Rate President Bush's term in office thus far

[quote name='lilboo']I really cannot believe in the past 8 years there hasn't been any assassination attempts.
Not even successful ones, or NEAR successful. Like there haven't been any shootings at ALL?!

Wasn't there someone (or people) shooting at the White House when Clinton was in office? I was young, so I don't remember fully.[/quote]

You forget the pretzel!
 
[quote name='ananag112']Last state of the union address is on monday. I wonder what he will say...[/quote]

"I'm a fucking idiot. Iran is dangerous and is going to kill us and eat our babies. Buy oil. Beleive my reasons for using all the bombs and helicopters and weapons we buy from my vice pres' companies. 9/11. Terrorists."

-President Bush
 
[quote name='ananag112']Last state of the union address is on monday. I wonder what he will say...[/quote]

You still care? I'm ready to move on...
 
David Letterman's top ten list for last Friday

Top Ten Rejected Titles For The George W. Bush Movie

Top Ten
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n10.gif

"Jackass 3"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n9.gif

"The Lyin' King"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n8.gif

"The Departed As Of January 20th, 2009"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n7.gif

"Stop Or My Vice President Will Shoot"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n6.gif

"Dial M For Moron"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n5.gif

"Das Boob"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n4.gif

"When Sally Met Cheney's Daughter"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n3.gif

"White Men Can't Govern"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n2.gif

"The Nightmare Before Hillary"
div_tt_listing.gif
spacer.gif
tt_list_n1.gif

"Raging Bull****"
 
I like Raging Bullshit.

What a stupid stupid stupid unintelligent man. I can't believe you (whoever is reading this and voted for him) elected him President.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']I like Raging Bullshit.

What a stupid stupid stupid unintelligent man. I can't believe you (whoever is reading this and voted for him) elected him President.[/quote]

Well you don't change a horse mid-race...
 
Everyday I think of what Bush could have done with the trillions of dollars and the last 5 years if he didn't lie to us to invade Iraq.

That alone get's him an F nevermind the countless "gates" like the AG Gate, waterboard gate, ect. The fact that he did a wonderful job destroying the Constitution and the fact the democrats just sat there and did nothing.

Can I give everyone in the last 7 years an F? They are all fuckups!
 
all you guys hating on bush....

could you have done a better job?
not me.

im not necessarily backing him up either.
i personally dont like the whole idea of a government making all the descisions and telling us what we can and cant do.
to me thats shit.
i dont know if anyone else sees it that way. maybe
 
The one big thing is that I would not have invaded Iraq if I was president of the United States. I heard a figure the other day that roughly 4% of the "extremists" we are fighting in Iraq are part of Al Qaeda. Wasn't the entire point of going to Iraq to stop Al Qaeda (and to find the WMD)? I also think that more troops should have been sent to Afghanistan instead of Iraq. All our invasion of Iraq is doing is fueling more anti-American/ anti-Western/ anti-Christian sentiment in the middle east and world wide.

I also think the No Child Left Behind crap is the wrong way to approach the education system.

All that money spent in Iraq could have been used to advance energy independence, rebuild and advance our crumbling infrastructure, rebuild New Orleans, etc, etc.

Like bigdaddy said, you have to wonder what all that money could have been used for.
 
I'm not saying Bush has done a great job as President, but you have to give him credit at least that since 9/11, there has not been a major terrorist attack in the U.S.. However, it's hard for people to appreciate the value of preventing something from not happening, rather than accomplishing something more tangible and arguably less meaningful.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I'm not saying Bush has done a great job as President, but you have to give him credit at least that since 9/11, there has not been a major terrorist attack in the U.S.. However, it's hard for people to appreciate the value of preventing something from not happening, rather than accomplishing something more tangible and arguably less meaningful.[/quote]
While that is true, his pointless war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of US soldiers in numbers that rival the amount killed in 9/11, and the number of of Iraqis, international soldiers and workers killed as a result of the war dwarfs it all. I'm not going to applaud him for protecting american civilian lives while ruining the lives of so many others.
 
[quote name='looploop']While that is true, his pointless war in Iraq has resulted in the deaths of US soldiers in numbers that rival the amount killed in 9/11, and the number of of Iraqis, international soldiers and workers killed as a result of the war dwarfs it all. I'm not going to applaud him for protecting american civilian lives while ruining the lives of so many others.[/QUOTE]

I agree and it's been a problem since Vietnam. If you're going to go to war, then go to war without going in half-assed. Commit the forces you need in order to bring overbearing force on the enemy to end it quickly and cleanly. If you don't have the political capital to do so, then don't go to war. No nation in history has ever benefited from a protracted conflict and putting your troops in harm's way without giving the resources to win is inexcusable.
 
