PDA

View Full Version : Focking Jimmy Carter....



boatsnblondes
05-19-2007, 06:57 PM
Why can't this guy just DIE??????? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html)

Kilrtoy
05-19-2007, 06:59 PM
UM no Mr Carter is the worst

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 07:00 PM
wait... how can it be bad when an american is voicing his "IMO" about the current president. That is well with in his rights.
Your the one that is way out of line for saying he should die over something he beleaves in.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-19-2007, 07:40 PM
YB,
Extremely well stated.
jm

boatsnblondes
05-19-2007, 07:42 PM
Yellowboat. Let me educate you. He is an EX President. Arguably the worst in US history. We'll set that issue aside. For an EX President to critisize a sitting President, is the WORST breach of Presidential protocal there is. For him to do it to the degree that he did?? There is no precedent. Back to him being the worst President in the history of the US. For him to critisize ANY President, seated or otherwise, is unbelievable. He needs to just fade away, go away, never come back. There is a SHITSTORM coming his way this week over these remarks in the MSM....watch and learn.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-19-2007, 07:46 PM
Where did you find the book on Presidential protocol? I'd like to read it.
YB, was right. Your comment "Why can't this guy just DIE???????" was ridicules

Ultracrazy
05-19-2007, 07:52 PM
Where did you find the book on Presidential protocol? I'd like to read it.
Where did he find a book on ANYTHING.........:D

OCMerrill
05-19-2007, 07:54 PM
BNB - Dude you gotta lighten up.
Most all you posts are AGGRESSIVE:mad:.
Why?
Put your boat in the water, give it an hour, and you won't give a fock:D

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Yellowboat. Let me educate you. He is an EX President. Arguably the worst in US history. We'll set that issue aside. For an EX President to critisize a sitting President, is the WORST breach of Presidential protocal there is. For him to do it to the degree that he did?? There is no precedent. Back to him being the worst President in the history of the US. For him to critisize ANY President, seated or otherwise, is unbelievable. He needs to just fade away, go away, never come back. There is a SHITSTORM coming his way this week over these remarks in the MSM....watch and learn.
and where did you come up with this info?
Sorry, but for you to say some one needs to die for them expressing thier feelings about the current goverment is way, way, way out of line. You know what, in MY LIFE TIME( atleast that I remember) Bush is by far the worse president we have had.

Tom Brown
05-19-2007, 07:56 PM
Why can't this guy just DIE??????? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html)
He is an infidel. You should jihad against him. ... or for that matter, anyone who does not agree with your political views.

boatsnblondes
05-19-2007, 08:10 PM
I guess you guys just DON"T know. So, here it is. There is a rule, unwritten, mostly an ettiquette issue, that Presidents don't critisize Presidents. Period. You had your chance in the seat, now retire. Bush never came out against Clinton, Clinton has never really came out against Bush, etc. For Carter to spout his mouth off in regards to Bush, is the hieght of bad manners. And this week, the MSM will come down hard on him. Unless your a lefty, and then of course we all know that with them, anything goes....just like that bitch Pelosi rewrwriting the house rules this week to shut out GOP votes, the first time this has been done since 1822....but who cares, right?

boatsnblondes
05-19-2007, 08:13 PM
and where did you come up with this info?
Sorry, but for you to say some one needs to die for them expressing thier feelings about the current goverment is way, way, way out of line. You know what, in MY LIFE TIME( atleast that I remember) Bush is by far the worse president we have had.
YB, I said it because every time this guy opens his mouth, nothing worth listening to comes out. He is just a bitter old man, who never made a mark in this world, trying to get a few more minutes of fame at Bush's expense. Need I remind you, as well as him, that we did not start this, for him to say otherwise, is treasonous.....

Tom Brown
05-19-2007, 08:16 PM
There is a rule, unwritten, mostly an ettiquette issue...
... and violation of this rule, like most rules of etiquette, is punishable by death.

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 08:18 PM
YB, I said it because every time this guy opens his mouth, nothing worth listening to comes out. He is just a bitter old man, who never made a mark in this world, trying to get a few more minutes of fame at Bush's expense. Need I remind you, as well as him, that we did not start this, for him to say otherwise, is treasonous.....
and that is diffrent then any one else in office how?
You don't like him... thats fine, you don't have to.
I would also like to see where it says that we did not start the war in Iraq? Who was the 1st person that publicly said we should go to war with Iraq? I seem to recall it being your butt buddy bush.

Tom Brown
05-19-2007, 08:19 PM
I would also like to see where it says that we did not start the war in Iraq?
I missed that too. :D

SmokinLowriderSS
05-19-2007, 08:27 PM
wait... how can it be bad when an american is voicing his "IMO" about the current president. That is well with in his rights.
Your the one that is way out of line for saying he should die over something he beleaves in.
Riddle me this:
What 2 US presidents in the entire history of the US have gone in front of the press to continue to voice their opinion of how a sitting president is running things AFTER THEY THEMSLEVES were out of office?
A former president is STILL a high-profile figure, and as such, have no business, as ruled by comon decency and courtesey, in voicing that opinion PUBLICLY, as a former government official.
Just as no us citizen has the right to discuss US policy with foreign governments, except those specifically designated by the president.
The answer to the above:
James Carter
William Clinton
Both presidents with FAILED administrations and failed legacies (Jimmy due to horrendous inflation (20+%) and a hostage problem he couldn't do anything about, especially after butchering up the US millitary with cuts
and
Billy being disbarred for Subornation of Purjery and Commission of Perjury, AND Monica Lewinski non-sex sex and Osama Bin-Laden capture refusals, and the last (1999) recession), just for starters.
No other US president in history has EVER made public his opinions on how a following president is running the country, yet 2 failures want to keep running their mouths, and get cameras to do it.
Did the elder Bush? No.
Regan? No
Ford? Not while alive, no. I have no problem with his post-mortem release.
Nixon? No.
Johnson? No.
Eisenhower? No.
Truman? No.
Hoover? Coolidge? Harding? No. None, ever.
Only 2 abject failures whose foreign policy ideas have about as much value as 2 wooden nickels rubbed together.
Jimmy was speaking ill of the Iraq war, and the current president, last winter, at of all places, Martin L King's widdow's FUNERAL SERVICE! The purpose, pure democrat political hay, nothing else. Just another out-of-line cut on the sitting executive.
He should stick to building houses and shut up. He had his chance to run this nation, and promptly put it into the ground, then dug a hole for it, and then told everyone that "The best days of the US are over, get used to it", and was proven dead wrong by his successor.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-19-2007, 08:38 PM
Riddle me this:
What 2 US presidents in the entire history of the US have gone in front of the press to continue to voice their opinion of how a sitting president is running things AFTER THEY THEMSLEVES were out of office?
A former president is STILL a high-profile figure, and as such, have no business, as ruled by comon decency and courtesey, in voicing that opinion PUBLICLY, as a former government official.
Just as no us citizen has the right to discuss US policy with foreign governments, except those specifically designated by the president.
The answer to the above:
James Carter
William Clinton
Both presidents with FAILED administrations and failed legacies (Jimmy due to horrendous inflation (20+%) and a hostage problem he couldn't do anything about, especially after butchering up the US millitary with cuts
and
Billy being disbarred for Subornation of Purjery and Commission of Perjury, AND Monica Lewinski non-sex sex and Osama Bin-Laden capture refusals, and the last (1999) recession), just for starters.
No other US president in history has EVER made public his opinions on how a following president is running the country, yet 2 failures want to keep running their mouths, and get cameras to do it.
Did the elder Bush? No.
Regan? No
Ford? Not while alive, no. I have no problem with his post-mortem release.
Nixon? No.
Johnson? No.
Eisenhower? No.
Truman? No.
Hoover? Coolidge? Harding? No. None, ever.
Only 2 abject failures whose foreign policy ideas have about as much value as 2 wooden nickels rubbed together.
Jimmy was speaking ill of the Iraq war, and the current president, last winter, at of all places, Martin L King's widdow's FUNERAL SERVICE! The purpose, pure democrat political hay, nothing else. Just another out-of-line cut on the sitting executive.
He should stick to building houses and shut up. He had his chance to run this nation, and promptly put it into the ground, then dug a hole for it, and then told everyone that "The best days of the US are over, get used to it", and was proven dead wrong by his successor.
For this he should die. Another good Christian comment.

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 08:49 PM
wait so every thing cliton did was not important since he "lied" he was never convicted of those charges btw... impeached yes, convicted no.

SmokinLowriderSS
05-19-2007, 08:54 PM
Where did you find the book on Presidential protocol? I'd like to read it.
Here you go.
The Little Book of Etiquette (Running Press 1997),
Tea & Etiquette (Capital Books 1998),
THE POWER OF HANDSHAKING (Capital Books 2004).
Authored (the last co-authored) by Dorothea Johnson, Founder and Chair of The Protocol School Of Washington. (www.psow.com)
I've got a nickel says you don't even go borrow them from the Library, let alone buy them.:idea:

SmokinLowriderSS
05-19-2007, 08:56 PM
wait so every thing cliton did was not important since he "lied" he was never convicted of those charges btw... impeached yes, convicted no.
Ummmmmm, since he was not convicted, how was he DISBARRED?

YeLLowBoaT
05-19-2007, 09:02 PM
Ummmmmm, since he was not convicted, how was he DISBARRED?
there is a document called the constitution it goes over the process of removing a president in detail...It clearly states who impeaches and who convicts.
As far as him being Disbarred, that does not mean he was guilty... it just means that a committe at the state level though he broke the code of ethics for being a lawyer. That does not mean he broke the law... just he was deemed unethical as a lawyer... show me a ethical lawyer and I'll show you one that has never done anything.

little rowe boat
05-19-2007, 09:23 PM
YB, I said it because every time this guy opens his mouth, nothing worth listening to comes out. He is just a bitter old man, who never made a mark in this world, trying to get a few more minutes of fame at Bush's expense. Need I remind you, as well as him, that we did not start this, for him to say otherwise, is treasonous.....
Sure he did. He will always be the president, that allowed Iranians to hold Americans for 444 days.

PunkAssBitch
05-20-2007, 01:16 AM
his right to free speech as an American citizen....same as your's BNB.....be grateful for that.

boatsnblondes
05-20-2007, 01:47 AM
Well said you all, well said. Free speach, yes free speach, yes yes yes.....well said. Now, go look up the difference between freedom and licence....you might learn something.....:idea:

PunkAssBitch
05-20-2007, 02:00 AM
how's the view from up there on your high fockin' horse?
give up the act of thinking that you are so much smarter than everyone else...hate to burst your bubble, but, you, my dear, are an idiot.
it's amazing what happens when one takes the opportunity to STFU & observes what's going on, rather than shooting their mouth off....

Howie Feltersnatch
05-20-2007, 04:13 AM
I actually read Carter's comments and agree with everything he said. He's just one of the 70% of the US population that holds that opinion.

Old Texan
05-20-2007, 04:44 AM
How can anyone get down on an old man that was responsible for bringing us "Billy Beer".......?:confused: Goes well with peanuts grown on the Carter's Plains, GA farm. What's sad was those were the only "Nuts" Jimmy possessed.
Jimmy hates W, cause W ignores him and pretends he doesn't exist. Bill Clinton didn't have much use for Jimmy either. Jimmy's loose cannon visit to N. Korea helped create the nuclear mess in that region. Jimmy was by far the biggest disaster to sit in the Oval office in history, bar none.

Murray PE 857
05-20-2007, 05:07 AM
I'm not sure how great a President Jimmy was but I do think he is a good person as evidenced by his humanitarian works.
However, I didn't need to read his commentary on GW to realize that the things that are important to the common man in this country are headed in the wrong direction. Some speculation about the worst president ever poll is goning to have to make room at the top shortly.

Howie Feltersnatch
05-20-2007, 06:21 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off%3Aen-US&q=worst+president+in+us+history&btnG=Search
Guess who wins?

