Bush

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112Well, if you really think that sadam wasn't giving funds to usama, then all i have to say is ROFFLES.

You are only laughing at your own ignorance my friend, the two couldn't stand one another.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, I think MI5, MI6, the CIA, the FBI, The Department of Homeland Security, and not least ... the White house let alone the English Parliament and all of the UN security council would be very interested in talking to you !!

They looked and looked and looked and looked and could find no trace of a connection between Iraq, and either 9-11 or Quada.


Oh and Saddam has two "d"s, I'm dyslexic and I know that !

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonWell, technically I think it was the American system of the electoral college that "handed" George W. Bush the presidency. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game.

Because there was controversy they went to the supreme court judges to make the decision, some of which were appointed by W's daddy. THAT's what I was talking about. How respresentative is that of "the people"?

Indeed, I don't like the rules, and this president only confirms why I don't like them.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonI'd rather have a resolute leader than an indecisive one. Yes, the willingness to change one's mind is also a good quality in a president, but Kerry does it so often that I fear impotency in the white house.

By the way "admitting a mistake" and "Catering to the public" are not the same thing.

You mean "incompetency"? Who cares if Kerry can get his dick up or not?

I'd rather have a president that admits his mistakes, than one that tries to cover them up. Bush definitely does NOT cater to the general public.

Originally Posted by: SPLYou mean "incompetency"? Who cares if Kerry can get his dick up or not?

No, I mean impotency which also means "an inability to act." A dictionary that doesn't only include the vulgar might help you out.

Originally Posted by: Jolly McJollysonNo, I mean impotency which also means "an inability to act." A dictionary that doesn't only include the vulgar might help you out.

What's vulgar about bodily functions?

I just thought it was a poor choice of words, but I knew what you meant though, just messing with ya. ;-)

Hey Bush isn't great, but Kerry is Crap-Eater, thats all i have to say. Who gives a flyin crap if he served in Vietnam, Dwight Eisenhower didn't, I think he did just fine.

Yes. Clinton had a great Homeland Policies, and for most of his admin. he had a great economy, but we were attacked several times when he was president, all of you weren't probably Complainin then.

Spelling error dude...

One of you mods better not close this down, that poopie always happens when it gets good.

~Incidents

Edited by Incidents Happen as to not get banned because there are virgin ears ;)

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112Hey Bush isn't great, but Kerry is Crap-Eater, thats all i have to say. Who gives a flyin crap if he served in Vietnam, Dwight Eisenhower didn't, I think he did just fine.

Yes. Clinton had a great Homeland Policies, and for most of his admin. he had a great economy, but we were attacked several times when he was president, all of you weren't probably Complainin then.

Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my god.

Your ignorance is showing so badly! President Eisenhower died in 1969, while fighting was still going on in Vietnam!!! He was 73 years old when JFK started sending troops over in '63. He was the supreme commander of the troops invading FRANCE IN '44, how could you say that "Well Eisenhower didn't serve in Nam, and he turned out fine!" When he was the mastermind (well, you could argue that Montgomery of Great Britain was...well wait, you're twelve and won't learn about that for another four years) of the greatest amphibious assault in the history of mankind?

Thumps head against desk*

You can't be serious.

~Incidents

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112Hey Bush isn't great, but Kerry is Crap-Eater, thats all i have to say. Who gives a flyin crap if he served in Vietnam, Dwight Eisenhower didn't, I think he did just fine.

Wether he served in the army is not important at all. Wether he deserved his purple hearts or not is equally unimportant, but still a lot of people make such a big deal out of it. Where is the relevance between his competency of being a president and him receiving some purple hearts? I'd say this is a totally invalid argument.

Btw, the economy under Bush is ****, and under his presidency the US suffered the biggest attack on US soil ever. This attack wasn't Bush's fault, nor Clinton's fault. The fault lies in America's foreign policies going back a long long time...
In stead of trying to make things better, Bush made it so that the world's hate for America has only been enforced. That's enough reason to complain I'd think.

I meant it as, he did't serve in the army, why the hell would a 60 year old man serve in the vietnam war??? think about it ... why would you think i would say something like that, yes i worded it very poorly, im very tired... First of all economy has nothing to do with the president, it has to do with private sectors and how well they distribute and consume products... Alan greenspan has more to do with it than he does, is there like some new law out there that can be passed that can make the econonmy better. No. President doesn't control wether alan greenspan is hiring or not.

