BF2S Forums George Bush... go f... .......f

DemonAlucard wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

G3|Genius wrote:

i read the speech and I think that his domestic policy is good.  people have one-track minds.  it's all about iraq.  I like what he had to say.  my 2 cents.

Not necessarily, there are many discontent with the current state of the border and health care. Economy is doing great though . It would have been nice if he had said something about the Katrina rebuilding efforts also.

its kind of funny that he didn't mention anything about New Orleans but he proposed to millions of dollars helping Lebanon, LOL.. don't get me wrong, Lebanon is a country that needs help getting rid of those fucktard hezbollas but ...New Orleans or any other disaster area in the U.S. comes first...

It's a bit sad when you think about it. I had a few friends go to New Orleans after Katrina to help out. They said it was incredibly sad. Families with absolutely nothing at all except the cash they had in the bank. The insurance companies screwed so many families over (thousands). Katrina was a complete failure on all three levels of government. I actually don't put too much blame on FEMA, although they were slow in getting there. FEMA is not a first response organization. As far as the deaths I feel that goes to the Local (city) and State governments. That city was due for an overhaul a very long time ago.

Point of all of this is I can't believe it wasn't addressed by the President. The toll was over 1,000 and the region is still in need of assistance.

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

DemonAlucard wrote:

its kind of funny that he didn't mention anything about New Orleans but he proposed to millions of dollars helping Lebanon, LOL.. don't get me wrong, Lebanon is a country that needs help getting rid of those fucktard hezbollas but ...New Orleans or any other disaster area in the U.S. comes first...

It's a bit sad when you think about it. I had a few friends go to New Orleans after Katrina to help out. They said it was incredibly sad. Families with absolutely nothing at all except the cash they had in the bank. The insurance companies screwed so many families over (thousands). Katrina was a complete failure on all three levels of government. I actually don't put too much blame on FEMA, although they were slow in getting there. FEMA is not a first response organization. As far as the deaths I feel that goes to the Local (city) and State governments. That city was due for an overhaul a very long time ago.

Point of all of this is I can't believe it wasn't addressed by the President. The toll was over 1,000 and the region is still in need of assistance.

I just can't understand it.  I mean, by helping these people he could do something good for his image for once.  Jesus, it's like he wants to look like a douchebag...

The President can only do so much, really. Most of the problems have come from local and state ineptitude, and it's not like Bush would have know that Michael Brown would have screwed up so badly. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" was dumb, but it's not like Bush secretly blew the levees.

How did Brown screw up again? I think he was a scapegoat. He was working to get assistance there 5 hours after the Hurricane made landfall.  He just made some stupid jokes in emails that allowed himself to be portrayed as the problem. Although he should have been aware of the situation at the convention center.

Like I said with regards to the topic the President should have at the very least gave us an update on the work there. After all it is the "State of the Onion Union".

DemonAlucard wrote:

heh this just came out on yahoo news

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070124/ap_ … canes_bush

''The White House had no immediate comment on Blanco's remarks''

unbelievable

She must be reading the forums here...lol

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-24 18:23:45)

It's interesting to see the same words over and over like a mantra "Bush is an Idiot" "Bush is a fucktard"

After reading this thread, I've seen some people that actually have the ability to disagree or dislike our president like rational people.  But the originator of this thread, made not real contribution or valid arguements.

I think that Bush is an excellent president.  He took control of the country, right when it was starting a rapid economic decline and turned it around.  His policies and changes to how the CIA and FBI communicate has likely prevented more terrorism on our shores.

Those of you that can only resort to "Bush is a fucking idiot" as an arguement, like the originator of this thread, really should stop and think for a minute.  How does calling someone names (especially the President of the greatest nation on earth) make you look?

UGADawgs wrote:

CommieChipmunk wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

It's a bit sad when you think about it. I had a few friends go to New Orleans after Katrina to help out. They said it was incredibly sad. Families with absolutely nothing at all except the cash they had in the bank. The insurance companies screwed so many families over (thousands). Katrina was a complete failure on all three levels of government. I actually don't put too much blame on FEMA, although they were slow in getting there. FEMA is not a first response organization. As far as the deaths I feel that goes to the Local (city) and State governments. That city was due for an overhaul a very long time ago.

Point of all of this is I can't believe it wasn't addressed by the President. The toll was over 1,000 and the region is still in need of assistance.

I just can't understand it.  I mean, by helping these people he could do something good for his image for once.  Jesus, it's like he wants to look like a douchebag...

The President can only do so much, really. Most of the problems have come from local and state ineptitude, and it's not like Bush would have know that Michael Brown would have screwed up so badly. "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job" was dumb, but it's not like Bush secretly blew the levees.

Well I sure as hell don't want to pay my fucking taxes to build machines and bombs to kill other people just trying to live their lives like I am.  It's the governments that pit their citizens against the citizens of another country.  If you want to start a war, then you can go fight it by yourself.  Because I am paying my money that I earned it should stay here helping the people in this country, not killing some other people just like me somewhere else.

Please don't make yourself look like an idiot and bring up terrorist, because they are a ridiculously small group of morons prolonging the idiocy of our government .

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wrong in assuming Iraqi's would not be blowing themselves up do to a religious technicality yes.

...or due to boiling tensions between two ethnic groups over past grievances having most recently to do with a dictator we once supported and due to the typical reactions people have when a foreign power invades their country.

Same idea. The point is we knew what we were capable of militarily but underestimated the difficulties of maintaining order in those conditions. We won the war but we are losing the peace. Our military did exactly what it is intended to do (In record time I might add) but they should never be put in the position of nation building or a long term occupying force. I have not always thought this way but examining possibilities and looking at the reality of what is actually achievable has led me to this conclusion. You have to give the Iraqi's a chance to step up but you can't sit by indefinitely neither.

I've gotten to the point where I prefer withdrawal regardless of what happens to the Iraqi people.

The only way to win this is to institute a draft and put another dictatorship into power.  The Iraqi people simply aren't ready for democracy.  They may be ready to vote, but there is too much chaos in the region to really have a democracy of any sort.  A brutal police state must be implemented if you want order there.

IBleedGravy wrote:

The_Shipbuilder wrote:

Miller wrote:

So who do you want? A democrat to raise taxes, deteriorate the safety of the US, turn his/her back on the voters, kill more babies than save animals? Anwser me, please.

Exactly.

Clinton = balanced budget = national debt starts to drop = LAME

Bush administration = keep taxes low whilst dramatically overspending = hike up the national debt = our grandkids foot the bill instead of us = AWESOME

U=dillusional.  Go study up on American economics before you make a stupid remark like Clinton balanced the budget, and made the national debt drop.

Please - tell me the real story.

Aside from my naiive understanding that the budget was balanced under Clinton, and that the national debt did in fact start dropping.

And please - use all the lofty terminology you want. I have a BA in economics. Don't hold back.

Perhaps use this as a starting point.

And then explain why this is just false propaganda dreamed up by a left-wing press.

Last edited by The_Shipbuilder (2007-01-24 18:45:47)

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Same idea. The point is we knew what we were capable of militarily but underestimated the difficulties of maintaining order in those conditions. We won the war but we are losing the peace. Our military did exactly what it is intended to do (In record time I might add) but they should never be put in the position of nation building or a long term occupying force. I have not always thought this way but examining possibilities and looking at the reality of what is actually achievable has led me to this conclusion. You have to give the Iraqi's a chance to step up but you can't sit by indefinitely neither.

I've gotten to the point where I prefer withdrawal regardless of what happens to the Iraqi people.

The only way to win this is to institute a draft and put another dictatorship into power.  The Iraqi people simply aren't ready for democracy.  They may be ready to vote, but there is too much chaos in the region to really have a democracy of any sort.  A brutal police state must be implemented if you want order there.

You might as well drop the "q" on the end and add a "n" if you catch my drift.

I disagree.  The Iranians are ready for democracy, and they've had a semi-democracy since the revolution.  The Iranian people would seem to prefer a reformist government, but the Ayatollah prevents most from running.

I would argue that the Iranians are more advanced culturally than the Iraqis.  It's just that the Ayatollah is preventing their government from progressing.  Assassinating him and the Council of Guardians would be better than invading Iran.

Smitty5613 wrote:

I GOT A GOOD IDEA!!!! lets elect Hillary Clinton so we can see how lucky we are with Bush!!!!

She'd do a better job than Bush.

Granted, so would 90% of federal politicians.

Kmarion wrote:

I meant it more in the sense of Iraq being divided up. I could see the influence of Iran all over certain regions of a segregated Iraq.

True...  but you know...  I don't really mind the idea of having Iran and Saudi Arabia duke it out over Iraq.  If they weaken each other enough, we can roll in and destroy what's left of both of them afterwards.

Cougar wrote:

IBleedGravy wrote:

First let me say this.  I had family that died in the Sept 11th attacks, and I'm damn glad that Bush has the balls to keep his convictions, cause I will never forget unlike you - pansy liberal.   While you may be entitled to your opinion, it's just that, your opinion.   I'm sure if you took the BONG out of your face long enough to go to the voters box and do your part we wouldn't be having this conversation would we.

First let me say this.  Fuck you.  Why don't you go sing a cheesy ass Alan Jackson country song to make lying to the American people about WMD's in order to go to war with a foriegn nation that had not threatened nor attacked us seem ok and make you sleep better at night.

Reasons I think you are a dumbass:

1. You have a stupid name.
2. You think because the fact you lost someone in Sept 11, suddenly all of your idea's and convictions are the correct ones.
3. You think I am a liberal.
4. You think I smoke weed.
5. You think I didn't go to the voters box.

Go get bent.

Reasons i think YOU are a dumbass;

1. You are GAY
2. I hope you have loved ones die by terrorists, then we'll see how you feel
3. You've got to be a liberal to have already forgotten about 9/11
4. I think u sniff crack too
5. You probably voted for Bush yourself, and now you only see what the media is showing, and you feel like you are stupid(which you are)

Smitty, you really are proving yourself to be an intellectual, aren't you?  I guess by bringing this up though, that makes me "gay."

Smitty5613 wrote:

Cougar wrote:

IBleedGravy wrote:

First let me say this.  I had family that died in the Sept 11th attacks, and I'm damn glad that Bush has the balls to keep his convictions, cause I will never forget unlike you - pansy liberal.   While you may be entitled to your opinion, it's just that, your opinion.   I'm sure if you took the BONG out of your face long enough to go to the voters box and do your part we wouldn't be having this conversation would we.

First let me say this.  Fuck you.  Why don't you go sing a cheesy ass Alan Jackson country song to make lying to the American people about WMD's in order to go to war with a foriegn nation that had not threatened nor attacked us seem ok and make you sleep better at night.

Reasons I think you are a dumbass:

1. You have a stupid name.
2. You think because the fact you lost someone in Sept 11, suddenly all of your idea's and convictions are the correct ones.
3. You think I am a liberal.
4. You think I smoke weed.
5. You think I didn't go to the voters box.

Go get bent.

Reasons i think YOU are a dumbass;

1. You are GAY
2. I hope you have loved ones die by terrorists, then we'll see how you feel
3. You've got to be a liberal to have already forgotten about 9/11
4. I think u sniff crack too
5. You probably voted for Bush yourself, and now you only see what the media is showing, and you feel like you are stupid(which you are)

Wow.