[quote name='dopa345']I agree and it's been a problem since Vietnam. If you're going to go to war, then go to war without going in half-assed. Commit the forces you need in order to bring overbearing force on the enemy to end it quickly and cleanly. If you don't have the political capital to do so, then don't go to war. No nation in history has ever benefited from a protracted conflict and putting your troops in harm's way without giving the resources to win is inexcusable.[/quote]

i totally agree.
personally, i am against any and all kinds of war, but i know that it does exist, and that its here to stay. but there was really nothing else we could expect bush to do after 9/11. i dont think any president would have just said "hey thats not cool! we would have gone to war with you, but honestly, we arent ready that right now."
were america, after all.
and also you cant put the blame solely on bush. he had to get the approval of the congress to declare war.
 
[quote name='tlsar']i totally agree.
personally, i am against any and all kinds of war, but i know that it does exist, and that its here to stay. but there was really nothing else we could expect bush to do after 9/11. i dont think any president would have just said "hey thats not cool! we would have gone to war with you, but honestly, we arent ready that right now."
were america, after all.
and also you cant put the blame solely on bush. he had to get the approval of the congress to declare war.[/quote]

ah, but rushing into war with a nation that wasn't involved in 9/11, nor a serious terror threat to our country? As someone who says they're against all kinds of war then surely you must take umbrage at this disastrous war of choice.

Any reasonable president should've said "Hey, invading Iraq would be an ill-advised action and result in a bloody quagmire. We should continue focusing on our war in Afghanistan, and hunting for bin Laden, the guy who actually threatened us."

I do blame congress as well to be fair. I will not vote for Hillary because of her complicity and refusal to acknowledge how mistaken her judgement was.
 
[quote name='Magehart']Assault Weapons ban dropped. Best thing he ever did. Granted it didn't affect me. Damn you PRK![/QUOTE]

I agree. There's nothing better than going hunting with a fully automatic weapon, or using my AK-47 for all the other things I could already do just as easily with another gun, and not feel the Freudian guilt trip associated with the macho compensation of automatic weapons.

[quote name='tlsar']all you guys hating on bush....

could you have done a better job?[/quote]

yeah. really.

not me.

im not necessarily backing him up either.
i personally dont like the whole idea of a government making all the descisions and telling us what we can and cant do.
to me thats shit.
i dont know if anyone else sees it that way. maybe
Click to expand...

I have no bloody idea what you're trying to argue here.

[quote name='dopa345']I'm not saying Bush has done a great job as President, but you have to give him credit at least that since 9/11, there has not been a major terrorist attack in the U.S.. However, it's hard for people to appreciate the value of preventing something from not happening, rather than accomplishing something more tangible and arguably less meaningful.[/QUOTE]

I think Katrina demonstrated the government's readiness in the face of a large-scale disaster - and I don't believe things would have gone significantly better if it were a non-natural disaster that caused it.
 
[quote name='looploop']ah, but rushing into war with a nation that wasn't involved in 9/11, nor a serious terror threat to our country? As someone who says they're against all kinds of war then surely you must take umbrage at this disastrous war of choice.

Any reasonable president should've said "Hey, invading Iraq would be an ill-advised action and result in a bloody quagmire. We should continue focusing on our war in Afghanistan, and hunting for bin Laden, the guy who actually threatened us."[/quote]

i do take umbrage to that. its a horrible thing that we are at war.
but im saying that after 9/11 happened, bush didnt declare war on afghanistan. he declared war on terror, and iraq is a big part of that.
 
[quote name='tlsar']i do take umbrage to that. its a horrible thing that we are at war.
but im saying that after 9/11 happened, bush didnt declare war on afghanistan. he declared war on terror, and iraq is a big part of that.[/quote]

Iraq was not a part of it. It's been shown repeatedly(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5329350.stm) that Saddam Hussein did not have significant links with al-Qaeda, and that al-Qaeda was not a force in Iraq until after we invaded and drew them there.
 
thats right. they werent involved with al-queda.
we invaded because it was a chaotic scene over there.
there was a civil war going on, among other things.
its in our history to help out the little guy in an unjust situation.
 
um... no... There was no civil war until we invaded and enflamed sectarian divisions that had been suppressed by Saddam's regime. We created the current chaotic scene by destroying the (admittedly uneven) balance between Sunni, Kurd, and Shiite that Saddam had carefully maintained.

How can you suddenly switch your justification for the war from "Iraq was a potential terror threat" to "We had to help them in their (nonexistent) civil war"? I'm just going to assume that you're kidding with me.:roll:
 
wait, so
there was nothing at all going on in iraq before we invaded?
i guess we just decided to invade iraq just for kicks then, if what youre saying is true

and youre misunderstanding the other part.
we werent trying to help saddam, we were trying to restore order within the country.
 
[quote name='tlsar']wait, so
there was nothing at all going on in iraq before we invaded?
i guess we just decided to invade iraq just for kicks then, if what youre saying is true

and youre misunderstanding the other part.
we werent trying to help saddam, we were trying to restore order within the country.[/QUOTE]

We invaded Iraq because the US suspected that Iraq had WMDs. More cynical people would suggest we invaded them for oil.
 
Good stuff going on the last two pages.

As to someone holding a grudge against Hillary for voting "for the war" (which she did not, she voted for an authorization for the use of force, a semantic point to be sure), I happen to buy her argument that, like the rest of the country, she was lied to, facts were affirmatively misrepresented to her and the rest of congress, so their decisions were exacted under false information. ALL due to the idiot son of an asshole.

Yeah, like Barrack she could have voted against it, but when allocating blame just know she, (like the rest of the country) believed the Idiot son of an asshole when he said Iraq had WMD's and posed a significant threat to us.

For round two of this BS propaghanda, see Bush's recent comments on Iran. THANK YOU N.I.E.!!!!! (To be clear, the National Intelligence Estimate is an international co-op that just found Iran had NO nuclear weapon capability or nuclear weapon development program).

Regarding what was going on in Iraq before we invaded, perhaps it is first most useful to define what exactly the situation was like. Put Simply, Saddam Hussein was ruling with an Iron Fist to quell the occasional flare ups of Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence. (Not a bunch of secretaries fighting each other, though it is a hilarious mental picture.) It was working a hell of a lot better (education/infrastructure/roads/electricity/water/civilian deaths) ALL were better when he was in power. Was he an asshat? Hell yeah, but there are plenty of asshats around the world that also pose no threat to us that we don't invade. See Africa.

Is it cynical to think oil had something to do with going in there, no, IMO it's stupid to think it had nothing to do. I'm not saying it was THE motivating factor, but you'd hafta be pretty naive to think it was not at least one factor.

Lets talk about this notion of a "Pre-emptive war". Everyone knows (well most anyway) that only the Congress can DECLARE WAR. Congress and only congress has this power. But congress is slow right? So we need the executive to be able to conduct MILITARY OPERATIONS with swiftness, he is commander in cheif after all. You can't expect the leader of the armed forces to have to wait for congress when action is needed expeditiously. So there are provisions for limited military operations which allow the president, for 60 days, to deploy troops abroad. Bush basically shitted all over this idea and blurred the lines of what exactly is a "war" and "military operation". This is still unsettled.

Congress can use the power of the purse (funding) to pass laws that say "None of this money can be spent on funding the war in Iraq." So what would Bush do? He would simply cut funding in other areas of defense spending (areas we probably actually NEED) and take the money from there to fund the war in Iraq. Congress has been pretty much impotent in this regard.

So to say that Congress deserves no blame is stupid, they do but only for being duped, gullable, and gutless. Not for starting a completely unecessary war.

The whole "Well it worked b/c we've been terrorism free since 9/11" argument infuriates me. While it's true we have not been attacked, how can ANYBODY, even the smartest most involved military officials allocate culpability, for better or worse? It's flawed logic where you assume the thing you're trying to prove. Moreover, what safety comes from galvanizing global opinion against you?

In my view, a presiden't job, above all else, is foreign affairs. This is domain of the executive branch, and pretty much the executive branch's alone (other than the power of the senate to ratify treaties) power. And it is in this area where the idiot son of an asshole's failures predominantly abound. (Not going to get into hemorraging money or the economy tanking).
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Good stuff going on the last two pages.

As to someone holding a grudge against Hillary for voting "for the war" (which she did not, she voted for an authorization for the use of force, a semantic point to be sure), I happen to buy her argument that, like the rest of the country, she was lied to, facts were affirmatively misrepresented to her and the rest of congress, so their decisions were exacted under false information. ALL due to the idiot son of an asshole.

Yeah, like Barrack she could have voted against it, but when allocating blame just know she, (like the rest of the country) believed the Idiot son of an asshole when he said Iraq had WMD's and posed a significant threat to us.
[/quote]

That only says to me that 1) she was gullible and disturbingly easy to manipulate, even by "the idiot son of an asshole". or 2) It was politically expedient for her to go along with the crowd.

We all were presented with the president's fraudulent case for military action and there was still a sizeable chunk of the country that wasn't convinced and didn't support military action. As someone who was opposed to the war from the beginning, I will not enable someone who won't even apologize for the results of their disastrous vote.
 
Loop ,I'm not saying you can't hold it against anybody who voted for the use of force. All I'm saying is that you should also consider the context of the vote (fraud), and the fact that the idiot son of an asshole arguably greatly exceeded the scope of his authority granted in that piece of legislation.

