Jump to content

Toilet Talk...


smith288
 Share

Recommended Posts


you gotta think of somethin clever here....we aren't talking politics...we're talking about making fun of people's names.

 

Using the name Bush for something isn't too hard. (i.e. no one likes a Bush....Save America, Shave the Bush....etc.)

 

flushing only works for John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I guess Bush's foibles, like killing people, aren't so good for comic relief.

452507[/snapback]

 

Geeeeeesh. Get pwned and you run to dropping (Michael) Moore-isms on us...

 

I would think I would have heard "Push Bush" or something like that by now... But its still not as funny as Flush the Johns... I mean, cmon, Kerry picked Edwards because he is purty :thumbdown . Cheney was picked because Bush thought he would do admirable if he needed to take the Oval Office if such a time occured :thumbup .

 

So what you want about Bush, but at least he took this seriously.

 

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

 

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Admin. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

 

Just hours later he attended an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York where he recieved 7.5 million from those run of the mill millionaire Actors/songwriters etc.

 

 

:banghead

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I guess Bush's foibles, like killing people, aren't so good for comic relief.

452507[/snapback]

 

Geeeeeesh. Get pwned and you run to dropping (Michael) Moore-isms on us...

 

I would think I would have heard "Push Bush" or something like that by now... But its still not as funny as Flush the Johns... I mean, cmon, Kerry picked Edwards because he is purty :thumbdown . Cheney was picked because Bush thought he would do admirable if he needed to take the Oval Office if such a time occured :thumbup .

 

So what you want about Bush, but at least he took this seriously.

 

KING: News of the day, Tom Ridge warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the United States. Didn't increase the -- you see any politics in this? What's your reaction?

 

KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Admin. They have offered to brief me. I just haven't had time.

 

Just hours later he attended an all-star celebrity fundraising concert in New York where he recieved 7.5 million from those run of the mill millionaire Actors/songwriters etc.

 

 

:banghead

453613[/snapback]

 

Soriano is far from a liberal and just look around this forum and say that he's a michael moore fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geeeeeesh.? Get pwned and you run to dropping (Michael) Moore-isms on us...

 

I would think I would have heard "Push Bush" or something like that by now... But its still not as funny as Flush the Johns... I mean, cmon, Kerry picked Edwards because he is purty? :thumbdown .? Cheney was picked because Bush thought he would do admirable if he needed to take the Oval Office if such a time occured? :thumbup .

 

So what you want about Bush, but at least he took this seriously.

 

Ahem. George Bush Sr, Dan Quayle.

 

Bush Sr. was already VP, a congressmen, etc, so he didn't need to pair himself up with someone who was more experienced. Quayle was there largely for youth, energy, and charisma. So is Edwards.

 

Bush's selection of Cheney was CLEARLY because Bush was viewed as having little experience & needed a more seasoned Washinton figure to balance the ticket.

 

But hey, please continue with all the objectivity here, it's enlightening. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem... Bush "sr" isnt a senior. He is George HW Bush and his Son is George W Bush. You are either disrespecting the Bush's or you are not taking your own advice and being objective. And where did it say I was being objective? I made a FLUSH THE JOHNs bumper sticker for crying out loud.

 

BTW...

Quayle was qualified.

 

Has a BA in at DePaul, served in the National Guard, got his law degree while serving from Indiana University.

 

Starting in 1976, he was elected to the US house over an 8 term democrat in Indiana. He was re-elected in 1978 by the largest margin ever in that district. In 1980, age 33, he was elected to the US senate, defeating a 3 term democrat. He won re-election to the senate by the largest margin ever in a statewide senate race.

 

Quayle was active serving in the Armed Services Committee, Budget Committee, Labor and Human Resources. He teamed up with Ted Kennedy for the Job Training Partnership Act.

 

Quayle is an accomplished businessman and civil servant.

 

All, squashed by one mispelling of the word "Potato" (actually, the card was authored by a teacher and he blindly indicated to children "Pototoe" was spelled as he saw it, a mistake, but not worthy of banishment from leadership/politics).

 

All in all, Quayle squashes Edwards in experience. Quayle might have been youthful in looks but was far more experienced to back up the selection by Bush.

 

 

 

Geeeeeesh.? Get pwned and you run to dropping (Michael) Moore-isms on us...

 

I would think I would have heard "Push Bush" or something like that by now... But its still not as funny as Flush the Johns... I mean, cmon, Kerry picked Edwards because he is purty? :thumbdown .? Cheney was picked because Bush thought he would do admirable if he needed to take the Oval Office if such a time occured? :thumbup .

 

So what you want about Bush, but at least he took this seriously.

 

Ahem. George Bush Sr, Dan Quayle.

 

Bush Sr. was already VP, a congressmen, etc, so he didn't need to pair himself up with someone who was more experienced. Quayle was there largely for youth, energy, and charisma. So is Edwards.

 

Bush's selection of Cheney was CLEARLY because Bush was viewed as having little experience & needed a more seasoned Washinton figure to balance the ticket.

 

But hey, please continue with all the objectivity here, it's enlightening. :whistle

454288[/snapback]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks

 

and smith, if you want to deny Bush didn't recklessly kill people, you will have a hard time debating that.

454237[/snapback]

 

No I wont. Bush hasn't killed anyone. I can't prove a negative. You must prove a positive that he did.

 

If we all went by that logic, Our court system would be filled with falsely accused.

 

Hundreds of speeches by Clinton, Reno, Cohen, Hillary, Kerry, Edwards....etc.

 

Does the "Iraq Liberation Act (HR 4655)" sound familiar to you? It promoted the ousting of Saddam Hussein by supporting opposition groups inside Iraq. Sadly, those emboldened groups never saw much support.

 

The only possible solution, after 9-11, was to remove Saddam as a threat to us and anyone.

 

Putin told Bush after 9-11 that Saddam had plans on terrorist acts inside the country. Bush had that, had numerous UN resolutions, pretty much ALL of congress and basically all of western society agreeing Saddam was a threat...

 

Now I won't wait for another 9-11 to take action and thats why I support W and the action he took. A democracy in Iraq (who has shown signs of having a friendly relationship with Israel) will only create stability when young and old celebrate freedoms.

 

Continue on with your bitter hate against Bush. You wont convince me he is killing anyone who doesnt deserve it on purpose.

 

Is the people Saddam murdered over all these years not worth a chance at freedom like you and I? Its a post 9-11 world, friend, and doing nothing and hoping for the best will win us nothing but cheaper prices on French imported wine. I aint in the market for French wine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I wont. Bush hasn't killed anyone. I can't prove a negative. You must prove a positive that he did.

 

Iraq ring any bells?

 

If we all went by that logic, Our court system would be filled with falsely accused.

Iraq ring any bells?

 

Hundreds of speeches by Clinton, Reno, Cohen, Hillary, Kerry, Edwards....etc.

 

Does the "Iraq Liberation Act (HR 4655)" sound familiar to you? It promoted the ousting of Saddam Hussein by supporting opposition groups inside Iraq. Sadly, those emboldened groups never saw much support.

 

It did not support an invasion...duh.

 

The only possible solution, after 9-11, was to remove Saddam as a threat to us and anyone.

He wasn't a threat and had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

Putin told Bush after 9-11 that Saddam had plans on terrorist acts inside the country.

 

You know, America has attack plans drafted up against every country on Earth. Should we be attacked?

 

Bush had that, had numerous UN resolutions, pretty much ALL of congress and basically all of western society agreeing Saddam was a threat...

 

Yet we were not sure what kind of threat and whether it was worthy of attack. And look, we had fabricated evidence that ended up not being true, no weapons and no real threat. So give me a break.

 

Now I won't wait for another 9-11 to take action and thats why I support W and the action he took. A democracy in Iraq (who has shown signs of having a friendly relationship with Israel) will only create stability when young and old celebrate freedoms.

1. No democratically elected Arab government will support israel because the ARAB PEOPLE HATE ISRAEL. If it was a true democracy, the government would hate it too.

2. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11. You msut want ANOTHER 9-11 if you support bombing an entire country for no reason, that in turn just angers the whole world (and especially the Arab world) and makes a brand new terrorist den right after we got Afghanistan out of the way.

 

Damn, I didn't know you were such a supporter of terrorism.

 

Continue on with your bitter hate against Bush. You wont convince me he is killing anyone who doesnt deserve it on purpose.

 

A country with no WMDs and no connections with 9-11 deserved to be blown apart? You only prove how ignorant, unintelligent, and MISINFORMED people of your point of view really are.

 

Is the people Saddam murdered over all these years not worth a chance at freedom like you and I? Its a post 9-11 world, friend, and doing nothing and hoping for the best will win us nothing but cheaper prices on French imported wine. I aint in the market for French wine.

 

Let's see, do I give two shits about other countries...no. I'm not out to fight their battles. If we were, then we would have to bomb almost every country on Earth (which has some brand of tyranny.)

 

Hey tough guy, you want to be a REAL HERO? Go put your ass on the line in North Korea or China, which are ACTUALLY THREATS and make Iraqi tyranny look like a Bahamas vacation.

 

So spare me your racism of French people. Let me guess, you hate Jews too? And blacks? Go join the KKK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A country with no WMDs and no connections with 9-11 deserved to be blown apart?? You only prove how ignorant, unintelligent, and MISINFORMED people of your point of view really are.

454398[/snapback]

what an informed statement

454466[/snapback]

Yes, I tend to think so...very obviously...

 

The DPRK is no real threat to anyone for reasons I've discussed before - this is strictly a "mouse that roared" aid extortion attempt.

 

PRC is only a threat to ROC. Their air/sealift capacity and blue water naval capability is modest.

 

Boy, we seem to have short term memory

 

-both countries have nukes (okay, NK might have nukes but it definitely has a program)

-NK actively pursues intercontinental missiles

-China 3 years ago smashed into one of our aircraft in international territory and took our pilots hostage

-China is developing a space program which can give them satellite capabilities to rival ours (well into the future of course)

-China stole nuclear secrets from America

-NK openly sold weapons to terrorist in Yemen

-the list goes on and on

 

Now, what REAL threat has Iraq posed? none. The threat of china and north korea are very real...of course, this does not mean we should bomb them, but we shouldn't bomb people who are not threatening.

 

China's more of an "ally" than a theat. The only thing we need to worry about in China is them rivaling U.S. consumption of resources, which will make prices here go up.

 

Ex. More gas consumed in China has led to higher gas prices.

Twenty nukes in the himalayas disagree with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly argue China is a real military threat. China is modernizing itself and having rapid economic growth. They have their military, but they would be insane to engage in military action with non-regionial powers. China has supported the U.S. on the situation in Korea, while the U.S. has urged Taiwan not to declare independance. This is because the two countries want to avoid all hostilies. Meanwhile, Saddam had little concern of sparing his people from war and wasn't concerned with avoiding hostilities.

 

How can you say China is more of a threat than Iraq???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you possibly argue China is a real military threat. China is modernizing itself and having rapid economic growth. They have their military, but they would be insane to engage in military action with non-regionial powers.

 

Flaw in logic #1: How would Iraq be any more or less insane to attack America compared to China? the difference is that china has a nuclear deturrent. If Iraq had our pilots, we would not wait a second to blow them apart...we APOLOGIZED to China...NUCLEAR WEAPONS and TRADE makes us China's b***h.

 

So is China going to invade California? No. But are we going to stop China's dirty dealing with weapons sales and ect? Hell no.

 

China has supported the U.S. on the situation in Korea, while the U.S. has urged Taiwan not to declare independance. This is because the two countries want to avoid all hostilies. Meanwhile, Saddam had little concern of sparing his people from war and wasn't concerned with avoiding hostilities.

 

Flaw in logic # 2: China has little concern for its people as well obviously. They have a crap load of poverty and the country only cares about making the government richer...not much different from Iraq, don't you think.

 

China has BARELY supported us with North Korea, unless you beleive Russia has also "helped" us.

 

Do you think China has any more concern for its people than Iraq? Does Tibet ring any bells?

 

How can you say China is more of a threat than Iraq???

Hmm, they are an unchecked power that has taken our pilots hostage, stolen our nuclear secrets, repeatedly threatens to invade Taiwan, is actively and fastly expandind their military and its technologies, undergoing a nuclear build up because of our "missile shield"...Now, you tell me how Iraq was a threat...at all...oh yeah IT WASN'T.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...