My name is President George W. Bush...here is my resume

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- My name is President George W. Bush...here is my resume
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

Posted by Viber on Jun-23-2003 23:23:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
Okay, please tell me your kidding? Please tell me you aren't serious!

ok i admit i was over reacting i dont admire him and stuff and i dont think he is the best president ever but i will say that he is better then clinton

Oh and cyrus king i forgat to tell you that the quote you have on your sig was said in a similer way by a general in the us army i dont remmember his name he said : ?we need to kill ben laden and let god decide what to do with him"

Posted by DR86 on Jun-23-2003 23:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Viber
ok i admit i was over reacting i dont admire him and stuff and i dont think he is the best president ever but i will say that he is better then clinton

I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Bush's foreign policy is shit comapred to Clinton's. I can't say about hsi fiscal/economic policy because I'm not really into that, you'd have to ask occrider. But I believe that overall, Clinton was by FAR a better president that Bush. I'm not just saying that because I'm a a democrat, I'm saying that because that's simply the truth. Clinton, at least, was able to finish up what he started.....

Posted by Shakka on Jun-23-2003 23:31:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
I'm not just saying that because I'm a a democrat,...

Yes, you are.

Posted by Viber on Jun-23-2003 23:33:

Posted by Shakka on Jun-23-2003 23:36:

quote:
Originally posted by Viber
you know what now when i think about it i dont think any of us can judge bush right now he need to finish his term in order for us to say he is better/worse then clinton i mean we dont know yet the rusult of him as president of the united states

so lets just wait and see

Great point.

Posted by occrider on Jun-23-2003 23:42:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Bush's foreign policy is shit comapred to Clinton's. I can't say about hsi fiscal/economic policy because I'm not really into that, you'd have to ask occrider. But I believe that overall, Clinton was by FAR a better president that Bush. I'm not just saying that because I'm a a democrat, I'm saying that because that's simply the truth. Clinton, at least, was able to finish up what he started.....

Absolutely right ... Bush was not elected for his foreign policy so much as his domestic agenda. America didn't want anything to do with foreign agendas after the messes in Somalia, Kosovo, etc. I'm not going to say Clinton would have made all the right decisions following 9/11, but I will say this ... his diplomatic savvy would have been quite a plus. As for Bush's domestic agenda ... we'll know how effective it is in a year or two. It's really quite difficult to say how effective fiscal and monetary policies are due to recognition lags in the market and the fact that there are a million factors affecting a trillion dollar economy.

Edit: Oh and by absolutely right I mean with respects to Clinton's foreign policies and international country to country relations being better than Bush's

And yes we'll have a better idea of how stupid or how not stupid Bush really was at the end of his presidancy. It'll certainly be an interesting time for history books.

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-24-2003 00:49:

quote:
Originally posted by Viber
not correct stalin and sadam wanted to rule their countries for their own wishes and to apply their idea of a country and society they will want and thats diffrent from what bush want bush think more on his country then himself

LOL!!! dood stop sucking on Bush's feet. I know that NOW he's trying to do something in the middle east, some peace aproach ( something that he left behind for a long time ).. but come on, dont let that make you say things like that. LOL! If he cared for his country, he would actually care about his country's problems instead of throwing away money on the military.. yes! throwing away, because nothing good has come out of it.. well, maybe some little things but not to the degree to compensate the spendis he's done.

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-24-2003 00:51:

Posted by DR86 on Jun-24-2003 02:46:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Yes, you are.

Posted by St_Andrew on Jun-24-2003 16:17:

quote:
Originally posted by Viber
to me a guy who have sucseeded in life is a guy who is smart and bush is the leader of the world and that makes him pretty damm smart

you know what the smartest guy in the world do? he is a single bouncer in a pub in texas so he will be a stupid men according to my theory

Okay, then we think diffrent, I think a president should be smart in the know-how-to-rule-a-country way, not in the hey-i-had-a-father-who-once-was-the-president-may-I-be-one-too way.
And i don't nessesary think that the smartest guy on earth should be the president BUT at least one with an above average IQ or anyone that know anything about ruling a country!!