Look at Kerry's Record in voting tell me what he has done???

And would terrorists like us if kerry was in office??? They don't give a crap who's in office, they don't like us cuz we are free.

Terrorists must have liked us when clinton was in office when the WTC was attacked the first time in 1993.

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112They don't give a crap who's in office, they don't like us cuz we are free.

That's a new one. :rolleyes:

I thought they didn't like us because they're jealous we have Jessica Simpson and Big Macs.

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenOne of you mods better not close this down, that poopie always happens when it gets good.

~Incidents

Edited by Incidents Happen as to not get banned because there are virgin ears ;)

Thank you.

I just wanted to say to all of you that this thread is starting to look border-line of a naughty thread. Try to tone down your feelings.

:D

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112I meant it as, he did't serve in the army, why the hell would a 60 year old man serve in the vietnam war???
[/QUOTE]

You're not only proving yourself to be ignorant, but a flip-flopper! The below are your words, not mine.

Originally Posted by: DreamRyche2112 Who gives a flyin crap if he served in Vietnam, Dwight Eisenhower didn't, I think he did just fine.

Eisenhower did serve in the Army. He went to West Point and was at the top of his class. You don't rise to the rank of Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces by deserting the TANG and snorting coke in Alabama.
Once again, I don't think you realize that Dwight D. Eisenhower led the Allied Forces against Nazi Germany. You mention "I think he did just fine". How would you know? Last time I checked, you would have been negative-forty years old at that time. How can you tell he did just fine? From some textbook? Did you know that he appointed Earl Warren as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and was enraged when Earl sided with Brown on the Brown Vs. Board of Education ruling? Since you most likely don't know what Brown vs. Board of Education was, that was basically the deciding factor to end desegregation in the public school system. Eisenhower was against the desegregation, as were the majority of conservatives in his day. If everyone followed Eisenhower's beliefs, schools would still be segregated. How about that for a fine president, hm?

[QUOTE=DreamRyche2112]First of all economy has nothing to do with the president, it has to do with private sectors and how well they distribute and consume products...

The president has a very significant role in the economy, and anyone who disagrees is ignorant to the truth. The economy isn't just private sectors selling and buying ****, it's government spending (like the government giving Halliburton $8 billion for the war on Iraq, in which it was allowed to overcharge the military); it's directly connected to trade-agreements set by the president (like the president's "free" trade idea that has allowed the loss of 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in four years), which are affected by foreign relations, which is affected by the actions of the President.

~Incidents

Originally Posted by: The Ace
I just wanted to say to all of you that this thread is starting to look border-line of a naughty thread. Try to tone down your feelings.

:D

Oh really? So when did you become a mod? Last time I checked, you're just one of us, with absolutely no authority, just like the rest of us. If every time people express their opinions the thread gets locked, then what's the point of the open forum?

~Incidents

Because authoritarian censorship is the solution to everything! The Patriot Act is your friend! (comic relief, comic relief)

Originally Posted by: ekstasis16Because authoritarian censorship is the solution to everything! The Patriot Act is your friend! (comic relief, comic relief)

hahaha, perfect moment!

~Incidents

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenOh really? So when did you become a mod? Last time I checked, you're just one of us, with absolutely no authority, just like the rest of us. If every time people express their opinions the thread gets locked, then what's the point of the open forum?

~Incidents

When I last checked, the "instructors" have full moderating authority, however, either it's been a while, or I've never checked.

Anyways, in general, we stand behind our instructors; also, they have access to the Admin Forum, where issues like this can be discussed, and instructors can bring up any concerns they have and advice they have for dealing with them.

Originally Posted by: Incidents HappenOh really? So when did you become a mod? Last time I checked, you're just one of us, with absolutely no authority, just like the rest of us. If every time people express their opinions the thread gets locked, then what's the point of the open forum?

~Incidents

Listen the mods do their jobs right. I'm just saying this thread is slowly but surely approaching being closed. I was hoping you guys could save it before that happened. There's nothing wrong with posting what you think, but this is a public forum. Pretty soon people on this thread will start using vulgar language, and instead of throwing insults at the president throwing insults at eachother! Please don't go down that road again (It has happened in numerous threads)!