SmokinLowriderSS
05-20-2007, 06:58 AM
there is a document called the constitution it goes over the process of removing a president in detail...It clearly states who impeaches and who convicts.
As far as him being Disbarred, that does not mean he was guilty... it just means that a committe at the state level though he broke the code of ethics for being a lawyer. That does not mean he broke the law... just he was deemed unethical as a lawyer... show me a ethical lawyer and I'll show you one that has never done anything.
Yes, and Michael Jackson was AQUITTED of a charge (giving alcohol to a minor) that he confessed to, in open court (giving alcohol to said minor).
The jury returned a "Not Guilty" on that, and every other charge.
You want to split a hair, "Not Guilty" does not mean "Inoscent".
May 24, 1997
On a day Lewinsky later referred to as "Dump Day," Clinton again tells her in the Oval Office that their sexual relationship is over, but that he hopes that they can remain friends.
October 11, 1997
Clinton calls Lewinsky at her home at 2:30 A.M. and, during an emotional conversation, promised her that he will help find her a job in New York City. He asks Vernon Jordan to help with the job search
November 3, 1997
Lewinsky is offered a job with the U. S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, but she turns down the job. Vernon Jordan, acting at the request of the President's personal secretary, Betty Currie (and with the knowledge of the President), assists Lewinsky in finding employment in the private sector.
December 5, 1997
Clinton learns that Lewinsky's name appears on a list of witnesses that attorneys for Paula Jones plan to depose
December 11, 1997
Vernon Jordan calls an executive at Revlon in New York to help secure a job for Lewinsky
December 28, 1997
Bettie Currie collects the gifts given to the President from Lewinsky, and hides them under her bed.
January 7, 1998
Lewinsky signs an affidavit concerning her relationship with the President, for eventual submission to lawyers for Jones
January 12, 1998
Starr's office receives information that Lewinsky was prepared to lie under oath about her involvement with the President in the Jones case.
January 13, 1998
Lewinsky accepts the job offer from Revlon.
January 17, 1998
Clinton is deposed in the Jones case. He denies having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
January 18, 1998
Clinton meets with Currie and discusses his deposition.
August 17, 1998
Clinton appears via closed-circuit television before a grand jury. He admits his relationship with Lewinsky was sexual and later appears on national television to say he "misled people"
He admitted to Perjury, yet was still "Aquitted", and showed a history of Obstruction, in this case, as well as the firing ALL 93 federal prosecutors, including 1 investigating his ties to the Whitewater land deals in Arkansas.
What happened (and to a certain extent I agree with it) was that the charges were not severe enough to justify removal from office. Embarassing, hell yes, on a national laughing-stock scale, but NOT worthy of firing.
The direct halting of a criminal investigation that the president was possibly tied to SHOULD have been dismissable, but was never pursued, for reason's I will never understand.
Of course, Nixon had the class to LEAVE OFFICE over much the same charges. Nothing about the Watergate tower break-in was his, but the attempted Cover-Up (obstruction of justice) in the case(s).
And then Nixon became the usual, publicly silent, ex-president, not a mouthpiece for either side like Jimmy and Bill.

SmokinLowriderSS
05-20-2007, 07:04 AM
For this he should die. Another good Christian comment.
Again, you and the anti-christian crap. Well, you can't think up anything of value to rebut with, so use what little you've got.
Kinda like staring at a monkey in a cage. All they can do is shi+ in thir hand and throw it. Too bad the monkey has bad eyes, and even worse aim.
I believe I said he should shut up. You go ahead and scroll back, I'll wait while you prove yourself WRONG, AGAIN.
When he dies, he WILL shut up, and go discuss his behaviors with a Saint named Peter (if you are prone to believe that) and plead his case there.

bigq
05-20-2007, 07:10 AM
Except for being an ass and worthless President himself he can say what ever he wants, he does not need to follow past protocol he deceides otherwise. Would you really classify him as presidential anyway:rolleyes:

SmokinLowriderSS
05-20-2007, 07:11 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off%3Aen-US&q=worst+president+in+us+history&btnG=Search
Guess who wins?
You don't know much about how google rankings can be "cheated" to make things come up #1 on searches do ya?
How does the trick work?
The trick takes advantage of a hole in web search scripts that are used by some company web sites and search engines. Webmasters can force other web sites to link to them if they use the correct code in a link to the search feature of the other web site:
A webmaster links directly to a search request page on a reputable web site.
The link code contains information that causes the search script on the reputable web site to include a link to the web site of the webmaster.
When search engine spiders (including Google's spider) index the linked search results page, they find a link from an authority web site to the webmaster's site.
As a high authority web site links to the web site of the webmaster, his web site gets higher rankings on Google.
Thus, google page rankings don't mean squat.

bigq
05-20-2007, 07:12 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off%3Aen-US&q=worst+president+in+us+history&btnG=Search
Guess who wins?
Time will tell......

Howie Feltersnatch
05-20-2007, 07:44 AM
You don't know much about how google rankings can be "cheated" to make things come up #1 on searches do ya?
How does the trick work?
The trick takes advantage of a hole in web search scripts that are used by some company web sites and search engines. Webmasters can force other web sites to link to them if they use the correct code in a link to the search feature of the other web site:
A webmaster links directly to a search request page on a reputable web site.
The link code contains information that causes the search script on the reputable web site to include a link to the web site of the webmaster.
When search engine spiders (including Google's spider) index the linked search results page, they find a link from an authority web site to the webmaster's site.
As a high authority web site links to the web site of the webmaster, his web site gets higher rankings on Google.
Thus, google page rankings don't mean squat.
No, I don't know anything actually, and neither does Google. They and I are so stupid that we're easily outsmarted by super minds like yours on a regular basis using your "high authority web site links" to control the internet and those that use it. I'll shut up now since I'm so stupid... Oh, before I go - can I have some of whatever it is that you're smoking? It obviously alters your reality.

My Man's Sportin' Wood
05-20-2007, 07:47 AM
Yellowboat. Let me educate you. He is an EX President. Arguably the worst in US history. We'll set that issue aside. For an EX President to critisize a sitting President, is the WORST breach of Presidential protocal there is. For him to do it to the degree that he did?? There is no precedent. Back to him being the worst President in the history of the US. For him to critisize ANY President, seated or otherwise, is unbelievable. He needs to just fade away, go away, never come back. There is a SHITSTORM coming his way this week over these remarks in the MSM....watch and learn.
There is no precedent? Go back 100 years to Theodore Roosevelt having a fit over Woodrow Wilson's policies. Roosevelt HATED Wilson and let everyone know about it. He also did the same thing with Taft when Taft didn't make decisions the way TR would have. That was the whole reason for the "Bull Moose" Party.
Carter is in no way the "worst" president in the history. Andrew Johnson, Coolidge, Hoover, Nixon, Bush the first and many others might also be considered. Perhaps our current president may fall into this list someday. Time will tell. Carter falls into the same category as Taft and Ford. Good people, but not great presidents. Carter has been one of the most active ex-presidents. His work with Habitat for Humanity is very noble and admirable. He has also won the Nobel Peace Prize. They don't just give that to anyone (no Al Gore jokes here). It is his right as a citizen to speak his mind, and he is much more eloquent than TR was :D

ULTRA26 # 1
05-20-2007, 07:54 AM
Labling Bill Clinton and/or Jimmy Carter as the worst Presidents in history, displays true blind devotion to the right.
All one has to do is Google, "The Worst President in History" and you will see what the overwhelming consensus is. George W. Bush.
Carter's statement,
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"
is believed to be the truth by the majority of the American people. Seems that only those who favor offensive war, who are the minority, would disagree.
As far as Carter having a failed legacy, his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, voids such an ignorant statement.
Going back in history, all US Presidents have had areas of success and failure, Carter, Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, etc., ncluded. A JWD (job well done) is measured by the approval rating of the one, or those, who assigned the task.
BUSH VS. OTHER PRESIDENTS: APPROVAL RATINGS DURING SECOND TERMS
Bush, Now
Approve Has gotten worse since this poll was taken
33%
Disapprove
57%
Clinton, 11/1997
Approve
57%
Disapprove
31%
Reagan, 11/1985
Approve
65%
Disapprove
26%
Nixon, Gallup Poll, 11/1973 Resigned
Approve
27%
Disapprove
63%
Eisenhower, Gallup Poll, 11/1957
Approve
58%
Disapprove
27%
Consider Geo W Bush's approval rating and it becomes quite clear where he rates on the scale of doing a good job.
IMO Jimmy Carter's staement was redundant.

bigq
05-20-2007, 08:16 AM
Got to ask yourself what would Carter have done if he had the same challenges the last six years or any of the ex presidents? It has been a unique time in history to say the least and we all have the luxury of being armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight.:idea:

Baja Big Dog
05-20-2007, 08:27 AM
I was somewhat put back from BnB's comment that Carter should "DIE" after all isn't this coming from the guy that wanted to "break knee's" for train horns, correct me if IM wrong.
But after reading all the positive input to support BnB's desire I have also cast my vote for Jimmy Carter to die, what the hell, he had the nerve to use his constitutional rights, so again support BoatsnBlondes, lets all hope Carter dies!!!!
Oh no...we better be careful, cause the very rights Jimmy used that caused some people to wish him "death" are the same ones we use EVERYDAY on the forum to voice our opinions!!!
Forest Lawn is gonna get a few phone calls today!!!
Another thing, let me quote a famous poster on this board:
"I said it because every time this guy opens his mouth, nothing worth listening to comes out."
Wouldn't it be easier to not listen?? I'm sure your blood pressure would appreciate it! After all, we would want to wish anything bad on you, especially death!!

Sportin' Wood
05-20-2007, 08:30 AM
Got to ask yourself what would Carter have done if he had the same challenges the last six years or any of the ex presidents? It has been a unique time in history to say the least and we all have the luxury of being armchair quarterbacks with 20/20 hindsight.:idea:
Thats like asking, " What would Jesus do?":D

Sherpa
05-20-2007, 08:31 AM
I purchased my first home during the Carter administration. my loan percentage was 12.5%, and that was after paying it down 1 1/2 points.
thanks Mr Carter, now get back to pounding nails for habitat for humanity.
--Sherpa

Sportin' Wood
05-20-2007, 08:31 AM
Saint Peter just called me an informed me I'm going to hell for that last post.:idea:

GHT
05-20-2007, 08:43 AM
Riddle me this:
What 2 US presidents in the entire history of the US have gone in front of the press to continue to voice their opinion of how a sitting president is running things AFTER THEY THEMSLEVES were out of office?
A former president is STILL a high-profile figure, and as such, have no business, as ruled by comon decency and courtesey, in voicing that opinion PUBLICLY, as a former government official.
Just as no us citizen has the right to discuss US policy with foreign governments, except those specifically designated by the president.
The answer to the above:
James Carter
William Clinton
Both presidents with FAILED administrations and failed legacies (Jimmy due to horrendous inflation (20+%) and a hostage problem he couldn't do anything about, especially after butchering up the US millitary with cuts
and
Billy being disbarred for Subornation of Purjery and Commission of Perjury, AND Monica Lewinski non-sex sex and Osama Bin-Laden capture refusals, and the last (1999) recession), just for starters.
No other US president in history has EVER made public his opinions on how a following president is running the country, yet 2 failures want to keep running their mouths, and get cameras to do it.
Did the elder Bush? No.
Regan? No
Ford? Not while alive, no. I have no problem with his post-mortem release.
Nixon? No.
Johnson? No.
Eisenhower? No.
Truman? No.
Hoover? Coolidge? Harding? No. None, ever.
Only 2 abject failures whose foreign policy ideas have about as much value as 2 wooden nickels rubbed together.
Jimmy was speaking ill of the Iraq war, and the current president, last winter, at of all places, Martin L King's widdow's FUNERAL SERVICE! The purpose, pure democrat political hay, nothing else. Just another out-of-line cut on the sitting executive.
He should stick to building houses and shut up. He had his chance to run this nation, and promptly put it into the ground, then dug a hole for it, and then told everyone that "The best days of the US are over, get used to it", and was proven dead wrong by his successor.
Now this is a very good post... Great points and all are verifiably RIGHT ON....
BNB saying Carter should die might be a little excessive BUT as all of you so intelligently pointed out it is WELL with in his rights (as an American) to speak as he wishes.. Maybe all of you critics should review what you said about Jimmy Carter being within his rights to speak and then maybe you will lighten up on BNB...:idea: :D :hammer2:

bigq
05-20-2007, 08:56 AM
Thats like asking, " What would Jesus do?":D
That's an easy one...forgive then die:eek:
Ok now that is a ticket to hell...er is it getting hot in here????:devil:

Sportin' Wood
05-20-2007, 08:59 AM
That's an easy one...forgive then die:eek:
Ok now that is a ticket to hell...er is it getting hot in here????:devil:
I'll save you a seat.:D