Posted by Viber on Jun-24-2003 16:46:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
Okay, then we think diffrent, I think a president should be smart in-how-t the knowo-rule-a-country way, not in the hey-i-had-a-father-who-once-was-the-president-may-I-be-one-too way.
And i don't nessesary think that the smartest guy on earth should be the president BUT at least one with an above average IQ or anyone that know anything about ruling a country!!

I dont think he should be president becuse he's father was president but the other way around i think that it shows a state that not live in "present" but in the past like it was in the world 300 years ago
but i think the people from america are not that stupid so they will choose somebody just becuse he's dad was a good president but they've checked other quilities of him

thats it i'm done defending bush he's not even my president i will see you when you will start disreaspect Sharon or The IDF

Posted by JM on Jun-26-2003 01:23:

quote:
Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Well all that doesn't matter, because he didn't get caught getting a blowjob by his intern.

...better yet, he got cought LYING about it wankster of a president!...to top it all off, he got impeached. hows that for image of "America"

liberals suck

>JM<

Posted by DR86 on Jun-26-2003 01:25:

quote:
Originally posted by JM
...better yet, he got cought LYING about it wankster of a president!...to top it all off, he got impeached. hows that for image of "America"

liberals suck

>JM<

That was the stupidest scandal ever. I find it ridiculous that a President was impeached because of his personal matters. That "scandal" didn't even affect the way he ran the country!!!

Conservatives suck!

Posted by occrider on Jun-26-2003 01:54:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
That was the stupidest scandal ever. I find it ridiculous that a President was impeached because of his personal matters. That "scandal" didn't even affect the way he ran the country!!!

Conservatives suck!

I think the issue was more about him lying about it rather than him actually getting a blowjob. Although it was a pretty stupid scandal. Kennedy cheated left and right when he was in office. Republicans like to cut taxes, and democrats can't keep thier dicks in their pants.

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-26-2003 02:07:

quote:
Originally posted by JM
...better yet, he got cought LYING about it wankster of a president!...to top it all off, he got impeached. hows that for image of "America"

liberals suck

>JM<

Jeez your dummm!!!!! Yes that was bad yes yes. But you forgot about YOUR presidents that had to friking resign?!? jeeez.. remember.. WATERGATE!!! which is something 100000000000x worst then what Clinton did. Yes bad image for him. But who friking cares what he does. Yes he lied. That was bad ok.. but heaving your peeps sepnd millions and that nonsense scandal?!?!?!? Rediculous!!!!!!!! those millions could have helped the poors or medicare, or education, anything but that dumm ass scandal just to make his life imposible.
Your like dog.. whenever you hear critics tours the side you hate, you jump like no one else..I know I do to, but I dont disappear when it comes to facing something... but in your case, when it comes to REAL current issues you are just a scary ass that has nothing to do about cause you know you are so friking wrong!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
I say this because you so blindly spoke out of your mind to support war and all the other nonsense you commented.. atleast speak up!!!

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-26-2003 02:10:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
I think the issue was more about him lying about it rather than him actually getting a blowjob. Although it was a pretty stupid scandal. Kennedy cheated left and right when he was in office. Republicans like to cut taxes, and democrats can't keep thier dicks in their pants.

LOL! Womenaizers!! Kennedy got with Monroe! Lucky bastard!

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-26-2003 02:13:

On a sidenote. CLinton is a Conservative Democrat. Think how he was raised and where. He really was in a poor family in which he had problems, and who knows, no one taught him morals and crap, so what do you expect from a person that came from a poor family, there was a lack of moral education there. I think. And where he was from it was by history a democratic state/place. So Im thinking that just because of that he was a democrat, or else he would've been a Republican because of his Conservative place.

