you will be eating this shit. [smiley=laugh.gif] Lee Jonny, is it not your standing rule to sigh all of your posts???? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 6th, 2006, 8:18am I don't dislike the guy, I dislike the job he is doing. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BobG on Jan 6th, 2006, 8:40am I dislike the guy and the job he's doing. But he is good to laugh at. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 6th, 2006, 8:52am on 01/06/06 at 08:40:05, BobG wrote:
Most likely the bigest joke that ever got in the white house Jonny says we don't need to sign anymore, sooooooooooo Lee edit for spelling |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BarbaraD on Jan 6th, 2006, 8:57am on 01/06/06 at 08:40:05, BobG wrote:
Ditto Hugs BD |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by nani on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:00am "I'm the master of low expectations." —aboard Air Force One, June 4, 2003 "See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003 |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:20am I was trying to be nice, but the more I thought about it, he's tough to like. He's not honest, he's not working in our best interest and we'll be cleaning up his mess for decades. alas |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BobG on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:30am The Father of the Bribes Abramoff will soon be on trial. Doesn't look good for many politicians. The bushisms to protect the Republicans should be interesting. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jasmyn on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:45am Showing here by us the other day on TV, I think it was: “Fahrenheit 9/11” You are Americans, you know your President, we only see what the media wants us to see. I never judge by what I see on TV as I know how skewed it can make a persons judgement that knows nothing of that particular country, not live in it or live through its politics. Can this conspiracy theory be plausible? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by aprilbee on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:05am on 01/06/06 at 09:20:16, vig wrote:
Well said!! ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Phil L on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:10am I agree with Bob. Hard to like and hard to like his policies. Don't forget to add into the mix Rumsfool and the King behind the King, Chaney. Had a clear night and slept PF first night since October 10th! More shadows and deminished hits for three weeks. End of cycle near? Phil |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Redd715 on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:12am Just a few articles to read ... http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F01%2F03%2FEDG2IGCOJ51.DTL&hw=To+blame+the+messenger&sn=001&sc=1000 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-fisk27dec27,0,6099761.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions You decide... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by burnt-toast on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:15am on 01/06/06 at 09:30:17, BobG wrote:
Don't forget Abramoff has Dems. concerned as well. Seems he was and equal opportunity opportunist. It's unlikely, but I just hope he doesn't get bought off and blows the lid off of the unholy relationship between lobbyists and elected representatives of both parties. It would be good to see the "This Office for Sale", "This Country for Sale", "My Vote for Sale", "Corporate/Special Interests Honered Here" signs replaced by "Closed for Unethical Business" signs for a while. Tom |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:39am I will have to support him, cause he's the President, but the cronyism... see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9900921/site/newsweek/ as well as his inability to compromise on issues when it is apparent compromise is needed. How he has isolated America from the rest of the world and treated the presidency as his own personal monarchy...has left me angry with him and his cabinet. C'mon...you've had almost 6 years of control over the House, Senate & Presidency...the time of blaming the other party is over. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:43am on 01/06/06 at 10:15:18, burnt-toast wrote:
actually no... Abramoff himself ONLY donated to Republicans. Some of his clients donated to Democrats, but not in the numbers to the Republicans. He was primarily a Republican 'fixer'. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by alchemy on Jan 6th, 2006, 10:43am when bush makes a speech he has this patronizing tone like were all a bunch of idiots, and he's the one who gets lost in his own goddam speeches. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Ghost on Jan 6th, 2006, 12:11pm on 01/06/06 at 10:43:18, vig wrote:
http://www.gopsenators.com/hottopics/glasshouses_senate.aspx ooops! guess there was a little more than we thought. ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 6th, 2006, 12:17pm It's running about 2 to 1 and none from Abramoff himself. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Democrap either.... a lot of dirty MF'ers on that side of the aisle too and I'm sure there's some other SuperLobbyists out there that preferred Democraps, but in this last decade, what's the point of bribing them? none, they have little power. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Ghost on Jan 6th, 2006, 12:23pm Polititians the 2nd lowest life form on earth right behind trial lawyers. ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 6th, 2006, 12:34pm on 01/06/06 at 12:23:21, Ghost wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree, but this crew rode in on the CHristian train, with a "trust me" and holier than thou attitude and mission. "The time has come that the American people know exactly what their representatives are doing here in Washington. Are they feeding at the public trough, taking lobbyist-paid vacations, getting wined and dined by special interest groups?... " 1995 - Tom DeLay and yes, Tom, they still are... but back to the Bushisms that are supposed to make us laugh: "I wish you'd have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it...I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet...I don't want to sound like I have made no mistakes. I'm confident I have. I just haven't – you just put me under the spot here, and maybe I'm not as quick on my feet as I should be in coming up with one." -President Bush "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." -President Bush "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -President Bush and one for the ladies: "Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." -President Bush |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 3:28pm on 01/06/06 at 04:23:23, forgetfulnot wrote:
Lee, Didnt anyone ever tell you that posting while drinking whiskey only makes you look like an idiot? Two reasons 1) You cant spell for shit. 2) You start a thread and 30 minutes later you forget you did and you start the same damn thread. What a dumbass...LMMFAO ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Phil L on Jan 6th, 2006, 3:45pm Next time Jonny I want you to tell us exactly what's on your mind, don't hold anything back. Man, I'm glad your on this board. I really like your style. Be well, Phil |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 6th, 2006, 5:17pm Liberals you got to love them, nothing like a good laugh to start out the weekend. Christian train.......is that a spoof of Soul Train? They are more concerned about the question of why the terrorist don't like the US, than why Christian have flocked to the right. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Sandy_C on Jan 6th, 2006, 5:25pm on 01/06/06 at 08:40:05, BobG wrote:
Ditto here too! We laugh at him now, but unfortunately, like Vig said, we're going to be cleaning up his mess for decades. Our poor children and grandchildren. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 5:40pm on 01/06/06 at 17:25:49, Sandy_C wrote:
It seems to me that George is cleaning up Clintons mess. I guess you didnt know that Clinton was offered Osama's head three times and three times Clinton said "No thanks" |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Sandy_C on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:01pm Yes, Jonny, I know. I didn't vote for Clinton either time, nor did I vote for Bush either time. But question, is there ANYBODY out there who can be elected President who is a real Statesman, and not just a stinking polititian? Someone who really cares about this country and the world as a whole, who really really wants to do what is the right thing, and who cannot/will not be bought off by the lobbiests and special interest groups? I don't think so. And that's sad. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BlueMeanie on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:03pm on 01/06/06 at 17:25:49, Sandy_C wrote:
::) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:07pm on 01/06/06 at 18:01:30, Sandy_C wrote:
Mitt Romney ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Pinkfloyd on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:09pm on 01/06/06 at 12:34:24, vig wrote:
I think this quote sums up the entire problem quite nicely. Bush was and is absolutley correct in the above quote. The problem is, he didn't (and often doesn't) finish the thought. He meant that the way to build the best defense, is to figure out exactly what the enemy is planning on doing, ahead of time. You do this by thinking of all the ways our people and country can be harmed. He just didn't explain it. I guess it sounded good to him. The big problem is that he doesn't have anyone playing devils advocate in these discussions, as far as I can tell. Maybe they don't want to tell him the whole story. Maybe it will slow down the agenda that the people in charge, have in mind. Why bother wth all the facts, just tell him enough so he agrees with us. I'm assuming this is exactly what happened in the spying operations. Tell him how this will help protect Americans. He says...hey, good idea. Lets do it. No one is sitting there and telling him....yes GW, but if we do that, this will happen. I don't care how good an idea sounds, you need people that are willing to speak up on all sides of an issue, or mistakes will be made that can cost everyone in the long run. If the dems don't like him, tough....the democratic machine should have put up someone that was more worthy of the Presidency. Their puppet was worse than the republican puppet. Or, the republican puppetmasters were better than the democratic puppetmasters. When they both stop playing games, maybe we'll elect a true leader. I believe that GWBs heart is in the right place but is just overmatched by the office and the power structure in DC. I had the same feeling about Carter when he got lambasted and laughed out of office for his remarks about asking his 9 year old daughter ( i think she was 9) what she thought he should do about nuclear weapons. Although I thought it was a good thing, it turned out that the worst part about that was that he told the media. Not that he would have made any decisons based upon her answers but whats wrong with trying to get a perspective from someone so innocent? If I had to choose between asking an ethical question of either my 10 year old grandson, or a DC lobbyist....I know who I'd ask, and it wouldn't be the guy that owned 10 million shares of Enron. Screw em all. Bobw P.S. Jas...don't believe one word of that 9/11 crapumentary. Theres more than enough bad stuff that goes on around here to make 10 movies without having to resort to the deceit used to put a slant on every frame of the thing. If the government had made such a movie, it would now rank up there with the 21st century version of Reefer Madness. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:14pm on 01/06/06 at 18:09:37, Pinkfloyd wrote:
LMMFAO....good one, Bob....So true!!! ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:25pm Micheal Moore owns stock in Haliburton. "I don't own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed. He's right. He doesn't own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:29pm Careful Matt, Lee might make you eat this shit everyday....LMMFAO ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:35pm think so? Slinging shit is one thing, backing it with fact is another. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:42pm Guys like Dubya haven't been around in about a 100 years. True 19th Century ruling class politicians interested very little in what happens to those around them. The Kennedys were different. They got their pile peddling Scotch to the same bunch. The real difference is that most of them knew how to have fun without wrecking the place. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:45pm on 01/06/06 at 18:42:22, Charlie wrote:
Tell that to Mary Jo's family....I dare you!!! Great people those Kennedys, huh? http://www.fatboy.cc/images/Olds%20&%20Diver.jpg |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 6th, 2006, 6:58pm It's the scale kids, the scale. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Bob P on Jan 6th, 2006, 7:14pm Quote:
|
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 7:39pm "America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." Fuck you, UN [smiley=finger.gif] "The deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war." "With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." Fuck you, whoever dont like it!! [smiley=bigguns.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Sean_C on Jan 6th, 2006, 7:48pm I'm more interested in seeing what happens in the middle east with all this change of power and influentials either dieing or passing on. Yasser Hussien and his family Bin Laden Sharon ( possibly ) Who did I miss????? I still think this whole war game is similar to tic-tac-toe, if you play what is the first square you want???? Anybody??? Sean........................................ |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Sean_C on Jan 6th, 2006, 7:58pm on 01/06/06 at 19:48:58, Sean_C wrote:
You guys are slow tonight ;;D ITS IRAQ. If you play tic-tac-toe and take center square, no matter where your opponent places thier mark you always have the upper hand in the game. In my opinion, and you can beat it up if you want to, but I think the U.S. will forever have a military presence in Iraq from now on. Its the key square, look at what surrounds Iraq. What more could a super power ask for. We will forever have the key battle square. We'll go it alone justify's why the U.S. will claim the rights, you watch, its just a matter of time. 3 consecutive squares in a straight line in any direction wins the game, who's next. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/middle_east_pol_2003.jpg Sean............................................. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BMoneeTheMoneeMan on Jan 6th, 2006, 8:02pm Alright kids, you want political debate, you got political debate: Just kiddin!! [smiley=crackup.gif] Dont need a [smiley=hammer.gif] at this point, i've already got a visitor. PF wishes BMonee That Bush is doin a heck of a job! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Sean_C on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:19pm on 01/06/06 at 19:58:51, Sean_C wrote:
Let see, we have bases in Afganastan, we have bases Kuwait, we have bases Iraq, ..............................hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm who's inbetween???? clue: They NOW claim they have nuclear capability's. WHY??? Because they know they're next. JMHO |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 6th, 2006, 9:31pm on 01/06/06 at 21:19:05, Sean_C wrote:
The Jews will take care of that....just like they did in Iraq. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by E-Double on Jan 6th, 2006, 11:24pm on 01/06/06 at 21:31:37, Jonny wrote:
I'm working on it |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BobG on Jan 7th, 2006, 3:50am Might as well drag some religion into this thread. Does anyone live near Pat Robertson? If you do, please go over there and shoot that fucker. And (this is NOT from Pat Robertson) from the Westboro Baptist Church....."West Virginia deserved to have those miners die. It was God’s punishment for allowing gays into the state” The Westboro Baptist Church's manifesto is God Hates America. Church members are planning to picket the funerals of the miners. www.godhatesfags.com |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 7th, 2006, 6:09am on 01/06/06 at 23:24:24, E-Double wrote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 7th, 2006, 7:26am on 01/06/06 at 17:17:58, maffumatt wrote:
So you gotta be a liberal if you don't like the job Bush is doing. ::) I truly believe most of us are somewhere in between...I'm not an Ann Coulter type and definitely not a Micheal Moore type. Again...the Bush administration has had 6 years...the time for blaming the Democrats is over. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 7th, 2006, 8:12am thanks Jimmy! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BarbaraD on Jan 7th, 2006, 8:51am I think the time to UNELECT repubs and demos has come. Get some independents in Congress. This year we have a chance. Get career politicians OUT! Of course I've been for term limits for years. Right now all Congress can do is point fingers - but they're not doing anything to help US! We're spending millions (billions) of TAX dollars all over the world, yet we've got disasters all over this country and people here are starving, and going without medical care. I think the best "Homeland Security" we can have is to start using OUR TAX dollars at home to TAKE CARE of US! Sorry, but I haven't seen any Kuait Engineers in New Orleans helping to rebuild the oil platforms that were destroyed and I haven't seen the rest of the world jumping in to help get houses built to get the people back in their homes. What I have seen is telethons asking US for DONATIONS to help these people! What about OUR TAX dollars? Can we NOT spend some of these AT HOME for a change? Our "freedoms" are being taken away one by one and "big brother" is TELLING us how to run our lives. We're TOLD how to raise our children (or get sued), how to drive our cars (click it or ticket), where and where not to smoke in our OWN businesses (the jury is still out on that one), how much an employee MUST be paid, for what REASONS we can and cannot fire an employee, etc. ect. ect. Now our phone lines, houses, and computers can be "tapped" without our knowledge as well as our bank accounts. Our idenity can be stollen. Big brother can do as it damn well pleases and we can sit and let it happen because it's "good for us!" End of rant...... Hugs BD |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 7th, 2006, 6:01pm Quote:
Jay Leno says Pat Robertson is God's punishment on us. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 7th, 2006, 6:02pm on 01/07/06 at 07:26:43, Jimmy B. wrote:
no blame placed by me, just love the way libs shoot themselves in the foot with their anti religous innuendos. The evil CHristians put Bush in office, its all their fault................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 7th, 2006, 6:47pm One of my favorite recent quotes is from Mark Russell: "The religious right is more right than religious." Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by burnt-toast on Jan 7th, 2006, 8:08pm on 01/07/06 at 08:51:01, BarbaraD wrote:
Since this thread has gone this way any way.... I'm with you 100% BD - it's time fire career politicians across the board. Modfied - Political text removed. After posting it I realized it was way too true to be funny and just didn't fit with the original intention of this thread.. Tom |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 8th, 2006, 12:04am on 01/06/06 at 15:45:56, Phil L wrote:
Thanks Phil my sentiments exactly. Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 8th, 2006, 12:06am on 01/07/06 at 18:01:13, Charlie wrote:
Totaly no shit there C. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by zwibbs/Scott on Jan 8th, 2006, 3:08am BUSH--"IS" MS----------------------------First you have to define what "is" is ! GODD LUCK |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 8th, 2006, 8:23am on 01/07/06 at 18:02:21, maffumatt wrote:
I don't remember saying we were evil... actually I think we were duped into putting them into office.... I believe the idea was to get Roe v. Wade overturned and Intelligent Design pushed through and get school vouchers and that we were somehow morally better than the rest..... but it turns out that isn't what it was all about. alas. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by E-Double on Jan 8th, 2006, 8:36am on 01/08/06 at 08:23:23, vig wrote:
Not directed at you Paul........... A general question....... How does on define morally better? We do not live in a society that is truly pious. We happen to be living amongst the greatest hypocrates. Preach one thing and do another. In one breath Preach love then Preach hatred. I don't get it and I'm not a tree hugger. E |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 8th, 2006, 8:56am I think that's the point... none of us are pious... so if we go in without pretending we are, like DeLay and CHeney STILL do, then maybe we can all get along... ("During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land." - Tom DeLay... yesterday) we have to tolerate everybody, not just those that agree with us |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by E-Double on Jan 8th, 2006, 8:58am on 01/08/06 at 08:56:06, vig wrote:
BINGO! ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 8th, 2006, 1:30pm Back to Bushism's.... Only in America http://www.thesmokinggun.com/bush/bush.html and http://img426.imageshack.us/img426/9463/bushdui12te.gif I wonder what Officer Bridges is up to these days. ;) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 9th, 2006, 3:11am He should be hung by lonnys' penis, that is the only way to obtain justice in this sort of thing. Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 9th, 2006, 1:39pm on 01/07/06 at 18:02:21, maffumatt wrote:
Michael Scanlon, the God-praising Republican indicted former aide to Tom Delay and conconspirator with Abramoff was very honest in his memorandum on how he manipulated the Christian right. "The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees, Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them." The right is so much smoother - pay a little lip service, and use the religious right like a tool. It's not anti-religious to point this out. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 9th, 2006, 7:57pm When I first met my preacher neighbor, he asked me what my religion was. I told him about churches and the like that I attended over the years and he pulled out his wallet card showing me that he was a standing member of the CCC or Conservative Christian Coalation or.... something or other. It's telling that "conservative" precedes "Christian." What happened to forgiveness? It's the main tenet of Christianity. To the Pat Roberstons and Jerry Falwells, fear and divisiveness are their gospel. Better sit on the right side of the aisle or else. It's a shame what's happened to serious Christians. They're being used to get elected by neo-conservative gems that with a couple exceptions, really don't care much about religion. They care about getting elected so they can golf on PGA courses in the Carribean while having $1,200 dinners at four star hotels with $5,000 a night rooms. My neighbor, by the way, does demonstrate forgiveness. He's pretty sick of some of wacko stuff from the lunatic fringe too. He behaves like a Christian. He goes out of his way to help his flock; not scare the shit out them. There used to be a Theocratic Party. There used to be a Republican Party too. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Not4Hire on Jan 9th, 2006, 8:59pm on 01/06/06 at 21:31:37, Jonny wrote:
clue: They NOW claim they have nuclear capability's. WHY??? Because they know they're next. JMHO The Jews will take care of that....just like they did in Iraq. on 01/06/06 at 23:24:24, E-Double wrote:
Mon Jan 9, 2:24 PM ET HOUSTON (Reuters) - Texas' highest criminal court on Monday denied a request by Republican U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay to toss out criminal money laundering charges against him or grant him a quick trial. ...The Texas case against DeLay accuses him and two colleagues of laundering $190,000 in corporate donations through the Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (TRMPAC) by funneling money through the Republican National Committee for distribution to Republican candidates in 2002. Texas law forbids the use of corporate money in political campaigns. Quote:
...as far as DeLay: we're workin' on it..... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 9th, 2006, 10:42pm on 01/09/06 at 19:57:23, Charlie wrote:
There used to be a democratic party too, to bad it was taken over by the far left with real anti religous tendencies. That is one reason so many centrist have gone to the right. When you attack a persons belief system, they vote you out of office. They just don't know how many people they turn off. As bad off as the Republican party is, the average person see the left as more of a danger. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by JJA on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:08am If you ask me (and I know you didn't) the problem with the Democrats and Republicans (and therefor the government) isn't so much conservative vs liberal as it is authoritarian vs libertarian. Both parties now favor the authoritarian (Big Brother) end of the spectrum. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/Political_chart.jpg/230px-Political_chart.jpg I agree with the futile sentiment of this thread, toss the current parties/politicians (and the 2 party system while we're at it) and get some libertarian leaning leaders. To be free to do what you like; you have to allow others to do what you don't like. Jesse |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by nani on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:12am on 01/10/06 at 09:08:03, JJA wrote:
Truer words were never spoken. :) Brilliant, Jesse! so brilliant, in fact, I'm going to repeat it. To be free to do what you like; you have to allow others to do what you don't like. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by imnotbub on Jan 10th, 2006, 11:36am But question, is there ANYBODY out there who can be elected President who is a real Statesman, and not just a stinking polititian? Someone who really cares about this country and the world as a whole, who really really wants to do what is the right thing, and who cannot/will not be bought off by the lobbiests and special interest groups? John McCain, the next president You heard it here first |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by imnotbub on Jan 10th, 2006, 11:37am I keep expecting to see Bush wearing a brazeer on his head, after all, he IS a BOOB! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 11:38am i'd vote for him Bush is no Boob, he is always one step ahead....he is underestimated, and thats what is killing the Dems. If they can't beat a boob what does that make them? Whats lower than a boob? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by seasonalboomer on Jan 10th, 2006, 11:53am on 01/10/06 at 11:38:25, maffumatt wrote:
Hmmm...... There are a number of body parts lower than the "boob". Some of which do more appropriately describe both sides in the argument. Scott |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 3:04pm LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to true |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 10th, 2006, 3:12pm Congress doesn't really matter any more - King George has siezed power. He has never vetoed any bill sent to him, but he has put more than 500 'signing statements' on legislation as if he could single handedly change the law to make it anything he wants. Case in point: Congress put a requirement in a Justice Department funding bill that requires the Justice Department to notify Congress if the executive branch instructs them to ignore current legislation. Bush signed the bill, but wrote a signing statement asserting the right to ignore the notification requirement. The US Constitution is getting shredded. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 4:09pm one step ahead.............oh the anghst......... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 10th, 2006, 4:31pm http://www.m90.org/index.php?id=10541 |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Bob P on Jan 10th, 2006, 6:17pm Quote:
|
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 10th, 2006, 7:08pm You're right. Bush is always one step ahead; unfortunately it's always on the neck of the vulnerable, hammering retirees, education, police and fire departments and science. An uneducated populace is what worked in the middle ages to keep things quiet. The good old days. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/reader.gif Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 7:18pm I am pretty sure he has increased funding for all those over what the previous administration Charlie. Esp education. Please provide facts, I would like to see them. The one thing that I don't like is the tighter criteia for PTSS for veterans, all claims granted in the last ten years are being reexamined. This includes my father. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 10th, 2006, 8:19pm I may be interested in politics but I only rant here. Jonny never lets me get away without tedious example searching either. Of course people tend only to agree with blogs they like. I can't sway him. He's PITA 8) It is common knowledge that Bush consistently under or completely unfunds programs to kill them or make them ineffective. Science education is the prime example. He doesn't like basic research either that gets under the skin of his religious supporters. These are programs that are not just needed for education but necessary for the country to remain competetive and healthy. Education always takes hits from the right. They percieve it as liberal. Perhaps. Someone has to be. What exactly is PTSS? I certainly agree on how badly vets are treated. One thing I know about Mr. Bush is that he hasn't any experience dealing with things you and I have to put up with every day. His is rarified atmosphere reminiscent Victorian Patricians that were in charge for so many years in the 19th Century. He doesn't understand the average Joe. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 10th, 2006, 8:43pm on 01/10/06 at 20:19:02, Charlie wrote:
Prove it with facts! on 01/10/06 at 20:19:02, Charlie wrote:
I guess John F Kerry has experience dealing after having a fire hydrant removed from the front of his house at his cost (or Mama T's) of $80,000 so he could park "Out front" Oh yeah....Man of the people.....LOL ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 8:44pm oops PTSD tramatic stress disorder. I am sure there are examples enough to go around for all arguements to be satisfied in one form or another. I don't agree with all of his policys, and I am sure he is a spoiled rich kid. But do you really think any of the leading democrats are any different? King George or Prince Ted of Camalot, Princess Boxer or the Earl of Mass. Kerry, take your pick. Not one of them gives a shit about the little guy. None of them live in the real world. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 10th, 2006, 8:49pm on 01/10/06 at 20:44:10, maffumatt wrote:
The best one is.....is that between his sugar mamas, Kerry lived in his fucking car.....LMMFAO Yep, thats who I wanted for prez ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:06pm Some more Bushisms.... "And so, in my State of the -- my State of the Union -- or state -- my speech to the -- nation, whatever you wanna call it, speech to the nation -- I asked Americans to give 4,000 years -- 4,000 hours over the next -- of the rest of your life -- of service to America. That's what I asked. I said 2 -- 4,000 hours" "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once -- shame on -- shame on you. You fool me, you can't get fooled again." You gotta keep your sense of humor...or life gets boring. PFNAD's Jimmy |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:24pm When asked if he would have gone to war against Saddam Hussein if he refused to disarm, who said, "You bet we might have"? Sen. John Kerry Who said, "I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called"? DNC Chairman Howard Dean "Many of you are well enough off that...the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"? Sen. Hillary Clinton |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:35pm I SINCERELY hope the Dems are not stupid enough to nominate Hillary Clinton. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:43pm If GB Jr expects the majority Americans to volunteer their free time after working 12-14 hours a day he is sadly mistaken. Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:43pm I love the hydrant story. I hadn't heard that one. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/lolabove.gif The thing about rich Democrats is that well.... they are Democrats. By in large rich Democrats tend to vote like Democrats... not to make thing tougher for the little guy. FDR is a good example. They may not go nuts or widely support things like national health, better access to drugs or science education, but they tend to not get in the way or make things worse. You can't say that about Bush. Jonny, everybody knows Bush spent weeks telling us what a dilemma it was for him to even consider not fucking up stem cell research. It was one of the funniest and stupidest speeches ever given by a President. It was an example of trying to get in the way. A Democrats tend not to do so. They aren't in the pockets of things like the Family Research Council. It's one example. He also appointed an idiot to head the FDA; at least for awhile. He was put there because he opposed things like the morning after pill. If I remember, there is another there now. He hires similar types that arent too serious on genetic research and things that upset creationist Beavis and Butthead types. No way am I going to dig into back issues Jonny. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/chewpaper.gif 8) Isn't this shit fun? http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/boink wall.gif Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 10th, 2006, 9:51pm If FDR was alive he would be a modern republican if you go by his record, the Dems have "progressed' far beyond his ideas. Gator was right in the other thread about the Republicans being Democrats and the Democrats being socialist. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 10th, 2006, 10:17pm "Modern" Republicans have been trying to kill the New Deal for 70 years and they have been at it more than ever since day one of their recent take over of Congress. FDR is still hated by Republicans. FDR and George Bush have only one thing in common.....I can't imagine them liking each other. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/sissy fight.gif Modern Republicans are frowned upon by the crowd that have destroyed my old party. The John McCain type Republicans are barely tolerated. The GOP is looking so far into the past that even they have trouble navigating. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 10th, 2006, 11:51pm [quote author=Jonny link=board=general;num=1136525111;start=75#82 date=01/10/06 at 20:43:27] Prove it with facts! I guess John F Kerry has experience dealing after having a fire hydrant removed from the front of his house at his cost (or Mama T's) of $80,000 so he could park "Out front" Oh yeah....Man of the people.....LOL ;;D [/quote Ask any teacher Jonny, there is a source for ya! Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by imnotbub on Jan 11th, 2006, 1:29am Bush is no Boob, he is always one step ahead....he is underestimated, and thats what is killing the Dems. If they can't beat a boob what does that make them? Whats lower than a boob? The 'Crew' is always one step ahead. Do you really think that a man who can't even read the speach prepared for him correctly can be running the show? I think me calling him a boob was giving him too much credit. Kerry? I don't know what our situation would be now. Probably not good, but is it good now? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 11th, 2006, 1:57am on 01/10/06 at 20:43:27, Jonny wrote:
Kerry is irrelevant, you disprove it with facts you lazy a$$hole. The old man is usually right. Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BarbaraD on Jan 11th, 2006, 7:39am Let's face it -- NONE of these guys in Washington have a clue what US little people go thru day to day. They're so far removed from OUR world that they just can't imagine that we don't have all the privileges that they do. Clinton may have been one of the few president's lately who actually was a "little" guy at one time. I have relatives in Hope AR - it's a pretty common little town. Before that maybe Harry Truman. But most of the president's and most of our "elected" reps are well-to-do people who've never shopped at the local grocery store or J.C. Penney's or pumped their own gas. Back years ago (from the time I was a kid) our Congressman lived in Gladewater and I went to school with his kids. I grew up running in and out of his house and he was just Uncle Lindley to me even after I was grown. If I needed something, he got it done. Today I have to go thru my Congressman's AIDE (they can get something done if you get friendly with them, but it's not the same). What I'm getting at is - our representatives just don't have the "personal" touch today that they had back years ago - they're too busy taking bribes from lobbisits and trying to get reelected. And as to facts...... In San Antonio, they're trying to build a hospital for Iraq vets with PTSD and are having to raise $10 million in DONATIONS to do so. Where's government appropriations when you need them? We're asking our KIDS to go to IRAQ to fight a useless war and then when they get home - "Oh well, thanks a lot - now you're on your own! We just don't have any tax money to take care of you - we spent it on other things!" We can't help rebuild New Orleans (or the Gulf Coast) yet we can send money to other countries to help rebuild them. And then we wonder why people "cheat" on their income taxes????? I really don't see much difference between Repubs and Demos right now - they're all idiots. What we need now is some "Mr. Smiths" (ok, maybe Charlie is old enough to remember "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" - it was in Black and White). Some Independents who have actually pumped their own gas and know what it's like to live with the laws coming out of Washington. Maybe then we'll get some common sense back into our government. Hugs BD |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by zwibbs/Scott on Jan 11th, 2006, 7:44am Whats lower than a boob? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Teddy Kennedy!!! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:23am on 01/11/06 at 01:29:42, imnotbub wrote:
Just like he was one step ahead on hurricane Katrina. Just like he ignored the CIA briefing titled "Bin Laden wants to Attack America" and said that there was no way to anticipate that Al Qaeda wanted to use airplanes to attack America ... he was one step ahead of 12 intelligence warnings on Al Qaeda and airplanes. Yeah, his quick and easy "liberation" of Iraq was supposed to be a cake walk, and now most economists say it will cost our nation one to two trillion dollars. He is against big government, which is how he managed to incur more debt in our names than all other presidents combined. Brilliant man. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:46am Just like he was one step ahead on hurricane Katrina He asked LA Gov. to declare a disaster before it hit so he could do something. Guess he should have known the state goverment from the Gov to the mayor was going to be neglegent. CIA briefing titled "Bin Laden wants to Attack America" and said that there was no way to anticipate that Al Qaeda wanted to use airplanes to attack America 200 days in office, vs 8 years. quick and easy "liberation" of Iraq was supposed to be a cake walk, and now most economists say it will cost our nation one to two trillion dollars might have gone faster if our patriotic Dem lawmakers didn't encourage the enemy by telling the voters we can't win and the other lies they spout. He is against big government, which is how he managed to incur more debt in our names than all other presidents combined. its his liberal spending on entitlements carried over. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by JJA on Jan 11th, 2006, 9:11am on 01/11/06 at 08:46:03, maffumatt wrote:
Dems were mostly representing their constituents feelings here. Popular/political support is part of war and just as important as guns and missiles. I think thats the biggest mistake Bush made in deciding to invade/liberate Iraq. Quote:
[smiley=laugh.gif] From the Cato institute: " How odd that Bill Clinton, that giant, walking appetite of a man, turned out to be a model of fiscal restraint, and George W. Bush, a teetotalling model of self-discipline in his personal life, turned out to be so profligate and irresponsible in fiscal policy. It's odd too, that it was George W. Bush, not Bill Clinton, who launched the biggest expansion of the Great Society in over 30 years." http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-01-04.html Jesse |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 11th, 2006, 10:04am on 01/11/06 at 08:46:03, maffumatt wrote:
An urban myth, thoroughly disproven. http://www.snopes.com/katrina/politics/blanco.asp Quote:
What? When was he going to start paying attention to the security of our nation? At 300 days? 400 days? And how does a reference to '8 years' make any sense what so ever?? Quote:
Oh, so the fact that they said that there might be problems makes them responsible for the problems? If they would have only had more faith in Bush's war, then the insurgents would have not bothered to resist? You think that if the people opposed to smoking would shut up about cancer and emphysema, maybe fewer people would die from those diseases? [smiley=gocrazy.gif] Quote:
No, see the quote on previous page by JJA. Any objective mind (including the libertarian Cato group) recognizes that Bush dramatically increased spending, while dramatically cutting taxes. Recipe for disaster. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Gator on Jan 11th, 2006, 12:47pm on 01/11/06 at 10:04:21, floridian wrote:
Putting money back in the hands of people who will use it to build industry and create new jobs is a plan that works every time it is tried. The media is contantly reporting the bad news about the economy, but it does seem to me that the stock market just topped 11,000 recently. Hard to imagine that happening is a terrible economy. Businesses are creating more jobs, more people are buying houses and unemployment is at its lowest levels in years. Big disaster there. When allowed to do so, the private sector comes up with solutions that are better and cheaper than anything a governmental entity can come up with. We ought to be demanding the government back off and let the private sector solve a lot of the problems government is making worse. It is true that the US government under Bush has spent money like a drunken sailor, but Bush does not write the legislation. He can only sign or not sign into law what our elected officials in the house and the senate forward to him. I agree that he has been all too eager to sign too many bills that have either expanded existing or created new entitlement programs. You'd think he was a Democrat the way he has authorized spending in this country. Time to put BarbD's suggestion to work. Limit terms and therefore limit the amount of influence a lobbyist can exert. Get these career gold diggers out of our back pockets. Take away their "Golden Parchute" and put them on the same retirement and social security plan as the people they serve and I bet social security is fixed muy pronto, too. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 11th, 2006, 1:22pm Quote:
Yeah, those sinister webmasters reorganized the directory of press releases. Try this page: http://tinyurl.com/7ao64 Quote:
What? And spoil his vacation? on 01/11/06 at 12:47:45, Gator wrote:
That's why Bush ignored a CIA Presidential Briefing that called for action - because Clinton put up walls of communication? And he ignored his terrorism czar's call for action because of Clinton? Some people have said that America has a culture of victimization - definitely true when it comes to some Bush supporters... couldn't do their job because they were victims of Bill. Hard work. Quote:
Do you really believe that bin Laden is motivated to do what he does by Dean? Or maybe he was devoted to a plan of action long before Dean made any comments about it. Think the IEDs in Iraq have anything to do with what Kerry says? Someone invades your country, you hate their guts, but what really motivates you is the degree of slightly critical coverage in the media of the country that invades you. Sure. We can control our own destiny if we only think more positiver. And how many people were killed as a result of Bush's blooper of calling our 'liberation' a crusade?? That surely pissed off and motivated a few people in the Middle East - nothing wrong with the President of the US saying that our troops are occupying Arab lands in a holy war. But I guess that's just part of his 'bring it on' mentality. We shouldn't hold him responsible for starting the war, or egging on the people attacking our troops. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 11th, 2006, 1:41pm The 9-11 commission has determined that Clinton was never offered Bin Laden. The Sudan Govt. gave this report and the Republicans ran with it as gospel. http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005 http://www.makethemaccountable.com/myth/ClintonAndTerrorism.htm They endorsed the claims of former officials of Sudan -- a country that the U.S. Department of State has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism every year since 1993 -- rather than the testimony of Clinton administration officials and the findings of the 9-11 Commission. Bush has had 6 years. Where's Bin Laden & Al Zarghawi? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Gator on Jan 11th, 2006, 2:00pm If that's the case, they why did Clinton defend not taking Bin Laden by saying he had no legal reason to take him into custody? Where are they? In hiding and on the run. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2006, 2:14pm on 01/11/06 at 13:41:22, Jimmy B. wrote:
Sandy burgler took the evividence out of the archives in his underwear..................... |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2006, 2:31pm i would argue more but some people are blinded by their hatred of Bush and thats all it really is hatred. Anything that is done that is good for the country is bad for for the Democrats, and thats a sad state of affairs. Anything that is done right was done so Inspite of the democrats tieing his hands. I see problems with Bush (mostly about the borders and the environment), but I also see the good that he has done. Facts are twisted, others are ignored, and quite frankly it gets old argueing with people who facts mean nothing. This has to be the first war in history where the opposition party has done a better job at propaganda than the enemy. Deny it if you must, but the quotes of , Kennedy, Biden, Clinton, ect... are all public record. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 11th, 2006, 2:52pm on 01/11/06 at 14:31:58, maffumatt wrote:
LMAO/ROFL !!! Glad we have some humorous types hanging out here. Since when did the Democratic party tie Bush's hands? Word Up - the House and Senate are controlled by the Republicans, who have given Bush most of what he wants. If some nuisance like McCain insists on a bill outlawing torture, Bush will sign that, along with a signing statement that he reserves the right to ignore the law if he feels compelled to do so. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 11th, 2006, 3:01pm on 01/11/06 at 14:31:58, maffumatt wrote:
bad generalization. [smiley=referee.gif] 5 yard penalty ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Ghost on Jan 11th, 2006, 3:07pm Actually I would agree and can prove truth in the statement, there are 3 people I work with that I did ask and they agreed they hated Bush and everything he does is illegal, that does qualify as some. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2006, 3:36pm I was reffering to what Clinton, Reno, and jamie gorelic had done to our intellegence service before Bush took office. Want to talk about Intellegence failures, you don't think leaking classified material and programs are tieing his hands? Get real. Got to have intellegence but don't step on anyones toes getting it. But like I said facts don't mean much when you are to blinded by hate to see them. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 11th, 2006, 7:47pm http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/hair pull.gif Every time this new disgusting crowd of spenders on everything but the people that elected them, runs into trouble, embarrassed by their own incompetence, or busted trying to rewrte the Constitution, they look for a way to blame Bill Clinton. Consistant infantile behavior. Clinton's childish behavior hurt himself; they hurt the whole country. Bill Clinton did an excellent job defending the country from neo-conservative nincompoopery despite their endless wailing about family values. Nothing is a bigger waste of government time and money. Family values is a clever way to keep our eyes off the ball while they run rings around the law and play reverse Robin Hood. These are genuinely dangerous people; not just the uncompassionate jerk in the bubble of the oval office. Never fear. Big can't hit a the target Brother is watchinghttp://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/blinds peek.gif Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 11th, 2006, 7:53pm Ok, Flo, Charlie and Vig.....what do you guys think Bush should do with this one....go to the UN?....LMAO!! Iran sharply escalated the battle of nerves over its nuclear program Tuesday, abandoning a year-old suspension of its uranium enrichment activities by cutting protective seals in full view of international inspectors and gaining access to equipment that could help the country produce a stockpile of weapons-grade fuel. "Iran just walked away from the chess game they had been playing over the program," said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a leading Washington think tank on nuclear issues. "It's a different game now. Iran has made a decision to move ahead. Now, it's up to us and our partners to stop them." |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by stevegeebe on Jan 11th, 2006, 7:56pm Third Party anyone? God..! When are we going to get beyond this? Steve G |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Lizzie2 on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:31pm Well...I'm a democrat, but I don't think I'm a far-leftist person. What I don't like about the current republican party is that, YES, they use Christianity to win people over, but in a way that excludes people who are not Christian. I find it offensive. And yes, I often find it to be hippocritical. But then, most people don't know that Penn State is in the bible belt of Pennsylvania. When I was a freshman, my RA held a weekly Bible study on our floor. I and a few others were told we were going to hell because we weren't Christian. My roommate and I were Catholic, and they told us Catholics aren't Christians and that we're all going to hell. I presume we could have told the higher ups at the university about this, especially since an RA was enforcing it. But that same group of people would also go out and get drunk and party. Much of what I saw up at PSU. Pious Christians ripping on others and then going out and doing the exact same thing. That's the kind of thing that sickens me. Not all people are that way. Generalizations get us into trouble. I'm a Christian democrat who thinks Michael Moore is a nutcase. I don't think all republicans are immoral or stupid or even necessarily on the wrong track....but I do think the current administration needs to go. Can't make blanket statements because everyone is different. And what's said above is right. We have a nation founded on freedom. We can't make it exclusive... "I like you because..." It doesn't work that way. And as far as judgement goes....well in my Christian faith, that's up to God. I couldn't get through my job day in and day out if I looked at every person's bad choices for their babies and judged them...or thought better of myself. That's not my role in this life. It's to love them as best I can and try to be a good example. My .02 Carrie :) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:33pm The UN hasn't been able to deal with it. Here is our chance. Europe is on our side and we on theirs. Iran is a horror story again. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:39pm on 01/11/06 at 20:33:59, Charlie wrote:
I guess you you only put the boots to someone after the fact, Bush bypassed the UN, but now thats ok to do? Your a expert on foreign policy, right? |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:44pm I'm with you on that one Jonny... only problem is that now, because of our mistake in Iraq, we don't have either the global support, military capability, the money, or the integrity to take that battle on. that's the bad part, now that we really NEED to step up, we can't. we're pretty much spent. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 11th, 2006, 8:51pm Quote:
What the hell are you talking about? http://www.schildersmilies.de/schilder/dontgetit.gif?SSImageQuality=Full Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Jan 11th, 2006, 9:04pm on 01/11/06 at 20:44:40, vig wrote:
Looking the other way while the Jews did their thing aint out of the question....it worked with Iraq back in the day ;;D Charlie....try to follow ::) |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by vig on Jan 11th, 2006, 9:05pm I'm all for it... ;;D |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Redd715 on Jan 11th, 2006, 9:18pm Appears our friends across the pond are feeling much the same as a growing population on our own country. An article http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1682755,00.html |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 11th, 2006, 10:59pm on 01/11/06 at 19:53:20, Jonny wrote:
Lotsa luck stopping them, or any medium to large country that really wants nukes. 1950s high technology. My answer - geographically decentralize. Stop moving more important goverment assets to fewer places (D.C., consolidated military bases). Encourage rational suburbanization so that the effect of any one attack is minimized. And don't worry. A country with 10 nuclear weapons is far less a problem than a country (or madman) with only one. Mutually assured destruction can be effective - especially when we would not be destroyed, but they would. America's Unipolar Moment is over. It lasted for about a year after the Soviet Union crumbled and we were the unchallenged leader of the world. Then the vaccume started to fill. Hope you all enjoyed it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 11th, 2006, 11:16pm we wouldn't be the first target, Isreal would. They already have proclaimed their desire to see it destroyed. Isreal would retaliates killing millions, this drawing the other Arab states into it. Think gas is expensive now? Just wait. MAD worked with the USSR because they wanted to live, but I don't think the lives of the populace is a concern of Iran. I think this is a good time for the UN to stand up and do what it was created for, if not its revelency and credibility will be questioned. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Gator on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:11am The UN is an impotent body with no credibility and no relevancy. All those years of telling Iraq, Stop! or we'll say Stop again! pretty much proved that. Saddam Hussein wasn't affected by UN sanctions. He had everything he needed to live comfortably even if it was at the expense of his own people. Sadam Hussein laughed at the UN while he lined certain members' pockets with money in the "Oil for Food" scam. All he had to do was toss a little money under the table and the oh so noble France, Russia and Germany dove under the table to deal with Saddam for it. These great upstanding people who so many in this country want us to emulate. It reminded me of a little kid with crumbs on his face and chocolate in his teeth trying to look innocent of sneaking into the cookie jar. You think Iran, North Korea or any other potentially dangerous regime gives two hoots in hell what the UN thinks? Not bloody likely. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by BobG on Jan 12th, 2006, 4:54am Can't believe this thread started out as funny and turned into nonsense. It’s a bitch trying to run the country from the bottom. Besides, it’s all Ronnie Reagan’s fault. He should never have listened to his #1 advisor, Nancy’s astrologer. I’m sure glad Hillary will be the next president. We need a real man in office! |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 12th, 2006, 7:31am on 01/12/06 at 01:11:50, Gator wrote:
Classic Bushspeak. The UN should get behind the US's war against Iraq, or it would become irrelevant. But it turns out that UN sanctions in the case of Iraq did keep Saddam from developing any WMD. And while most Americans are repeating the bogus neocon mantra "Every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam had WMD" the UN inspectors kept saying that there weren't any. If the UN is a joke, it is because its most powerful members have refused to consistently enforce the principles and international laws that the UN stands for. No problem with Israel violating the nuclear nonproliferation treaty or flouting security council resolution 242 for decades. Now that Iran does it, its an outrage? Sorry, the lack of credibilty there is laid firmly at the feet of the US. Iraq isn't Iran - Darryl Worley identified a another intelligence problem, but nobody fixed it. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Ghost on Jan 12th, 2006, 10:46am on 01/12/06 at 04:54:17, BobG wrote:
[smiley=bow.gif] [smiley=spit.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=crackup.gif] [smiley=headbanger.gif] [smiley=spit.gif] [smiley=smokin.gif] |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by JJA on Jan 12th, 2006, 11:00am Bush on immigration yesterday (Jan 11, 2006): ”It also makes sense to take pressure off the border by giving people a legal means on a temporary basis to come here, so they don't have to sneak across. Now, some of you all may be old enough to remember the days of Prohibition. I'm not. (Laughter.) But remember, we illegalized whisky, and guess what? People found all kinds of ways to make it, and to run it. NASCAR got started -- positive thing that came out of all that.(Laughter.)” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060111-7.html Is he saying that banning a certain drug caused a black market with more problems than the drug itself? Hmmm...Where does this lesson logically apply? Drug policy? No. Immigration policy of course! That makes perfect sense...no wait... Jesse |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jimmy B. on Jan 12th, 2006, 11:44am Quote:
I could use this same argument with Clinton. I voted for Bush...cause I didn't think Kerry was the person for the job and I had to pick between the lesser of two evils. But just because I voted for him or have a piece of paper that says "Republican"... doesn't mean he shouldn't be held accountable for his failures...and there have been a lot :) The American people deserve better then "picking the lesser of two evils". That is my point. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by imnotbub on Jan 12th, 2006, 12:20pm MAD worked with the USSR because they wanted to live, but I don't think the lives of the populace is a concern of Iran. I think this statement sais it all. You can not use the same logic with the people in the Arab states because they don't seem to care if they live or not. (goes to show what the quality of life is there) Up to this point it has actually worked in our favor to an extent. Just immagine how much more damage would be done if the suicide bombers didn't all commit suicide. They would be around to wreak more havoc. On a larger scale, though, there is nothing to deter tham from dropping a big one on somebody. If we wipe them all out, they all go to heaven and enjoy the unending supply of virgins they seem to think is there. This is a truly scary time. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by maffumatt on Jan 12th, 2006, 12:59pm on 01/12/06 at 11:44:16, Jimmy B. wrote:
I agree with this statement, I just wish there was a way to make it so. As is that is all we got. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by floridian on Jan 12th, 2006, 1:44pm on 01/12/06 at 12:20:22, imnotbub wrote:
Those Japs were positively, subhumanly suicidally insane with their 'divine wind' kamikaze planes. They didn't have the same respect for life that we did and were happy to die for Shinto, the Emperor and that hypothetical life beyond life. Two bombs, war over. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Ree on Jan 12th, 2006, 2:51pm on 01/06/06 at 17:25:49, Sandy_C wrote:
I liked Wesley Clark..... I thought he was good. Im not a democrat either.... I belong to the "gottalikems"... I'm independant.....ree |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Charlie on Jan 12th, 2006, 11:35pm While I don't share the glee displayed by UN haters when it seems ineffective... a kind of schadenfreude in a way, from what I read, they are as stuck as rest of us on this one. Nobody has a handle on it. I have been reading that they are at least a few years away from a bomb anyway. I hope. When it comes to fighting Iran, that would be different matter than the debacle in Iraq. Iran is bigger, tougher and full of people willing to make a real mess of things. http://www.netsync.net/users/charlies/gifs/sloppy samurai It's sad because the country is full of young people that are stuck with leaders with no compassion or concern for their people.....kind of a 21st century disease. We can only hope there is some kind of civil uprising. Charlie |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by forgetfulnot on Jan 17th, 2006, 1:44am where is my dictionary? Lee |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by AussieBrian on Jan 17th, 2006, 2:30am I know just how people feel. We had an election here recently and had to choose between the lesser of two weevils. |
||||||||
|
Title: Re: George W. Bushisms Post by Jonny on Feb 2nd, 2006, 8:37pm See this one??? |
||||||||
|
Clusterheadaches.com Message Board » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1! YaBB © 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved. |