ULTRA26 # 1
05-20-2007, 02:07 PM
Riddle me this:
What 2 US presidents in the entire history of the US have gone in front of the press to continue to voice their opinion of how a sitting president is running things AFTER THEY THEMSLEVES were out of office?
A former president is STILL a high-profile figure, and as such, have no business, as ruled by comon decency and courtesey, in voicing that opinion PUBLICLY, as a former government official.
Just as no us citizen has the right to discuss US policy with foreign governments, except those specifically designated by the president.
The answer to the above:
James Carter
William Clinton
Both presidents with FAILED administrations and failed legacies (Jimmy due to horrendous inflation (20+%) and a hostage problem he couldn't do anything about, especially after butchering up the US millitary with cuts
and
Billy being disbarred for Subornation of Purjery and Commission of Perjury, AND Monica Lewinski non-sex sex and Osama Bin-Laden capture refusals, and the last (1999) recession), just for starters.
No other US president in history has EVER made public his opinions on how a following president is running the country, yet 2 failures want to keep running their mouths, and get cameras to do it.
Did the elder Bush? No.
Regan? No
Ford? Not while alive, no. I have no problem with his post-mortem release.
Nixon? No.
Johnson? No.
Eisenhower? No.
Truman? No.
Hoover? Coolidge? Harding? No. None, ever.
Only 2 abject failures whose foreign policy ideas have about as much value as 2 wooden nickels rubbed together.
Jimmy was speaking ill of the Iraq war, and the current president, last winter, at of all places, Martin L King's widdow's FUNERAL SERVICE! The purpose, pure democrat political hay, nothing else. Just another out-of-line cut on the sitting executive.
He should stick to building houses and shut up. He had his chance to run this nation, and promptly put it into the ground, then dug a hole for it, and then told everyone that "The best days of the US are over, get used to it", and was proven dead wrong by his successor.
Quote Smokin
Did the elder Bush? No
October 13, 1993, Bush I expressed concern about the humanitarian mission to Somalia
February 1994, Bush I criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in foreign policy particularly with regard to Haiti.
March 8, 1994, Bush I again criticized Clinton with regard to Haiti.
On April 8, 1994, Bush I criticized Clinton's proposed health care reform legislation.
During a July 26, 1996, Bush I criticized Clinton for boasting of about the "current economic stability."
November 1, 1996, Bush I suggested that Clinton had compromised the "integrity of the White House."
April 23, 1998, Bush I criticized the Clinton White House and its allies for their continuing public campaign against the independent counsel and his investigation
Wrong again Mr. know it all.
You're losing it Smokin
You call Clinton a failure. Compare Clinton's approval rating with that of current Bush and it's easy to see who the failure is.

Jbb
05-20-2007, 02:41 PM
Ask anyone who was living in Miami in 1980 ...[ I was] during the Carter approved Mariel boatlift.......what they think of old JC......

Tom Brown
05-20-2007, 03:02 PM
Ask anyone who was living in Miami in 1980 ...[ I was] during the Carter approved Mariel boatlift.......what they think of old JC......
How could anyone be against something that brought us Scarface?

Jbb
05-20-2007, 03:11 PM
How could anyone be against something that brought us Scarface?
Great movie.......unless you had to live thru it.....:p

GHT
05-20-2007, 03:17 PM
Quote Smokin
Did the elder Bush? No
October 13, 1993, Bush I expressed concern about the humanitarian mission to Somalia
February 1994, Bush I criticized the Clinton administration's purported lack of a "general strategy" in foreign policy particularly with regard to Haiti.
March 8, 1994, Bush I again criticized Clinton with regard to Haiti.
On April 8, 1994, Bush I criticized Clinton's proposed health care reform legislation.
During a July 26, 1996, Bush I criticized Clinton for boasting of about the "current economic stability."
November 1, 1996, Bush I suggested that Clinton had compromised the "integrity of the White House."
April 23, 1998, Bush I criticized the Clinton White House and its allies for their continuing public campaign against the independent counsel and his investigation
Wrong again Mr. know it all.
You're losing it Smokin
You call Clinton a failure. Compare Clinton's approval rating with that of current Bush and it's easy to see who the failure is.
Actually, don't want to come off as a know it all either BUT just a little info for you.. JUST because someone has a good "approval rating" doesn't mean they were / are a great leader. Clinton rode the Sr. Bush's great presidentcey (sp?) to success.... Also, if you haven't noticed the market was on its way up when Clinton took office and was in a tail-spin down when he left. Now it is on its way up (record highs), probably just in time for a Dem to be voted in and take credit again for the good economy...:idea: :rolleyes:
And, for the record.... You bring up some very great points in your counter above... It is obvious you do your share of research and seem very informed..
Don

YeLLowBoaT
05-20-2007, 03:20 PM
Actually, don't want to come off as a know it all either BUT just a little info for you.. JUST because someone has a good "approval rating" doesn't mean they were / are a great leader. Clinton rode the Sr. Bush's great presidentcey (sp?) to success.... Also, if you haven't noticed the market was on its way up when Clinton took office and was in a tail-spin down when he left. Now it is on its way up (record highs), probably just in time for a Dem to be voted in and take credit again for the good economy...:idea: :rolleyes:
also the stock market is not a very good indaction of how the econ is doing as whole... the stock market is up, but all the other markets are way down, bonds forexample are a 30 years low.

GHT
05-20-2007, 03:24 PM
also the stock market is not a very good indaction of how the econ is doing as whole... the stock market is up, but all the other markets are way down, bonds forexample are a 30 years low.
Yup... You're right...
So many things have to come together to make a good ecomomy.... So, maybe Ultra26 was on to something when he said Clinton's overall approval was good. In other words, If we (Americans) think all is good (and it isn't) then maybe it is good?? Just a thought..:idea:

little rowe boat
05-20-2007, 03:52 PM
The Iranians held those hostages to ensure his defeat in reelection, due to his favorable dealings with the Shah of Iran, then agreed to release said hostages just minutes after he left office.
Don't be a dolt. Pick up a book.
A what??? I have, but there is more info. on the net.:rolleyes:
Regardless of the reasoning, it still happened on his watch. Which will be his legacy.

Howie Feltersnatch
05-20-2007, 04:52 PM
How could anyone be against something that brought us Scarface?
HAHAHA!!! I Just watched it again last weekend and that is EXACTLY what I thought too!!

QuickJet
05-20-2007, 05:07 PM
For this he should die. Another good Christian comment.
I was somewhat put back from BnB's comment that Carter should "DIE" after all isn't this coming from the guy that wanted to "break knee's" for train horns, correct me if IM wrong.
!!
Now this is a very good post... Great points and all are verifiably RIGHT ON....
BNB saying Carter should die might be a little excessive BUT as all of you so intelligently pointed out it is WELL with in his rights (as an American) to speak as he wishes.. Maybe all of you critics should review what you said about Jimmy Carter being within his rights to speak and then maybe you will lighten up on BNB...:idea: :D :hammer2:
BNB never said that Carter should die for his comments but rather asked the question, "why can't he just die?" Big difference.
Carter is and always has been an anti American pile of shitt. He sucks the cock of Castro and folds to the N. Koreans. If Carter was faced with the same issues as Bush we would all be buying prayer rugs. Carter is and always will be a pussy. For this I feel he should die. NOt by a bullet, but let him loose in the middle of Iraq with Sean Peann and Tim Robbins by his side to defend him.
Why can't this guy just DIE??????? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html)

Seadog
05-20-2007, 05:24 PM
I cannot believe in the ignorance of some of the stuff being posted here. Jimmy Carter was totally unqualified to be a president. Due to his 'humanitarian' attitudes and total disregard of seasoned members of the state department, he made demands on the Shah of Iran that quickly led to his downfall. During his tenure, the price of gasoline skyrocketed worse than it is today. At least now, you can buy gas. Under Carter, the gas stations were shutting down for lackof gasoline.
And polls mean absolutely nothing. The pollster decides what answers they want and then get those results. It is done by selective questioning and targeting demographics. Even if they are done in the most upright way, the compression of the world has made us more cynical and that does affect how we respond. As good a President as Eisenhower was, he had two advantages. He had a public with fresh memory of the major war of the century. The 'good' war. Half the men served under Eisenhower and the other half made good money during the war. We were starting an era of major prosperity. Events dictate opinions. Lincoln was considered a miserable President and barely won his second election.
If you believe the polls, then also be sure to note that the Democrats have a worse rating than the President.
As for Clinton, all I will say is that OJ was not convicted in a criminal court, but found guilty in a civilian court. Clinton was not convicted only because enough in Congress were more afraid of his #2 becoming President. Events since then have proved their concerns well founded.

YeLLowBoaT
05-20-2007, 05:34 PM
I cannot believe in the ignorance of some of the stuff being posted here. Jimmy Carter was totally unqualified to be a president. Due to his 'humanitarian' attitudes and total disregard of seasoned members of the state department, he made demands on the Shah of Iran that quickly led to his downfall. During his tenure, the price of gasoline skyrocketed worse than it is today. At least now, you can buy gas. Under Carter, the gas stations were shutting down for lackof gasoline.
And polls mean absolutely nothing. The pollster decides what answers they want and then get those results. It is done by selective questioning and targeting demographics. Even if they are done in the most upright way, the compression of the world has made us more cynical and that does affect how we respond. As good a President as Eisenhower was, he had two advantages. He had a public with fresh memory of the major war of the century. The 'good' war. Half the men served under Eisenhower and the other half made good money during the war. We were starting an era of major prosperity. Events dictate opinions. Lincoln was considered a miserable President and barely won his second election.
If you believe the polls, then also be sure to note that the Democrats have a worse rating than the President.
As for Clinton, all I will say is that OJ was not convicted in a criminal court, but found guilty in a civilian court. Clinton was not convicted only because enough in Congress were more afraid of his #2 becoming President. Events since then have proved their concerns well founded.
I think the fact that there was more democrats in office then there were GOP. If I remember correctly the vote was almost 100% party line.
More reason why we need to get rid of the 2 partys.

QuickJet
05-20-2007, 05:44 PM
I think the fact that there was more democrats in office then there were GOP. If I remember correctly the vote was almost 100% party line.
More reason why we need to get rid of the 2 partys.
There are 30+ political parties with canidates running for office. Of these are you voting for someone other than a Democrat or republican?
I didn't think so.

Blown 472
05-20-2007, 05:47 PM
Riddle me this:
What 2 US presidents in the entire history of the US have gone in front of the press to continue to voice their opinion of how a sitting president is running things AFTER THEY THEMSLEVES were out of office?
A former president is STILL a high-profile figure, and as such, have no business, as ruled by comon decency and courtesey, in voicing that opinion PUBLICLY, as a former government official.
Just as no us citizen has the right to discuss US policy with foreign governments, except those specifically designated by the president.
The answer to the above:
James Carter
William Clinton
Both presidents with FAILED administrations and failed legacies (Jimmy due to horrendous inflation (20+%) and a hostage problem he couldn't do anything about, especially after butchering up the US millitary with cuts
and
Billy being disbarred for Subornation of Purjery and Commission of Perjury, AND Monica Lewinski non-sex sex and Osama Bin-Laden capture refusals, and the last (1999) recession), just for starters.
No other US president in history has EVER made public his opinions on how a following president is running the country, yet 2 failures want to keep running their mouths, and get cameras to do it.
Did the elder Bush? No.
Regan? No
Ford? Not while alive, no. I have no problem with his post-mortem release.
Nixon? No.
Johnson? No.
Eisenhower? No.
Truman? No.
Hoover? Coolidge? Harding? No. None, ever.
Only 2 abject failures whose foreign policy ideas have about as much value as 2 wooden nickels rubbed together.
Jimmy was speaking ill of the Iraq war, and the current president, last winter, at of all places, Martin L King's widdow's FUNERAL SERVICE! The purpose, pure democrat political hay, nothing else. Just another out-of-line cut on the sitting executive.
He should stick to building houses and shut up. He had his chance to run this nation, and promptly put it into the ground, then dug a hole for it, and then told everyone that "The best days of the US are over, get used to it", and was proven dead wrong by his successor.
And you think bush is going to leave a great legacy?? bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
you funny

YeLLowBoaT
05-20-2007, 05:57 PM
There are 30+ political parties with canidates running for office. Of these are you voting for someone other than a Democrat or republican?
I didn't think so.
I don't know... my point was that its not about whats right, or what will do the most good... its how will this make my party look better.

work2play
05-20-2007, 07:19 PM
You can't go to the news reporters to see who was the worst pres. ever. They will always choose a conservative to be the worst because they are liberal. Not only did Carter let US citizens be held hostage for over 400 days. The only reason they got released was because the Iranians where (justifiably) afraid of Reagan. That cowboy was going to kick their butts. Also Carter gave away the Panama Canal. One of the top 5 stupidest things in the history of the world. I'm actually happy I can't remember the other stupid things Carter did.

SB
05-20-2007, 07:37 PM
Carter has always been naive in foreign policy. He got a Nobel prize for not accomplishing anything. He (for Clinton) also gave N. Korea cash to pretend they weren't working on nukes. He and other Dems are too impressed by "talk."
To be fair, Carter did not cut defense spending, and it turns out the Panama Canal was a non-issue.
Americans will pay $ for gas, they will only scream when there is no gas available to buy.
Anyway it is ridiculous for Carter to think anyone cares about his opinion on foreign policy.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-20-2007, 08:18 PM
Yup... You're right...
So many things have to come together to make a good ecomomy.... So, maybe Ultra26 was on to something when he said Clinton's overall approval was good. In other words, If we (Americans) think all is good (and it isn't) then maybe it is good?? Just a thought..:idea:
If 70 out of a 100 people veiw something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa. :idea:

boatsnblondes
05-20-2007, 09:10 PM
The White house fires back...after years of trying to turn a deft ear to this guy....Tony today called a spade a spade......here it is..... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070520/pl_nm/bush_carter_dc)
Personally I feel this is the first volley....a lot will be said this coming week in regards to Carters wreckless mouth....
To clarify, I never said Carter should die for his comments, I just thought it would be nice to wake up without him around....in WW2, he would be labeled a traiter for his mouth.....so much has changed...:(

My Man's Sportin' Wood
05-20-2007, 09:31 PM
The White house firse back...after years of tryin gto turn a deft ear to this guy....Tony today called a spade a spade......here it is..... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070520/pl_nm/bush_carter_dc)
Personally I feel this is the first volley....a lot will be said this coming week in regards to Carters wreckless mouth....
To clarify, I never said Carter should die for his comments, I just thought it would be nice to wake up without him around....in WW2, he would be labeled a traiter for his mouth.....so much has changed...:(
Have you ever heard of this new concept called proofreading? Just a thought. http://www.***boat.com/ubb/graemlins/idea_2.gif

boatsnblondes
05-20-2007, 09:59 PM
Yes, I have..but, I figure that if the vast majority of people on here don't, why should I???

QuickJet
05-20-2007, 11:21 PM
If 70 out of a 100 people veiw something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa. :idea:
That has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever written (and you have writen some really stupid things).
A politician (especially the President) should NEVER govern or make policy according to poll numbers. People are fickle. Of those 70% (a number of which I havn't researched so it's probably BS) how many know the true reason that we are in Iraq? Do you even know why we are in Iraq?

boatsnblondes
05-21-2007, 12:07 AM
Quickjet, I agree, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of this age, NOT because he changed his mind based on todays polls, but because he stayed true to himself, THAT is the earmark of a great man. I don't care what all of you say, Bush is the most real, truest man to come along in a decade of worthless politics. He understands the stakes, either we draw a line here, now, or the chance will never come again...no one on this planet will ever be safe, ever. I just got finished with a class last week given by homeland security, let me say this, sobering. Be afraid, VERY afraid. :(

pw_Tony
05-21-2007, 12:09 AM
Quickjet, I agree, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of this age, NOT because he changed his mind based on todays polls, but because he stayed true to himself, THAT is the earmark of a great man. I don't care what all of you say, Bush is the most real, truest man to come along in a decade of worthless politics. He understands the stakes, either we draw a line here, now, or the chance will never come again...no one on this planet will ever be safe, ever. I just got finished with a class last week given by homeland security, let me say this, sobering. Be afraid, VERY afraid. :(
I was on your guys side until you said something as idiotic as this

boatsnblondes
05-21-2007, 12:35 AM
I was on your guys side until you said something as idiotic as this
I understand what your saying, but, lets take a look....
Lincoln was extremely unpopular during the civil war, barely got elected to office, was heckled daily but he is credited with SAVING THIS NATION.
Roosevelt, not popular at the onset of the second world war due to the lagging vestiges of the deppression, saw the storm coming, and SAVED THIS WORLD.
Churchill was at a low as PM also, due to the battle of Britain. Massive bombings, German buzz bombs, had him at an alltime low. He stayed the course, through all the critisism, and SAVED BRITAIN.
Over and over and over we see the great men of time staying true to thier beliefs, not listening to people screaming the easy thing, but staying the harder course.
Reagan, the inheritor of Carters mess, saw lapsing polls but still managed to END THE COLD WAR.
I think the right thing is never the easiest, nor the most popular, but it still needs to be done.

YeLLowBoaT
05-21-2007, 01:02 AM
Quickjet, I agree, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of this age, NOT because he changed his mind based on todays polls, but because he stayed true to himself, THAT is the earmark of a great man. I don't care what all of you say, Bush is the most real, truest man to come along in a decade of worthless politics. He understands the stakes, either we draw a line here, now, or the chance will never come again...no one on this planet will ever be safe, ever. I just got finished with a class last week given by homeland security, let me say this, sobering. Be afraid, VERY afraid. :(
Since when has he stayed true to himself?
I completely disagree with you, Bush is the worst president in my life time.
and before you pound the " he is making us safe" point to the ground... under his watch( and his adminstrations policys) he let the largest nuclar proliferation ring run free to do what it wants...

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 07:01 AM
That has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever written (and you have writen some really stupid things).
A politician (especially the President) should NEVER govern or make policy according to poll numbers. People are fickle. Of those 70% (a number of which I havn't researched so it's probably BS) how many know the true reason that we are in Iraq? Do you even know why we are in Iraq?
I got to hear this, What is the true reason we are in Iraq?
In your little brain, the people should have no influence on how they are governed. Polls are polls, and little else. In the next election the people will vote, and their voice will be heard. I assure you, it won't be for more anything similar to what we have now.
I will repeat the statement you view as one of the stupidest things I have ever written
If 70 out of a 100 people view something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa Sorry you can't quite grasp this as it's fairly simple. I don't remember stating anything about governing by the polls.
And to you BnB, older Bush is also guilty of criticizing a sitting President as I pointed out in an earlier post.
Quickjet, I agree, Bush will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of this age, NOT because he changed his mind based on todays polls, but because he stayed true to himself, THAT is the earmark of a great man. I don't care what all of you say, Bush is the most real, truest man to come along in a decade of worthless politics. He understands the stakes, either we draw a line here, now, or the chance will never come again...no one on this planet will ever be safe, ever. I just got finished with a class last week given by homeland security, let me say this, sobering. Be afraid, VERY afraid. :(
Only one with rocks in his head could believe that Geo W, will ever be known as one of the great Presidents in history.
A truly foolish comment on your part.
"A class Given by Homeland Security" taught you to be afraid, VERY afraid. Did this class teach you about how the Bush administration has done nothing to secure our borders or our ports, or about how this administration has weakened our Coast Guard or about how the war in Iraq has directly caused an increase in the number of terrorists and terrorists attacks around the world. If we are to be VERY afraid, it should be fear of how much weaker the US is today, as a result of the current administration's "bring in on" mentality and politics.
Get this though your head, WE ARE WEAKER NOW THAN ON 9/11 and you can thank the current administration for that. A great Presiident??? Not
even close
Smokin,
I don't see you being that man you claim to be and admitting once again you were wrong. Elder Bush did criticize a sitting President, which is contrary to your post.

havasu5150
05-21-2007, 07:23 AM
heres the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070521/ap_on_re_us/carter_bush;_ylt=Arzil1WCyCVf6KlflxebVv3MWM0F

Seadog
05-21-2007, 07:26 AM
I doubt that President Bush II will go down as a great President, nor do I think that he will go down as the worse. We originally were fighting in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was felt to be a threat to the well being of the Middle East. Whether or not he was supporting or cooperating with Al Queda was only part of the concerns. He was trying to rebuild his destructive capabilities, and he was paying for the suicide bombings against Israel. My personal feelings is that the President placed too much under Rumsfield's control. He tried to go into Iraq without thought of long term consequences, and without a plan for asset security. As a result, the unstable peace among the religions was not given a chance to get better. The Iranians already had plans in place to take advantage of the situation they knew must happen. By coaching Sadr and others, they moved quickly and got their death squads terrorizing the populace.
What is happening now is the jackals snapping. When anything is being planned of a world event, the secondary players and political insiders have two sets of books. One is the set they show their bosses, to promote what they think is wanted. The other is the set they keep to make it look as if they were against the plan. If everything works, they can take credit for their input. If it fails, they can blame someone else.
As far as Carter and Gore blasting Bush, both of them are such political jokes, they should have their own cable show. Protocol says that ex-Presidents should be allowed to disagree with policy decisions that go against their core positions, but it should be based only on the policy and not the person. To attack another President's administration on a personal level, is rude and counterproductive. For Carter to criticize anyone, is ludicous.

boatsnblondes
05-21-2007, 07:44 AM
Seadog, I totally agree. Though I still stand by my thoughts on Bush. I think if he did anything wrong, it was to cease fire too soon.....once he did that, everything started to go south...they have been playing catch up ever since...

My Man's Sportin' Wood
05-21-2007, 07:45 AM
BnB, first of all, I disagree with the proofreading. Most people on here who take the time to post with their head rather than emotion seem to take the time to check their posts for most errors. I try not to be a grammar and spelling Nazi, but when someone repeatedly has multiple errors, and obviously wrote in a reckless hurry, it tells me they also think in a reckless hurry. Just my .02
As for Bush, I have been a lifelong Republican and voted for the man twice, but not in the primaries at all. I feel he is one of the worst presidents we have had in recent times. It is my opinion that we went into Iraq for some hidden agenda of either his or his advisors, whatever one may argue that agenda might be, I don't feel it was to keep the US safe. He has sacrificed many lives in both countries for whatever this agenda is. Riddle me this. What was going on in Iraq that doesn't go on in 1/2 of all African countries every day? Why don't we go in and "save" them?

boatsnblondes
05-21-2007, 08:00 AM
BnB, first of all, I disagree with the proofreading. Most people on here who take the time to post with their head rather than emotion seem to take the time to check their posts for most errors. I try not to be a grammar and spelling Nazi, but when someone repeatedly has multiple errors, and obviously wrote in a reckless hurry, it tells me they also think in a reckless hurry. Just my .02
As for Bush, I have been a lifelong Republican and voted for the man twice, but not in the primaries at all. I feel he is one of the worst presidents we have had in recent times. It is my opinion that we went into Iraq for some hidden agenda of either his or his advisors, whatever one may argue that agenda might be, I don't feel it was to keep the US safe. He has sacrificed many lives in both countries for whatever this agenda is. Riddle me this. What was going on in Iraq that doesn't go on in 1/2 of all African countries every day? Why don't we go in and "save" them?
Oh, please, go back and read half of Kilr's posts...and several others...get off your spelling box....kilr butchers the english language every time he posts....and the reason your not over there with your spelling police spiel is?? I'll riddle you the rest later..suffice it to say that what happens in africa, stays in affrica, they don't export it, or train others to export it, taking them off the map.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 08:00 AM
I doubt that President Bush II will go down as a great President, nor do I think that he will go down as the worse. We originally were fighting in Iraq because Saddam Hussein was felt to be a threat to the well being of the Middle East. Whether or not he was supporting or cooperating with Al Queda was only part of the concerns. He was trying to rebuild his destructive capabilities, and he was paying for the suicide bombings against Israel. My personal feelings is that the President placed too much under Rumsfield's control. He tried to go into Iraq without thought of long term consequences, and without a plan for asset security. As a result, the unstable peace among the religions was not given a chance to get better. The Iranians already had plans in place to take advantage of the situation they knew must happen. By coaching Sadr and others, they moved quickly and got their death squads terrorizing the populace.
What is happening now is the jackals snapping. When anything is being planned of a world event, the secondary players and political insiders have two sets of books. One is the set they show their bosses, to promote what they think is wanted. The other is the set they keep to make it look as if they were against the plan. If everything works, they can take credit for their input. If it fails, they can blame someone else.
As far as Carter and Gore blasting Bush, both of them are such political jokes, they should have their own cable show. Protocol says that ex-Presidents should be allowed to disagree with policy decisions that go against their core positions, but it should be based only on the policy and not the person. To attack another President's administration on a personal level, is rude and counterproductive. For Carter to criticize anyone, is ludicous.
How about Bush Sr bashing Clinton. Carter didn't Bash the man, just his politics.
I'm still waiting for Quickjet's true reason we are in Iraq.
BnB, first of all, I disagree with the proofreading. Most people on here who take the time to post with their head rather than emotion seem to take the time to check their posts for most errors. I try not to be a grammar and spelling Nazi, but when someone repeatedly has multiple errors, and obviously wrote in a reckless hurry, it tells me they also think in a reckless hurry. Just my .02
As for Bush, I have been a lifelong Republican and voted for the man twice, but not in the primaries at all. I feel he is one of the worst presidents we have had in recent times. It is my opinion that we went into Iraq for some hidden agenda of either his or his advisors, whatever one may argue that agenda might be, I don't feel it was to keep the US safe. He has sacrificed many lives in both countries for whatever this agenda is. Riddle me this. What was going on in Iraq that doesn't go on in 1/2 of all African countries every day? Why don't we go in and "save" them?
Well thought out post :)

HM
05-21-2007, 08:04 AM
DAMN!!! How many sharks can someone jump in a year let alone an entire lifetime?!?!?!?
Carter is a joke, I don't understand why people get all worked up about him. Kind of like thinking KToy is a real cop. :D

boatsnblondes
05-21-2007, 08:14 AM
DAMN!!! How many sharks can someone jump in a year let alone an entire lifetime?!?!?!?
Carter is a joke, I don't understand why people get all worked up about him. Kind of like thinking KToy is a real cop. :D
I'm gonna tell him you said that......:D
BTW, how ya doin?? Haven't seen you around for a while....doin OK???:D

Old Texan
05-21-2007, 08:19 AM
BnB, first of all, I disagree with the proofreading. Most people on here who take the time to post with their head rather than emotion seem to take the time to check their posts for most errors. I try not to be a grammar and spelling Nazi, but when someone repeatedly has multiple errors, and obviously wrote in a reckless hurry, it tells me they also think in a reckless hurry. Just my .02
As for Bush, I have been a lifelong Republican and voted for the man twice, but not in the primaries at all. I feel he is one of the worst presidents we have had in recent times. It is my opinion that we went into Iraq for some hidden agenda of either his or his advisors, whatever one may argue that agenda might be, I don't feel it was to keep the US safe. He has sacrificed many lives in both countries for whatever this agenda is. Riddle me this. What was going on in Iraq that doesn't go on in 1/2 of all African countries every day? Why don't we go in and "save" them?
Rather then get into the Presidental debate on incompetence I would rather point out the ineptitude spilling out of the House and Senate. The grandstanding, political posturing by the majority of these fools has done more to split this nation than anything. The attempts to work together have done nothing more than produce last week's joke of an Illegal Immigration Bill. Neither side of the aisle has exhibited any common sense or leadership. Both are full of far too many personal agendas and seekers of higher office that completely ignore the responsiblities of their present offices.
If anything needs impeachement, it's the entirety of the House and Senate, plain and simple. Of course that will never happen, except at the voting booth.
As far as your riddle, Iraq had far more capability to do and extend harm and discord in the Middle East than the majority of African nations. They have proven this with their invasion of Kuwait and the ongoing wars and discord with neighboring Iran. Saddam was in violation of UN mandates and the corruption UN leadership was basically feeding him well out the backdoor. Sadly this corruption and dictatorial way of government is far to widely accepted.

QuickJet
05-21-2007, 08:20 AM
I got to hear this, What is the true reason we are in Iraq?
In your little brain, the people should have no influence on how they are governed. Polls are polls, and little else. In the next election the people will vote, and their voice will be heard. I assure you, it won't be for more anything similar to what we have now.
I will repeat the statement you view as one of the stupidest things I have ever written
If 70 out of a 100 people view something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa Sorry you can't quite grasp this as it's fairly simple. I don't remember stating anything about governing by the polls.
.
70% of America watches American Idol, the absolute dumbest show on television. They care more about Sanjia than the welfare of their country. Idiodic dolts is what makes up your 70% (if that's even a true # from a reputable poll taker. And no Google doesn't count)
I was never asked nor did I take a poll on the dealings with Iraq.
Another point you missed is with poll questions. If someone asked me if I was happy with the way Iraq was being handled, I would say no as well, Not because my nose is up Cindy Sheehan's ass, but because we havn't used our full power to end the combat. We have way more tech than our enenemies yet restrict our engagement tactics to fight a "Fair battle".
He has sacrificed many lives in both countries for whatever this agenda is. Riddle me this. What was going on in Iraq that doesn't go on in 1/2 of all African countries every day? Why don't we go in and "save" them?
The reason we went into Iraq is to get a foothold it the middle east for the ineveitable war with Iran. Africa has nothing to offer us nor does it have anything we need. Iran is trying to become a Nuclear threat, something that Clinton warned about in '97. With Sadham in power we could not engage Iran the way we need to. That has changed.
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!
The war with Iraq is over. Mission accomplished. What we are fighting now are Iranian militia and Al Queda terrorist.
Next stop....IRAN ;)

HM
05-21-2007, 08:24 AM
I'm gonna tell him you said that......:D
BTW, how ya doin?? Haven't seen you around for a while....doin OK???:D
This may be hard to beleive, but I have been working! I have been reading/lurking, but little time for posting. And...got #4 oompa loompa due any second. Thought we were headed to the hospital last night!
Thanks for asking...I didn't realize we entered the "I love to hate you" part of our relationship! :D

Towndrunk
05-21-2007, 09:02 AM
Why can't this guy just DIE??????? (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070519/D8P7O79O0.html)
Why? Do you have a problem with the truth?

My Man's Sportin' Wood
05-21-2007, 10:14 AM
Rather then get into the Presidental debate on incompetence I would rather point out the ineptitude spilling out of the House and Senate. The grandstanding, political posturing by the majority of these fools has done more to split this nation than anything. The attempts to work together have done nothing more than produce last week's joke of an Illegal Immigration Bill. Neither side of the aisle has exhibited any common sense or leadership. Both are full of far too many personal agendas and seekers of higher office that completely ignore the responsiblities of their present offices.
If anything needs impeachement, it's the entirety of the House and Senate, plain and simple. Of course that will never happen, except at the voting booth.
I agree. The whole political system makes me sick.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 10:29 AM
70% of America watches American Idol, the absolute dumbest show on television. They care more about Sanjia than the welfare of their country. Idiodic dolts is what makes up your 70% (if that's even a true # from a reputable poll taker. And no Google doesn't count)
I was never asked nor did I take a poll on the dealings with Iraq.
Another point you missed is with poll questions. If someone asked me if I was happy with the way Iraq was being handled, I would say no as well, Not because my nose is up Cindy Sheehan's ass, but because we havn't used our full power to end the combat. We have way more tech than our enenemies yet restrict our engagement tactics to fight a "Fair battle".
The reason we went into Iraq is to get a foothold it the middle east for the ineveitable war with Iran. Africa has nothing to offer us nor does it have anything we need. Iran is trying to become a Nuclear threat, something that Clinton warned about in '97. With Sadham in power we could not engage Iran the way we need to. That has changed.
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!The war with Iraq is over. Mission accomplished. What we are fighting now are Iranian militia and Al Queda terrorist.
Next stop....IRAN ;)
Then our President is a f'n lying pile of sh*t. A new and improved reason for invading Iraq. I'm not buying it. This would mean that we wasted the lives of close to 3500 US troops, injured another 35,000 US troops, killed 200,000 + Iraqis and have spent in excess of a $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) to prepare to go to war with Iran???
May I ask why you believe that you are so much more informed about this war than the American people?
I can say this, that if there is any truth to what you're saying, ( and I doubt that there is) Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office immediately. For the reason that you state we went to war in Iraq, no funding would have ever been provided.
The more I think about it I'm confident that you full of sh**. Bush and his cronies aren't bright to have devised such and elaborate hoax on America.
"If 70 out of a 100 people view something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa" This is a stand alone comment.
Maybe you can understand if put in another way.
100 people are tested and 70 come up with same answer. It is likely that the 70 have the right answer. WTF does American Idol have to do with anything related?
Smokin,
Where did you go? Fess up dude, you were wrong again!
Tex,
I would like to hear your opinion of Quickjet's version of why we went to war in Iraq.
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN![/B]The war with Iraq is over. Mission accomplished. What we are fighting now are Iranian militia and Al Queda terrorist.
Next stop....IRAN ;)

QuickJet
05-21-2007, 11:05 AM
Then our President is a f'n lying pile of sh*t. A new and improved reason for invading Iraq. I'm not buying it. This would mean that we wasted the lives of close to 3500 US troops, injured another 35,000 US troops, killed 200,000 + Iraqis and have spent in excess of a $1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) to prepare to go to war with Iran???
!
A NEW founded reason?? Hardly. Invading Iraq was in the works well before Bush ever stepped into office. Iran has and continues to be a threat. Do you actually believe that our Government just found out about Mahjinahad's quest for nuclear power the same time YOU did from watching the channel 4 news? Clinton spoke of Irans threat in '97. He told Wolf Blitzer that inorder to get to Iran, you'd have to go through Iraq first. Bush himself said we need a strategic arena in the middle east to protect America's interest. The left thought that "Americas interest" was that of oil. Well it wasn't. Tony Snow (before he became White House spokesman), stated many times on his talk radio show that we indeeed need Iraq to get to Iran.
May I ask why you believe that you are so much more informed about this war than the American people? !
Just pay attention in class.
I can say this, that if there is any truth to what you're saying, ( and I doubt that there is) Mr. Bush should be impeached and removed from office immediately. For the reason that you state we went to war in Iraq, no funding would have ever been provided.!
Ummm, Iran was brought up many times to the UN when debating going into Iraq. Do you pay attention to anything?
The more I think about I'm confident that you full of sh**. Bush and his cronies aren't bright to have devised such and elaborate hoax on America. .!
Hmmm, yet according to Google, 58% of the people think he had something to do with 9/11. An act that would of course take way more brains and strategy to pull off.
100 people are tested and 70 come up with same answer. It is likely that the 70 have the right answer. WTF does American Idol have to do with anything related? .!
So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves, Annie Hall rightfully deserved the acadamy Award for best picture in 1977, and American Idol is the best program on TV. All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history.
Don't let polls tell you what is right, use your OWN brain to figure it out.

OKIE-JET
05-21-2007, 11:28 AM
A NEW founded reason?? Hardly. Invading Iraq was in the works well before Bush ever stepped into office. Iran has and continues to be a threat. Do you actually believe that our Government just found out about Mahjinahad's quest for nuclear power the same time YOU did from watching the channel 4 news? Clinton spoke of Irans threat in '97. He told Wolf Blitzer that inorder to get to Iran, you'd have to go through Iraq first. Bush himself said we need a strategic arena in the middle east to protect America's interest. The left thought that "Americas interest" was that of oil. Well it wasn't. Tony Snow (before he became White House spokesman), stated many times on his talk radio show that we indeeed need Iraq to get to Iran.
Just pay attention in class.
Ummm, Iran was brought up many times to the UN when debating going into Iraq. Do you pay attention to anything?
Hmmm, yet according to Google, 58% of the people think he had something to do with 9/11. An act that would of course take way more brains and strategy to pull off.
So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves, Annie Hall rightfully deserved the acadamy Award for best picture in 1977, and American Idol is the best program on TV. All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history.
Don't let polls tell you what is right, use your OWN brain to figure it out.
:idea: There you go....bein' all logical...an' shit..:D

GHT
05-21-2007, 11:32 AM
If 70 out of a 100 people veiw something as good, it's likely that it's good and vice versa. :idea:
basically, that is what I was trying to say BUT I was babbling..:D

GHT
05-21-2007, 11:44 AM
That has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever written (and you have writen some really stupid things).
A politician (especially the President) should NEVER govern or make policy according to poll numbers. People are fickle. Of those 70% (a number of which I havn't researched so it's probably BS) how many know the true reason that we are in Iraq? Do you even know why we are in Iraq?
Just to claify... I was (and I believe Ultra26) saying it is very odd that choices can be made and (IMO) they are right but the Majority of America thinks they are wrong... Therefore (as far as America is concerned), it is the wrong decission. See a majority of America thinks the economy is in the shitter but I believe it has almost NEVER been this healthy... Who is right? I am in the minority in my beliefs. So, maybe, Just maybe the others are right? I still refuse to believe it. I'M RIGHT!!:D

HCS
05-21-2007, 11:51 AM
Fukc Jimmy Carter.

Old Texan
05-21-2007, 11:57 AM
[QUOTE
Tex,
I would like to hear your opinion of Quickjet's version of why we went to war in Iraq.[/QUOTE]
I agree with what QJ says. I've looked at it in similar terms and stated as much, see above post:
As far as your riddle, Iraq had far more capability to do and extend harm and discord in the Middle East than the majority of African nations. They have proven this with their invasion of Kuwait and the ongoing wars and discord with neighboring Iran. Saddam was in violation of UN mandates and the corruption UN leadership was basically feeding him well out the backdoor. Sadly this corruption and dictatorial way of government is far to widely accepted.
The evidence has been out there for a long time that Iran's leadership has been regressing into the militant Islamic state they've become. Iraq was being led by a continously fracturing dictatorship that was due to split apart between the crazy son Hussein and the evermore insane father Hussein. The country under the son would have become even more of a clearinghouse for terror than it already was proving to be. I have a good freind who was the logistics officer under Gerneral Tommy Frank in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. He expressed how the country was a safe haven of sorts for the world's terror suspects and the US arrival sent many fleeing to Syria, Iran, and elsewhere. al Quaeda was there and returned as an organized insurgency with Iranian and Syrian backing.
Why are these facts not national news or as you want, readily available reasoning from the White House? I don't know but suspect the information is what our military tries to keep to themselves and our wonderful media is either too inept or their liberal makeup doesn't want to report the truth for fear of supporting a "war".
I believe there is a lot of sound reasoning to the theory of fighting there rather than leaving and later fighting them here or in another country which was "invaded" by Islamic Terrorists.
Much like the "Pelosi Hippies" of the 60's-70's, the "Ahmadinejad Insurgents" of the 80's have been working behind the scenes for the respective "revolutions" within. Pelosi was a follower of the "Chicago 7" and much of her philosophy follows in accordance to the socialistic leanings of their era. Same with Ahmadinejad, he hated the Shah and was following in the traditional teachings of the Ayotollahs, hate the west, destroy the west, and this is what it's come to.
Of course this is just my opinion and what are opoinions worth????

GHT
05-21-2007, 12:03 PM
70% of America watches American Idol, the absolute dumbest show on television. They care more about Sanjia than the welfare of their country. Idiodic dolts is what makes up your 70% (if that's even a true # from a reputable poll taker. And no Google doesn't count)
I was never asked nor did I take a poll on the dealings with Iraq.
Another point you missed is with poll questions. If someone asked me if I was happy with the way Iraq was being handled, I would say no as well, Not because my nose is up Cindy Sheehan's ass, but because we havn't used our full power to end the combat. We have way more tech than our enenemies yet restrict our engagement tactics to fight a "Fair battle".
The reason we went into Iraq is to get a foothold it the middle east for the ineveitable war with Iran. Africa has nothing to offer us nor does it have anything we need. Iran is trying to become a Nuclear threat, something that Clinton warned about in '97. With Sadham in power we could not engage Iran the way we need to. That has changed.
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!
The war with Iraq is over. Mission accomplished. What we are fighting now are Iranian militia and Al Queda terrorist.
Next stop....IRAN ;)
It is funny you say IRAN is the next stop.... I was discussing this VERY point with some friends a little while back. Just to take it another step farther, I believe we have been planning the IRAQ and Afgan invasions for some time (prior even to Bush taking office). The bombing of the World Trade Center just gave us our excuse. We will bomb IRAN you mark my words! The first time IRAN's nuke program was put on the back burner by Israel bombing their Nuke processing plant. They have been getting closer and closer to completing what they have set out to do and now US and all of our allies will be the ones bombing the Nuke Power / processing Plant..
Get ready people.. and if you didn't know it.. Let me tell ya.. This IS WWIII. We have been involved in it for several years now... And it won't be over tomorrow either.:idea:

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 12:13 PM
A NEW founded reason?? Hardly. Invading Iraq was in the works well before Bush ever stepped into office. Iran has and continues to be a threat. Do you actually believe that our Government just found out about Mahjinahad's quest for nuclear power the same time YOU did from watching the channel 4 news? Clinton spoke of Irans threat in '97. He told Wolf Blitzer that inorder to get to Iran, you'd have to go through Iraq first. Bush himself said we need a strategic arena in the middle east to protect America's interest. The left thought that "Americas interest" was that of oil. Well it wasn't. Tony Snow (before he became White House spokesman), stated many times on his talk radio show that we indeeed need Iraq to get to Iran.
Just pay attention in class.
Ummm, Iran was brought up many times to the UN when debating going into Iraq. Do you pay attention to anything?
Hmmm, yet according to Google, 58% of the people think he had something to do with 9/11. An act that would of course take way more brains and strategy to pull off.
So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves, Annie Hall rightfully deserved the acadamy Award for best picture in 1977, and American Idol is the best program on TV. All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history.Don't let polls tell you what is right, use your OWN brain to figure it out.
Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address, just prior to going to war with Iraq, focused on WMD's. It is common knowledge that there was a great deal of flawed intelligence, in this regard. I guess, I and the majority of the rest of the people in this Country, were naive in our belief that our President was telling us all the truth, which you now claim he was not. Impeach the lying bastard get him the fock out of office.
Sorry I will not be attending Rush Elementry School, any time soon, so I guess you just continue being one of the lucky few in attendence
No polls involved in the following opinion. I think you and your twisted views are completely full of sh*t.
"So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history"
You're a moron

Old Texan
05-21-2007, 12:35 PM
Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address, just prior to going to war with Iraq, focused on WMD's. It is common knowledge that there was a great deal of flawed intelligence, in this regard. I guess, I and the majority of the rest of the people in this Country, were naive in our belief that our President was telling us all the truth, which you now claim he was not. Impeach the lying bastard get him the fock out of office.
Sorry I will not be attending Rush Elementry School, any time soon, so I guess you just continue being one of the lucky few in attendence
No polls involved in the following opinion. I think you and your twisted views are completely full of sh*t.
"So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history"
You're a moron
John, disageeing with a person's views and points is one thing but you seem to be degressing with your ever increasing namecalling. Is that the way to get your own points any serious consideration or remove the divisiveness within the nation????
Seems to me that attitude is helping fuel the distrust from within, much like the original topic of this thread. Jimmy Carter brings little to the table these days but his ranting. He is truly becoming more "irrelevant" every time he opens his mouth.

Big Warlock
05-21-2007, 12:56 PM
But Carter is a loser! He will always be a loser. Recently more than half of his board of directors for whatever Jimmy's foundation does, quit over remarks that essentially said the Jews were out of line and got what they deserved! Hahahaha. He really is a moron!
Bush2 isn't a rocket scientist either. Nothing wrong with the war. The dems promoted it during Clinton's era as well. Read Clinton and his cabinet's view of Iraq and you'll see. Bush went wrong with trying to police the state after the war. Should have reinstated the Iraqi army and let them deal with it. Then we should have taken over the oil fields and paid ourselves back and only paid the Iraqi government 10% until we and our allies were paid plus interest. I still think that is a good plan.
Less BJs and more focus on work might have helped Clinton.. Most success during the Clinton administration was due to a republican congress getting things done. That's a fact. Clinton was awesome at taking credit for stuff he fought in congress. Great stuff there too!
Bottom line, Carter is an Assclown for sure!
Nice counter punches! Love politics!!

QuickJet
05-21-2007, 01:02 PM
Mr. Bush's State of the Union Address, just prior to going to war with Iraq, focused on WMD's. It is common knowledge that there was a great deal of flawed intelligence, in this regard. I guess, I and the majority of the rest of the people in this Country, were naive in our belief that our President was telling us all the truth, which you now claim he was not. Impeach the lying bastard get him the fock out of office.
He didn't lie, there were viable reasons to believe that Sadham had WMD's. He also said that a Democratized Iraq was very important to the well being of America. What exactly did you think he meant by that? He wasn't talking about putting a Starbucks on every corner.
Sorry I will not be attending Rush Elementry School, any time soon, so I guess you just continue being one of the lucky few in attendence
I rarely listen to Rush. I am too busy working to pay for the illegals medical and education in my State.
No polls involved in the following opinion. I think you and your twisted views are completely full of sh*t.
No polls, then where the hell did you pull the "70%" figure out of?.....Your ass?
You're a moron
Work on your spelling. It's Mormon!

HM
05-21-2007, 01:04 PM
Is anyone else as let down as me that this thread did not involve Jimmy Carter in a sexual escapade? :eek: :) :eek: :D

Big Warlock
05-21-2007, 01:10 PM
Maybe there is a chance he was doing Amy??? LOL

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 01:18 PM
John, disageeing with a person's views and points is one thing but you seem to be degressing with your ever increasing namecalling. Is that the way to get your own points any serious consideration or remove the divisiveness within the nation????
Seems to me that attitude is helping fuel the distrust from within, much like the original topic of this thread. Jimmy Carter brings little to the table these days but his ranting. He is truly becoming more "irrelevant" every time he opens his mouth.
Tex,
I agree that the name calling isn't necessary, with the exception of one dork.
Jimmy Carter, is just Jimmy Carter. He attacked Bush's politics and not the man. Nonetheless, I don't see his attacks as being any different than those of Bush Sr. against Clinton. Carter has little credibility.
The comment by QJ,
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!The war with Iraq is over
just makes Bush look like a liar on top of everything else. Mr. Bush hardly needs any more bad press.
As I stated previously, if this were the truth, funding of the Iraqi war would have never been approved.
BTW, Smokin is a dork :)

Old Texan
05-21-2007, 01:23 PM
Is anyone else as let down as me that this thread did not involve Jimmy Carter in a sexual escapade? :eek: :) :eek: :D
Jimmy had "Lust in his heart", it was Billy that got all the pussie......Billy Beer was the original "Date Rape" drug, only the victim didn't forget, they were just so badly hungover they didn't give an F.:devil:
Probably ain't a large enough dose of Viagra to get Jimmy goin'. :jawdrop:

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 01:31 PM
He didn't lie, there were viable reasons to believe that Sadham had WMD's. He also said that a Democratized Iraq was very important to the well being of America. What exactly did you think he meant by that? He wasn't talking about putting a Starbucks on every corner.
I rarely listen to Rush. I am too busy working to pay for the illegals medical and education in my State.
No polls, then where the hell did you pull the "70%" figure out of?.....Your ass?
Work on your spelling. It's Mormon!
1. Your words,
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN! One of you is lying. Make up your mind.
2. You should probabally get a job that pays you. I have one so I know they are available. You sound like a Rushy to me
3. 70% 80% 60% Out of my ass, you got that one right. Most recent polls would be 27% approve vs 73% dis.
4. Sorry for the spelling error. Mormon, Mormon Mormon, I think I got it.

VEGASBABY
05-21-2007, 01:46 PM
Wow! All these great politcal minds at work and where are they at? Right here on ***boat! Its so beautiful:sleeping: :sleeping:

SmokinLowriderSS
05-21-2007, 01:54 PM
How about Bush Sr bashing Clinton.
Yes, I'm here.
Back this one up buster, IF you can.
When.
Where.
What'd he say.
You'd better source it, I wanna see where you got it. I'l be checking.
Carter didn't Bash the man, just his politics.
"President George W. Bush’s administration is “the worst in history” when it comes to international relations,"
"I think that Bush Jnr was inclined to finish a war that his father had precipitated against Iraq."
"President Bush has exploited the Sept. 11 attacks for political gain"
"All of those long, tedious negotiations that were done by Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, (Richard) Nixon and me and (Ronald) Reagan to control the spread of nuclear weapons have been abandoned by Bush,"
"President George W. Bush's administration is responsible for the country's moral crisis. "
Lauer asked what advice Carter would give Bush;
"I think tell the American people the truth, would be one major start, about what happened to bring the country into war."
Carter had quite a list of grievances against Bush.
The "insistence by our government that the CIA or others have the right to torture prisoners,"
"the doctrine of preemptive war, "
"the abandonment of basic human rights,
"the derogation of American civil liberties and personal privacy, "
"the vast rewarding in a time of war of extremely rich Americans at the expense of working class people, "
"the abandonment of protecting the American environment "
Those quotes are just disagreements with Bush's republican POLITICS?????

Seadog
05-21-2007, 01:56 PM
First, it was reported that Carter said that this administration was the worse ever. That is an attack on the Presidency, not a disagreement on politics. Now Mr. Senile Statesman is backtracking and saying that he said that Bush II administration was worse than Nixon on international relationships.
As far as reasons for going to war, and when it was planned. The harping on WMD is BS. The primary reason was that Hussein was flaunting his violations of the treaty that he signed and the UN administered. A lot of people had good right to be concerned that his sons might inherit the throne. The sadist tortures and rapes by his sons were proof that they had less touch with reality than their father.
And yes, long before 9/11, we had plans for the invasion of Iraq. We have plans for the invasion of Iran, for the invasion of China, the invasion of North Korea, and the invasion of Russia. We probably even have plans for the invasion of Mexico and Canada. There are teams that do nothing but plan what to do if X happens. It shows areas that we have to consider because we are weak in certain types of equipment and personnel. It is what we use to determine how the money is spent. It is rarely right and sometimes causes problems because it is academics exercises by desktop generals, but right now it is the best we have.
The problem in any conflict is with the planning. You cannot just point the troops and say go. You have to have supplies staged and ready. They have to arrive at point XYZ but not too late, or you get stalled waiting. And not too soon, or they become a target or take up valuable staging space. And this has to be done with the knowledge you do not have a clue what will happen when the troops go. If the enemy allows rapid movement, it could be a trap, but you have to go because you cannot afford not to. If they fight you every step, then you have to be ready with support fire. And resupply. Rapid movement, you move fuel up, but any combat means you have to get the ammo up quickly. The problem is Congress has no concept of combat. Murtha is suppose to be the Democrats combat veteran. He was a rear echelon paper pusher that had a boo-boo and tried to get a Purple Heart for it. he was turned down by his commanding officer, so when he got back, he used his political connections to get his medals so he could legally claim it.

GHT
05-21-2007, 02:14 PM
Wow! All these great politcal minds at work and where are they at? Right here on ***boat! Its so beautiful:sleeping: :sleeping:
Shut up...:boxingguy :boxingguy :lightsabe

SmokinLowriderSS
05-21-2007, 02:21 PM
Ultra, the failure to get beyond grade 5 shows, in the spelling, the lost 3-page urinating contest over word pluralization, and the fact that DORK becomes soooooooooo old about sophmore year in high School (grade 9 back in the old days)
Jealous so you are I Yoda type like want to when I do. Hmmmmmmmm.
Oh, and YOU brought him up, just like your failed comprehension of the modern understanding of the 6th commandment.
What else do you feel like broaching that you are waaaaay outta your league on?

QuickJet
05-21-2007, 02:32 PM
1. Your words,
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN! One of you is lying. Make up your mind. .
NO one is lying as both are correct. Yes there were possable WMDs (sell that for public support) and yes we need the area Democratized for America's interest (vague statement with multiple meanings let the public figure it out)
2. You should probabally get a job that pays you. I have one so I know they are available. You sound like a Rushy to me.
How would you know what a Rushy sounds like? Did someone tell you or do you actually listen to him?
3. 70% 80% 60% Out of my ass, you got that one right. Most recent polls would be 27% approve vs 73% dis. .
So it was a poll?. Before you said it wasn't. Just trying to clarify a very simple question. And in case you were wondering, I too would be part of the 73%. See how screwed up your poll data is. Completely irrelevant (much like everything else you offer to any debate) At least you are consistent.
4. Sorry for the spelling error. Mormon, Mormon Mormon, I think I got it.
Yes. Practice makes perfect.

pw_Tony
05-21-2007, 02:34 PM
A NEW founded reason?? Hardly. Invading Iraq was in the works well before Bush ever stepped into office. Iran has and continues to be a threat. Do you actually believe that our Government just found out about Mahjinahad's quest for nuclear power the same time YOU did from watching the channel 4 news? Clinton spoke of Irans threat in '97. He told Wolf Blitzer that inorder to get to Iran, you'd have to go through Iraq first. Bush himself said we need a strategic arena in the middle east to protect America's interest. The left thought that "Americas interest" was that of oil. Well it wasn't. Tony Snow (before he became White House spokesman), stated many times on his talk radio show that we indeeed need Iraq to get to Iran.
Just pay attention in class.
Ummm, Iran was brought up many times to the UN when debating going into Iraq. Do you pay attention to anything?
Hmmm, yet according to Google, 58% of the people think he had something to do with 9/11. An act that would of course take way more brains and strategy to pull off.
So the world is flat, blacks should be slaves, Annie Hall rightfully deserved the acadamy Award for best picture in 1977, and American Idol is the best program on TV. All true according to your 70% rule at any given time in history.
Don't let polls tell you what is right, use your OWN brain to figure it out.
You should really watch this video http://www.911inplanesite.com/ don'
t critisize it until you watch it but it might change your mind a little :devil:

ULTRA26 # 1
05-21-2007, 02:39 PM
Ultra, the failure to get beyond grade 5 shows, in the spelling, the lost 3-page urinating contest over word pluralization, and the fact that DORK becomes soooooooooo old about sophmore year in high School (grade 9 back in the old days)
Jealous so you are I Yoda type like want to when I do. Hmmmmmmmm.
Oh, and YOU brought him up, just like your failed comprehension of the modern understanding of the 6th commandment.
What else do you feel like broaching that you are waaaaay outta your league on?
I just mentioned to someone else 6th, man 6th
Oh, and YOU brought him up, just like your failed comprehension of the modern understanding of the 6th commandment.
Most people believe that thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill. Please excuse my ignorance for not researching the new and improved 6th commandment. Thou shalt not murder
Can't admit that you were wrong again with respect to Bush I criticizing Clinton.
Diatribing. Another one of your winners.:D
"Jealous so you are I Yoda type like want to when I do" Not sure what you are trying to say with this one???
Dork, is very appropriate in your case

pw_Tony
05-21-2007, 02:39 PM
oops

centerhill condor
05-21-2007, 05:58 PM
somtimes free speech is worth what you pay for it.

Seadog
05-21-2007, 08:01 PM
On January 14, 2007, Carter said in an interview with Arab television station Al Jazeera, referring to Palestinian rocket attacks on Israeli cities: "I Don't Consider... I Wasn't Equating Palestinian Missiles with Terrorism".
A few statistics from Carter's presidency: Double digit inflation, prime rate 21.5%. Tried to reduce troop levels in South Korea to 14,000, when the area commanding general publicly said it was suicidal, he was removed. Set up training of the muslims in Afganistan, who became the Taliban and Al Queda. Turned his back on the Shah of Iran who had been a pillar of our Middle East policy since WWII, failed to support him when the Revolutionary Guard attacked, and then denied him medical care in the US until others forced him to. Was responsible for taking support from Somoza in Nicaragua and giving military support to the Sandinistas. Despite a humanitarian plea from the Nicaraguan bishop, he gave them full military support which was then used to killed dissidents and setup one of the worse regimes ever.
Almost gave away our nuclear arms to Russia while creating tension because he refused to sell grain to them. He cancelled the B-1 program among many other military programs. His leadership was so pathetic that thousands of the best military leaders quit rather than work under him.

OKIE-JET
05-22-2007, 11:45 AM
Does anyone here actually know someone from Iranian descent? My wife and I are friends with a woman from Iran, as well as I also knew a couple a guys back in the mid-eighties from there. All of them escaped from their homeland when in their teens. The woman, Layla, has said a number of times that the best thing for the U.S. to do is to bomb that place till its flat. HER WORDS, NOT MINE. I thought this a strange statement from her because she still has a few family members there. A few conversations deeper into getting to know her, it was clear as to why she felt this way. Her father and one brother were murdered by the gov. cause they were deemed to have a sympathetic view of the west. Her family lived in hiding for years, as well as other political dissidents living around them. Routine torture, killings, rape, siezure of property-all commited by the regime. She explained that they live in terror because the brainwashing against the west begins at birth, people are made to feel as though they have no worth and that those from the west have even less. THEY TEACH FROM CHILDHOOD THAT WESTERNERS MUST DIE, and that if they are the ones doing the killing that they shall be rewarded by Allah. Layla was tortured cause all she wanted in life there was to work for her stuff and be left alone..the gov. thought differently. I know she was, She has shown some of her less personal scars, and yes they are hideous, not to mention the emotional baggage she now bears....the murder of her brother was in direct retaliation for her escape...to show the rest of the family that they werent fockn around. As for the guys I knew 20 yrs ago, they all say the same....The place wont change cause they been hatin' for centuries, if you dont hold the same beliefs, your less than a dog and should die. If you should find the time, befriend someone from one of these places and learn from those that have actually lived it...you'd be surprised at what passes for regular life in the mid-east.
As for the invasion of Iraq....If your one of those that feel we should have just kept waiting and pandering to a madman...then your just fu@kin retarded. There nothing anyone can do to change an apathetic mind. Some of you should remove the rose colored glasses so you can see whats really goin' on. Some of us are just destined to be herded up like cattle and slaughtered before we see what others actually have in store for us, which is fine and dandy, but dont run here when the shit hits the fan and expect MY AK to cover your asses, cause it 'aint gonna happen. The apathy in this country shared by lib. dems is sickening. Leaders in this region of our planet have called for the death and destruction of the west for decades, DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE SAYING? Death to ALL of us, they couldn't give two shits if your a dem or rep....your western and thats that. WMD's? So Bush is the only person in politics that knew intelligence about this was flawed...give me a fockin break, just the idea of it is pure stupidity. The Dems voted for the war when it was popular, now they reverse themselves, whats new here? I guess it just comes down to the fact that as time goes on, people are farther and farther removed from the truth of war and its cost....LIVES. Ask yourself, do I like to be free? Do I like living in a place where I'm not terrified of the government? Do I enjoy the fact that if some madman ina third world gov. decided to kill my family members in a suicide bombing, that my leaders would summarily smash his ass to the ground? If your answer to any of these questions (and soooo many more) was yes, then just know that it was paid for by someone's life. Hussein murdered millions of his own and others around him, cause he could. How long beforew we were the target? So just wait till' he has the capability, then do somethin'? More Stupidity.:mad:
Believe me folks, I'm definitely not down with all that Bush has done, but its a damn site better that some sniveling demacrap sellin our asses up the river. (how many nights in our WHITE HOUSE sold to the Chinese and others, all the while stealing intel.?) I guess you all think it was O.K. cause we really dont keep THAT many state secrets in Lincoln's bedroom anyway.
Awwww....Bush lied. Movie quote..."You want the truth....YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH! I would not doubt this was actually thought by members of the state dept. prior to the announcement. Bottom line here, some in this country believe in fighting for our freedoms and way of life, some dont. Along with that comes death and sacrifice, something our country is regretfully forgetting.:mad: :( :(

Old Texan
05-22-2007, 12:28 PM
Pretty straight forward there Okie-J.
I've had acquaintances from Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon through the years. All came here legally and became citizens to get away from the chaos. All left friends, family, and loved ones behind to horrors. Their homelands had become impossible for freethinking people to live in, so they left in order to lead a normal life of freedom and safety.
These people like you say, adamantly condemn the west hating tyrants ruining their homelands and butchering their loved ones. Too many among us don't consider the reality that these legal immigrants have seen.

Big Warlock
05-22-2007, 12:45 PM
May I ask why you believe that you are so much more informed about this war than the American people?
You think the American People are well informed? Have you ever read the 9/11 report?
You crack me up dude!! :D

ULTRA26 # 1
05-22-2007, 12:52 PM
You think the American People are well informed? Have you ever read the 9/11 report?
You crack me up dude!! :D
Is that what I said???? I was referring to a man who was claiming that most Americans don't know the real reason we went to war with Iraq, but he did. His comment:
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!
and yes.
Glad I made you smile :)
You must believe you are one of the few informed Americans.

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 01:07 PM
Is that what I said???? I was referring to a man who was claiming that most Americans don't know the real reason we went to war with Iraq, but he did. His comment:
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!
and yes.
Glad I made you smile :)
You must believe you are one of the few informed Americans.
Do you honestly think we went into Iraq for WMD's, oil, freedom or daddy's revenge?
Please tell the class YOUR reasoning to all of this.
And please tell me that your #1 source of information is not from the 5 o'clock news on chanell 4. I'm beginning to think it is from the things you say and believe.
Don't feel bad, when I was 15 I was the same way.

Big Warlock
05-22-2007, 01:30 PM
You must believe you are one of the few informed Americans.
I do try to stay informed. I read quite a bit as all of this has my interest. I also participated in the first Desert Storm. I have lived out of this country for 29 years. I consider myself better informed than most. And I try to give my honest opinion based on my experience and knowledge.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-22-2007, 01:34 PM
I do try to stay informed. I read quite a bit as all of this has my interest. I also participated in the first Desert Storm. I have lived out of this country for 29 years. I consider myself better informed than most. And I try to give my honest opinion based on my experience and knowledge.
I always appreciate an honest answer. Thank you.
Do you honestly think we went into Iraq for WMD's, oil, freedom or daddy's revenge?
Please tell the class YOUR reasoning to all of this.
And please tell me that your #1 source of information is not from the 5 o'clock news on chanell 4. I'm beginning to think it is from the things you say and believe.
Don't feel bad, when I was 15 I was the same way.
I am one of those stupid uninformed Amenricans who listened to our President, with regard to why we went to war in Iraq. I've never viewed Mr. Bush as the lying POS that you make him out to be. Not very loyal to your party, are you?
Nothing for me to feel bad about, QJ. What are you 16 1/2 now?
Please be so kind as to provide us with the info source that taught you that the primary reason we went to war in Iraq, was to prepare for war with Iran.
Stay tuned everyone, this is going to get good.

Old Texan
05-22-2007, 01:50 PM
I am one of those stupid uninformed Amenricans who listened to our President, with regard to why we went to war in Iraq. I've never viewed Mr. Bush as the lying POS that you make him out to be. Not very loyal to your party, are you?
Nothing for me to feel bad about, QJ. What are you 16 1/2 now?
John, there goes that bloodpressure up again.
I still think you aren't listening to opinions you don't want to face. Selective hearing brings on a lot of your grief. Just a thought........

HM
05-22-2007, 01:56 PM
You guys can banter all you want, but GW went to Iraq for WMD's. It had always been spun that WMD's were the main reason, but freedom for Iraqi people was the 2nd reason being spun. And now people are saying that if you thought we went to Iraq for WMD's....we are uninformed? I agree with Ultra 26 (And just threw up a little in my mouth) that GW was very clear about the reason for invading Iraq....WMD's. So, Bush lied to the American people...and people are saying that the liberal media is causing the people to be uninformed? Make up your mind man.
Damn the tighty righties don't are now skipping drinking the koolaid and just eating the concentrate straight out of the bag.
<-----HolyMoly former conservative republican now libertarian - the true republicans.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-22-2007, 01:59 PM
John, there goes that bloodpressure up again.
I still think you aren't listening to opinions you don't want to face. Selective hearing brings on a lot of your grief. Just a thought........
Tex,
Blood pressure is fine. I have no problem listening to opinions. Selective hearing? No.
Statement of QJ
Iraq was not fought for oil, freeing of a people, hidden WMD's, or daddys revenge. It was fought for a strategic foothold in an area where we need it the most to combat a bigger threat, IRAN!
Seems like there is but one way to interpret this.
Tex, please clarify what you believe that I don't want to face.
Thanks
You guys can banter all you want, but GW went to Iraq for WMD's. It had always been spun that WMD's were the main reason, but freedom for Iraqi people was the 2nd reason being spun. And now people are saying that if you thought we went to Iraq for WMD's....we are uninformed? I agree with Ultra 26 (And just threw up a little in my mouth) that GW was very clear about the reason for invading Iraq....WMD's. So, Bush lied to the American people...and people are saying that the liberal media is causing the people to be uninformed? Make up your mind man.
Damn the tighty righties don't are now skipping drinking the koolaid and just eating the concentrate straight out of the bag.
<-----HolyMoly former conservative republican now libertarian - the true republicans.
Thanks for the laugh. That was funny

HM
05-22-2007, 02:04 PM
Thanks for the laugh. That was funny
:D At your cervix!

LAND_LOVER69
05-22-2007, 02:08 PM
Well said you all, well said. Free speach, yes free speach, yes yes yes.....well said. Now, go look up the difference between freedom and licence....you might learn something.....:idea:
Hey dipshit! Maybe you should read up on what happens to idiots like you that make personal threats against current and former presidents! "Why don't he just DIE!" Thats a threat if I ever saw one!
Maybe you should just go to jail for a very long time!!!!!!!:idea:

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 04:06 PM
I always appreciate an honest answer. Thank you.
I am one of those stupid uninformed Amenricans who listened to our President, with regard to why we went to war in Iraq. I've never viewed Mr. Bush as the lying POS that you make him out to be. Not very loyal to your party, are you?.
You say you listend to Bush but yet act surprised when Iran is brought up?? Which is it? If you listend you would know the strategic importance of the region. You seam to hear what you wnat and tune out the rest. My know it all teenage son does that too.
Turn on any radio station worth a damn or actually talk to people who fight in the region and you would know what's going on.
Bush sold the idea on WMD's. Sure there was the possability that Sadham had them and that was all Bush needed, but in the bigger picture there was a garuntee of an American stronghold in the region.
Look what's going on currently and whom we are fighting. If WMD's were the target we would of left once they were never found. If freedom was the target we would of left once Sadahm was executed. And oil??? We would be pumping it today if that's what we wanted.
Our exit strategy is through Iran. We are not making a second trip.
I'm not a Bush fan so loyalty has nothing to do with it . You on the other hand judge by idiotic polls and party lines. Just stick with what the populouse tell you since facts and events have no bearing on your judgement.

Seadog
05-22-2007, 04:20 PM
LL69, there is a major difference in a threat and a loathing. You can wish that someone would die all you want. You can even pray to God that they die. That will never go above bad taste. A threat is only when a person makes an attempt to procure or acts in a manner that makes it appear that they may try to.
A lot of people latched onto the WMDs as a definitive reason to go into battle with Iraq. The President went over several reasons, but the media emphasized the WMD angle. In order to get a better response, the administration went with the emphasis. As usual, the public never remembers the valid points, but overstate the angles that were proved wrong. Life is not black and white. You can be right about what is needed, without being right about the reasons why it is needed. You can also be wrong about something, without ulterior motives or being evil. Lots of people do it every day.

ULTRA26 # 1
05-22-2007, 04:30 PM
You say you listend to Bush but yet act surprised when Iran is brought up?? Which is it? If you listend you would know the strategic importance of the region. You seam to hear what you wnat and tune out the rest. My know it all teenage son does that too.
Turn on any radio station worth a damn or actually talk to people who fight in the region and you would know what's going on.
Bush sold the idea on WMD's. Sure there was the possability that Sadham had them and that was all Bush needed, but in the bigger picture there was a garuntee of an American stronghold in the region.
Look what's going on currently and whom we are fighting. If WMD's were the target we would of left once they were never found. If freedom was the target we would of left once Sadahm was executed. And oil??? We would be pumping it today if that's what we wanted.
Our exit strategy is through Iran. We are not making a second trip.
I'm not a Bush fan so loyalty has nothing to do with it . You on the other hand judge by idiotic polls and party lines. Just stick with what the populouse tell you since facts and events have no bearing on your judgement.
You're 100% wrong. Bush sold this war to the American people based on 1. WMD's and 2. a better life for Iraqis. You can babble all you would like about Iran but the facts don't change. I suggest the find the transcript of Bush's State of the Union Speech when he spoke to the American people about the need to invade Iraq. I listened to this and I have read it. I suggest you do the same.
Speculating and and calling your speculation fact doesn't create facts, period.

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 04:46 PM
You're 100% wrong. Bush sold this war to the American people based on 1. WMD's and 2. a better life for Iraqis. You can babble all you would like about Iran but the facts don't change. I suggest the find the transcript of Bush's State of the Union Speech when he spoke to the American people about the need to invade Iraq. I listened to this and I have read it. I suggest you do the same.
Speculating and and calling your speculation fact doesn't create facts, period.
I can't help that you are such a simpleton that you buy into everything you are told by the politicians. However to contradict myself that would mean that you actually listend to the "Axis of evil" speach as well. Which of course if you did we wouldn't be having this debate now would we?
Funny thing, I once told my wife that I found metal particles in the oil of my Vette when in all actuality I had a new 410 sitting on the engine stand ready to go in. I sold her on the metal in the oil thing but it wa actually the 600 hp I was really after.
Funny the things you have to do to get what you want.
I suggest you actually listen to what is being told to you and not take everything at face value.
Hey, where the hell is the 850 mile of boarder fence that the President promised us?
I supposed you believed that one too huh?? http://***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 05:03 PM
It's a good thing, they don't let Retards, serve jury duty.
How would you describe the jurors of the O.J. trial?

SmokinLowriderSS
05-22-2007, 05:37 PM
Can't admit that you were wrong again with respect to Bush I criticizing Clinton.
I'm still waiting for you to prove yourself RIGHT,,,,,,,,, just once.
It would be soooo refreshing.

locogringo
05-22-2007, 06:37 PM
your butt buddy bush.
Are there such things? I've been looking for such for a while and can't find a "bush" wanting to be my butt budy... :D :D

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 07:24 PM
HHmmmmm.......no response from Ultra26#1. American Idol must be on http://***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

RaceFace
05-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Boy!! I come back from Havi last night and miss all this going on! Damn!!
Boy, whatta thread!! We are going to need this!!!
http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u165/1raceface/23popcorn.jpg

OKIE-JET
05-22-2007, 08:03 PM
HHmmmmm.......no response from Ultra26#1. American Idol must be on http://***boat.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif
The way he ignores reality, he's prolly still rootin for Sanjaya.:D

QuickJet
05-22-2007, 08:06 PM
The way he ignores reality, he's prolly still rootin for Sanjaya.:D
ha ha ha..that's a good one :D :D

boatsnblondes
05-22-2007, 10:17 PM
LOL, Ultra..YOUR dums errrr...dems, sorry....just focked you and everyone else who voted for them. Today, Ried announced they were BACKING off a timeline for exit from Iraq. This is what happens when you take a knife to a gunfight, specially with a TEXAN. Good for you Bush.
Oh, and what did they get for selling you out to Bush?? What did your vote get you Ultra?? A MERE 20 billion in Pork. Them Dem bastards tacked on so much BS in pork, I wonder if there will be enough for the troops??? The dem party, not cheap, but easy. LOL.
OH, BTW, they got thier minimum wage increase, the only thing they got from the GOP, the only thing they actually have done that was supposed to be done in the first 100 days.
I'm enjoying this thread..but I gotta say, Ultra, you ignorant slut. You drank the kool aid bro, watched the news and bought the dem spiel hook line and sinker. It's non thinkers like you that make the dem party work. Good for you. Those of us who understand the situation, thank you for your comedy crudely diguised as political commentary.:D

boatsnblondes
05-22-2007, 10:46 PM
Oh, and then this. I have always believed that the reason that the dems like to hate is because they just don't get it. I have always beleived that there is much more to the picture than what we see. And Bush is starting to release little tidbits and chunks to the puzzle in order to stave off the Dems cutting off vital programs. Here is the link.... (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism)
Need I say more. This war, much more than any war we have ever fought, is global. There are no borders, no armies, no battlefields, no flags. These guys are your next door neighbors, thier kids may go to your kids schools, they may work next to you. Someone from far away sends a message, the cell goes active and all hell breaks loose. One of the things that the HS guy showed us in class was a graduating class of suicide bombers from Iran. They say there are nearly 100,000 of them out there, graduates from the suicide course, maybe 5000 of them are known...
What I am saying is this. This is war. It ain't going away. Whether we leave Iraq is not the issue. We are the target in thier crosshairs. There is no talking to them, no appeasing them, they live to die, they want to die, and they revel in the idea of taking as many of us as they can with them. They WANT to kill you, your wife, your kids, and everyone else close enough to feel the blast. Why else put nails and screws into the bombs?? Shrapnel, thats why. If we back off, come back home, we are the pussies, the defeated. In WW2, in the Phillipines, after MacAurthurs men surrendered, the Japs marched them for days in the heat, killing anyone who stopped for even a moments rest. To the Japs, our men were the lowest of the low, and deserved to die, because they had surrendered. If we fall back, these guys will have the same view of us. That from now on, we deserve whatever we get, because we blinked. And they will never ever, ever, stop. All of you who are stuck on Bush, and what reasons or lies he told or didn't tell, need to get past that. The Dems voted for it also. As I see it, there is no choice but to keep going, wherever that road takes us. Otherwise, I fear there will never be any sanity in this world. Thats it for the night, I'm crashing....take care, be well.