Posted by Shakka on Jun-26-2003 14:37:

quote:
Originally posted by LiquidX
On a sidenote. CLinton is a Conservative Democrat. Think how he was raised and where. He really was in a poor family in which he had problems, and who knows, no one taught him morals and crap, so what do you expect from a person that came from a poor family, there was a lack of moral education there. I think. And where he was from it was by history a democratic state/place. So Im thinking that just because of that he was a democrat, or else he would've been a Republican because of his Conservative place.

Well I don't know about that....

But, if a man lacks morals, as you seem to imply, doesn't that call his character into question? And if his character is questionable, does that make him a suitable president? I think you just opened a big can of worms by saying that.

Posted by drgoodvibe on Jun-26-2003 15:06:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Well I don't know about that....

But, if a man lacks morals, as you seem to imply, doesn't that call his character into question? And if his character is questionable, does that make him a suitable president? I think you just opened a big can of worms by saying that.

comes down to this.. would you like a

lying womanizing president who can't keep his dick in his pants..who skipped the draft.. but is good at foreign policy and running government

OR

a war mongering, coke doing, corrupt, president who skipped the draft by getting his daddy to put him in the coast gaurd, who at the first months of office didnt know China's presidents name, who choked and passed out on a pretzel.

and the clear winner is??

wow come to think of it idiots have been running the country for a very long time.

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Jun-26-2003 16:20:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
If that's how you can justify your feelings. Sorry they didn't want to change the rules to suit your liking, after the fact. That would have been more criminal--to write a retro-active law to overturn a constitutional amendment which just happens to be in the Bill of Rights probably wouldn't go over too well, hmmm? That would throw our entire society into a cluster-fuck situation. Face it. Gore lost fair-and-square. After the umpteenth Florida recount, he still lost fair-and-square by the rules that governed the contest.

Yes, it would definitely be wrong to retroactively change the system. But, do you think monarchs deserve to be in control of their countries just because the law says they have that right due to their ancestry? The fact is Bush won the elections due to a legal loophole, and while his victory is legitimate, it isn't morally right.

Posted by LiquidX on Jun-26-2003 16:28:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
Well I don't know about that....

But, if a man lacks morals, as you seem to imply, doesn't that call his character into question? And if his character is questionable, does that make him a suitable president? I think you just opened a big can of worms by saying that.

Does heaving his dick wherever the guy wants make you loose your job or take this country into ruins?!?! I dont think so...
Yes a president needs an image to represent. But it was the republicans who made this go on public and made it worst then it seemed. It should have been taken with seriousnes.

On a side note. When the president was been impeached, the senators, and cogressmans where making a joke out of it, they were all making jokes and laughing their ass off. Thank god the TV didnt show what was going on backstage if ya know what I mean. And I know because I saw it all.I was disgusted. They took that as a joke, so you know where my point is going...

Posted by Shakka on Jun-26-2003 16:33:

quote:
Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Yes, it would definitely be wrong to retroactively change the system. But, do you think monarchs deserve to be in control of their countries just because the law says they have that right due to their ancestry? The fact is Bush won the elections due to a legal loophole, and while his victory is legitimate, it isn't morally right.

He didn't create the loophole--don't take your frustrations out on Bush, as much as you dislike him.

And monarchies are fucked up in the first place. Not that they weild any real power in this day and age. The English royal family is nothing but a neverending soap opera to keep the people entertained. They don't play a serious role in government.

Posted by DR86 on Jun-26-2003 16:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Shakka
The English royal family is nothing but a neverending soap opera to keep the people entertained. They don't play a serious role in government.

That...and they are the wealthiest landowners on Earth!

Posted by Shakka on Jun-26-2003 18:16:

quote:
Originally posted by DrummeRaver86
That...and they are the wealthiest landowners on Earth!

Who cares?! I'm happy with my place and personal achievements in this life. I don't need to compare myself to others to find happiness. They're the wealthiest bunch of landowning losers on Earth would be more like it!

Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »