"I like when the heat came on you ran and hid in a hole

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DPawlik349

CAG Veteran
"I like when the heat came on you ran and hid in a hole," this is what Bush said w/ a smirk on his face. I mean isn't that so hypocritical? A man who had his daddy get him into the coast guard where he wasn't even accounted for half the time so he could skip out on the vietnam war and on 9/11 he was flown to 20 differenct cities and no one speaking of where he was so his safety was insured. He has never had a whole country be invaded just looking for him. What the hell would anyone else do? You stay and fight and you would be killed very easy and just as fast.
 
I have to give props to Saddam, there's no way I would have stayed in country. If I heard correctly he was only about 10 miles away from a major coalition base of operations. He "ran and hid in a hole," which is more then I would have done.
 
I would have taken that exhile deal in a minute.
What was Saddam thinking?

Oh, and I would buy an N-gage before I vote for Bush.
 
Oh wow, go so low as the N-gage? I can see it now, N-gage new promotion. If you don't vote Bush recieve a free N-gage and your choice of three games free.

I will not vote Bush either.
 
I'd buy a N-Gage, Virtua Boy, and a Pico, all at original MSRPs before voting for Bush..... if I would be 35 at the time of election, I would run for president.... damn pesky constitution......

Dirty for NJ 4th Congessional District in '04!
 
I wouldn't vote for Bush. Didn't vote for his father didn't vote for Jr and sure as heck won't vote for anyone in that family.
 
Yup, Dean is a much better candiate for president. He is an expert liar and a master at spin, and don't forget his ability to vote for a war and then denounce the war he voted on. He is also an expert at calling Bush names and inventing conspiracy theories about him.

The Democrats look very good this year. :roll:
 
i know who ill vote for....hmmmm lets see....rich middle aged white man A or rich middle aged white man B ...... choices choices, seriously how are these men suposed to represent me?
 
[quote name='masta0031']i know who ill vote for....hmmmm lets see....rich middle aged white man A or rich middle aged white man B ...... choices choices, seriously how are these men suposed to represent me?[/quote]

Exactly - they don't. Representation of the people went out the window a long time ago. Now you try to find the guy who you think is lying to you the least and vote for him and then hope he does a good job. Once politicians are in office they forget about you and start caring only about those who $contribute$ towards their agenda and pockets.
 
[quote name='"Scrubking"'][quote name='"masta0031"']i know who ill vote for....hmmmm lets see....rich middle aged white man A or rich middle aged white man B ...... choices choices, seriously how are these men suposed to represent me?[/quote]

Exactly - they don't. Representation of the people went out the window a long time ago. Now you try to find the guy who you think is lying to you the least and vote for him and then hope he does a good job. Once politicians are in office they forget about you and start caring only about those who $contribute$ towards their agenda and pockets.[/quote]

Welcome to the wonderful world of politics. :^o
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Yup, Dean is a much better candiate for president. He is an expert liar and a master at spin, and don't forget his ability to vote for a war and then denounce the war he voted on. He is also an expert at calling Bush names and inventing conspiracy theories about him.

The Democrats look very good this year. :roll:[/quote]

You forgot to add a war where the evidence that he based that vote on was false and made up by the Bush administration :)
 
I don't vote because I'd never be satisfied no matter who was prez{plus i'm only 19 and wouldn't no who to vote for,Probly the one who looks dumbest on tv so I could laugh even dureing a crisis}.Now with Saddam,they want to give him a "fair" trial??Piss on that, I wanna give him a bullet in his skull.Same with all the murders and rapist.The world and/or jails are overcrowded with people doing life sentences.Who pays for this?Taxes!Today in the paper some Paki guy Hi-jacks plans.Gets what?3 life sentence plus 25 yrs?Bull corn,shoot him.Why does he get to live out his life in jail and waste our money??
 
I probably wont vote for Bush because he hasn't done that much for the country, but I still applaud the way he handled the 9/11 disaster
 
if i was saddam i wouldnt let them take me alive, id rather have a bullet in the head than spend the rest of my life in jail any day.
 
Going alive builds his following. If he is alive Saddam supporters still have hope, this means a greater chance of an uprising against coaltition forces. When he dies, so does hope. He's a smart guy and didn't use that weapon to end his life for a reason, and that reason was not because he was afraid to die.
 
It's funny - seems like the majority of people here are anti-bush. Is that because Republicans, who are rich, wouldn't bother wasting valuable golf time to shop for the best deal?

I once heard this analogy: a man's car breaks down and a democrat stops to help him out. In the process of fixing his car, he sets the car on fire. Whereas a republican wouldn't even stop to help because he's late for his golf game.

Bush has had 3 years now to fix our economy, and it's still in the gutter. He's sent the public schools into chaos with his "no child left behind act", which in theory sounds plausible, but in reality you can't teach fractions to a kid who has trouble moving a block from one end of the table to the other. Plus, when he set these mandates for public schools, he provided 1% of the funding necessary to meet these mandates. So what does that mean? That the normal kids get a heck of a lot less money for education, along with soaring property and state taxes to meet these unrealistic mandates. So instead of producing some bright kids, you'll end up with a bunch of average kids. His envirnomental policies would have Theodore Roosevelt, a fellow republican who spearheaded the whole environmental conservation act, rolling in his grave. His protection for the oil industry will keep us dependent on arab nations for years, especially since his daddy is heavily invested into it. His protection of the steel industry harmed our economy even worse because suddenly we had to pay more for our cars and other products. He only repealed it because european nations threatened to impose tariffs on our oranges, computers, and other american products. I think the question we need to ask ourselves is "are we better off today than 3 years ago?" This is what clinton asked in '96, and most people could say "yes". But with bush, it's a loud "no."
 
What a brilliant analogy EZB. I think you are right on target!

I agree with you guys. The 3000 point gain in the stock market, the largest growth in industry since 1988 and the supposed prediction that 2004+ will have the best economy in 20 years are just smoke screens for the devastating "depression" like economy we currently suffer. Further, Bush's insistance on wanting to drill oil in northern regions have made us dependent on Arab oil, and his incompentence in handling terrorism has resulted in near daily terrorist attacks in our country.
I support Dean. His idea of leaving foreign policy to the United Nations is sound will always serve our best interests and will ensure that America will remain a strong nation.
Go Dean go!
 
I personally support Sen. Kerry, but I know he could never beat Bush. You need a candidate with charisma, like Dean.
 
I like how the economy is growing like crazy and everything is good, yet more and more jobs are still being lost and this great growth is in no comparition with what we've lost because of him. And i can guarantee you that it will matter in the long run 87 billion dollars doesn't just come out of no where, we will definatly be paying for that some time in the future.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']It's funny - seems like the majority of people here are anti-bush. Is that because Republicans, who are rich, wouldn't bother wasting valuable golf time to shop for the best deal?

I once heard this analogy: a man's car breaks down and a democrat stops to help him out. In the process of fixing his car, he sets the car on fire. Whereas a republican wouldn't even stop to help because he's late for his golf game.

Bush has had 3 years now to fix our economy, and it's still in the gutter. He's sent the public schools into chaos with his "no child left behind act", which in theory sounds plausible, but in reality you can't teach fractions to a kid who has trouble moving a block from one end of the table to the other. Plus, when he set these mandates for public schools, he provided 1% of the funding necessary to meet these mandates. So what does that mean? That the normal kids get a heck of a lot less money for education, along with soaring property and state taxes to meet these unrealistic mandates. So instead of producing some bright kids, you'll end up with a bunch of average kids. His envirnomental policies would have Theodore Roosevelt, a fellow republican who spearheaded the whole environmental conservation act, rolling in his grave. His protection for the oil industry will keep us dependent on arab nations for years, especially since his daddy is heavily invested into it. His protection of the steel industry harmed our economy even worse because suddenly we had to pay more for our cars and other products. He only repealed it because european nations threatened to impose tariffs on our oranges, computers, and other american products. I think the question we need to ask ourselves is "are we better off today than 3 years ago?" This is what clinton asked in '96, and most people could say "yes". But with bush, it's a loud "no."[/quote]

I'd agree with you, except for Clinton's "assault weapons" ban. That sucked ass.
 
Now that we captured Saddam, I ask why we ever went over there to start with. People say, "oh because he had WMD" "His human-rights abuse on his own people" "His torture/raape rooms". Well, yeah, but what about Castro? What about Kim (North Korea)? What about China's human right abuses, like taking organs from prisoners? What about terror cells in Libya and Iran that are still sending insurgents into Iraq? Truth is, Saddam isn't the only bad leader out there. So why did we sacrifice american lives in Iraq? MAYBE .... to cover up Bush's incompetence with handling our economy? To take away our attention on his goal of ending abortion with 1) eroding women's rights by banning late-term abortion and 2) trying to get ultra-conservative judges nominated to circuit/supreme courts, then biitching that the democrats are trying to undercut america (when in fact, the democrats have blocked only about 5 judicial nominees, giving Bush over a 98% success rate with judges when the republicans blocked over 70 -80 of clinton's nominees)? Maybe to create a more pressing news story about the war to make people forget that they lost their job under him, and are still working at WAL-MART with no freakin benefits, no healthcare, no retirement fund, no nothing????

Bottom line: get out there and vote and get Bush out of office.
 
Very well put E-Z-B. That has been my rant except i suck at saying things and making them sound correct. I ramble too much you went straight to every point and it's with facts that no one can argue. And just to add to it the only 2 wars ever in history to boost an economy (history starting from 1000 BC from everything i have studied and talked to teachers about) were both the WW, and that happened because we had to put tons of people to work like women, that's not like that in today's world where everyone wants to work (for the most part) and they can't find a job.
 
Another great point EZB! Since we can't stop all the evil in the world, why both stopping any of it? Seems pointless. And your right about Wal-Mart, they have no "freakin benefits".

You also seem to be knowledgable about the federal judiciary. People "in the know" try to confuse with irrelevant facts like half of all federal judges are Clinton appointees and only one Clinton nominee, Ronnie White, was defeated on the Senate floor.


Most people just seem th throw out rants of supposed facts without any support. You really seem to know what you are talking about. You should consider a run for political office. As a Democrat, I hope.
 
Yeah, I tried getting into law school last year. I applied to 15 schools in the top 20 rated in U.S. News. But alas, due to Bush's crappy handling of the U.S. economy, no one could/can get jobs, so a huge number of students are pursuing graduate school in hopes of waiting out the low in the economy (probably waiting for Bush to get out of office). So I never got in, and am forced to continue my job as an engineer. Oh well.

BTW - never vote third party, you're just throwing your vote away. You might as well not even show up at the polls.
 
I should've mentioned that competition in law schools is VERY tight. Most schools only take about 200 or so students for each class. And figure how many students attend each undergrad school (over 30,000 as undergrads at PSU alone in a year!)
 
The Bush administration has absolutely no proof that Iraq was linked to 9/11 any more than Saudi Arabia or Iran were. Should we now go to war with Iran since they are ACTUALLY developing nuclear weapons? There's more of a case against Iran and North Korea than with Iraq, so why didn't we take out these more imminent threats to america first? Maybe because we can control Iraq's oil as a bonus to covering up Bush's incompetence.
 
[quote name='AvidPs2GMR']EZB, we went to Iraq for what happended in 9/11,the WMD was an excuse.[/quote]

Are you a retard? Saddam has no ties or links to 9/11. He might have liked it, about 1/6th of the world liked it. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 he hates fundamentalists and he hates osama. If you're going to post something that has no basis and is a stupid comment don't do it on this post
 
Now, Now, DPawlik349. As I've been trying to reiterate on the threads, there's no need for swearing or name-calling to argue your point. Swearing won't get people to agree with you - logic will. Which is why I support CheapyD's idea of getting people to "play nice".

As someone once told me: If you need to swear to get people to laugh or respect, then you don't have anything. If you can get people to laugh or respect you without swearing, then you got something. Some advice that I've followed through the years.
 
I edited it, i jsut got pissed at some of the stupid comments. As for how peole think of me i really don't care. I am me and I don't change much for anyone else.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Now, Now, DPawlik349. As I've been trying to reiterate on the threads, there's no need for swearing or name-calling to argue your point. Swearing won't get people to agree with you - logic will. Which is why I support CheapyD's idea of getting people to "play nice". [/quote]

"Logic" has nothing to do with why 95% of bush haters hate Bush.
 
[quote name='w00t_culafi']man, apparantly politics does not roll in Cags favor...[/QUOTE]

fuck you. You were already a piece of shit, and now you've brought a five-year-old thread back from the dead. I hope you get shot indiscriminately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top