I beg to differ about a "sizeable chunck of the country", well nobody knows what the hell a "sizeable chunk" means but it sure as hell was not a majority. Most people (whose reason was clouded by lies and revenge) believed the president and were all about going over there.

I'd also like to know what you mean when you say "apologize." It sure as hell wasn't her idea to go over there and, in a bitter race with Obama, not pointing out the fact that her decision was made under false pretenses would be the equivalent of political suicide, or at least a self-imposed penalty. OTOH admitting you were wrong does resonate with alot of people, but I'll leave those political/campaign/PR strategy decisions to the pros.

You're right about one thing though, every single politician always considers what is politically expeditious at the time, all good ones anyway. It's kind of tough to fault a politician for politickin'. I'm not holding anything against Obama for being a passionate speaker yearning for "change" but never actually defining a plan of what he would specifically do. I understand that it's a game that has to be played, and therefore know how to read between the lines of political speech.

BTW, for context I'm still undecided.
 
The sizeable chunk I was referring to was about 30% of the country according to the CBS poll. While it's not the majority by any means, 30 is a vast swath of the American populace.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/23/opinion/polls/main537739.shtml

Apologizing is simply admitting it was a mistake to authorize the war. John Edwards did it and I respect him for that. If one refuses to acknowledge a mistake made in the past then one is pretty likely to repeat it. And if Hillary does actually acknowledge it was a mistake somewhere in her grinch-like heart, but refuses to say it to save her own political hide... well that doesn't encourage me to trust her either.

As for penalizing a politician for politickin, I reserve the right to hold it against them when it results in a massive loss of life. Obama's vagueness is on such a distant tier that it's not worth comparing.
 
30% is a hell of a lot less than 70%, so much so that it's not even close. Politically speaking, it would be safe to say that the idiot son of an asshole's lies were very convincing to the American public. A representative who ignored what 70% of thier contituents wanted them to do wouldn't be doing a very good job of representing would they?

Your remark about Hillary's "grinch" heart is revealing, so we might as well end this discussion since passions cloud out reason.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']30% is a hell of a lot less than 70%, so much so that it's not even close. Politically speaking, it would be safe to say that the idiot son of an asshole's lies were very convincing to the American public. A representative who ignored what 70% of thier contituents wanted them to do wouldn't be doing a very good job of representing would they?

Your remark about Hillary's "grinch" heart is revealing, so we might as well end this discussion since passions cloud out reason.[/quote]
Right, because your passionate dislike for the "idiot son of an asshole" allows you to very reasonably mitigate the personal responsibility of politicians and americans that fell for his falsehoods. :roll:

And if a representative ignores their ill-informed constituents and tries to avoid the needless deaths of thousands of innocents... I'd say they're doing a bang up job. But that's just my opinion.
 
[quote name='looploop']Right, because your passionate dislike for the "idiot son of an asshole" allows you to very reasonably mitigate the personal responsibility of politicians and americans that fell for his falsehoods. :roll:

And if a representative ignores their ill-informed constituents and tries to avoid the needless deaths of thousands of innocents... I'd say they're doing a bang up job. But that's just my opinion.[/quote]

Actually yeah, my personal hatred for the douche that ruined this country does not get in the way of my viewing decisions within the proper context that they were made. I hate racism, but don't hate Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson or other slave-owners becasue I understand CONTEXT. Blame must be allocated, and actions judged, in reference to the CONTEXT in which they were made. This is all I'm getting at. If you think a slaveowner in 1776 and a slave owner in 1996 deserve the same degree of moral culpability, well then you're (lets keep it civil).

Your second paragraph seems to imply you think democracy is not the best form of government by intoning that rulers and reps should not represent their constituents. I too think that majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions, but am not sure if this is what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?

Speaking of context, this whole thing, ALL this BS about Hillary's vote, is a tool/weapon. Really nothing more or less than that. It is a weapon being used by Obama to attack Hillary, quite effectively so I would guess. I'm just playing devil's advocate and proffering Clinton's response for her, which is the whole "Judge decisions under the context in which they were made" rebuttal.

Like I said I'm undecided, and really do not like Hillary's decision to authorize the use of force. This however, does not mean that one ought to completely overlook the context in which it was made (as Obama would have us do) any more than one ought to place too much emphasis in the context in which it was made to completley forgive it (as Clinton would have us do). All I'd advise is to just consider it.

On an unrelated mostly off topic side note, it really is a very exciting time for "political creatures" isn't it? It's only going to get better (/worse) depending on perspective.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Actually yeah, my personal hatred for the douche that ruined this country does not get in the way of my viewing decisions within the proper context that they were made. I hate racism, but don't hate Ben Franklin, Tom Jefferson or other slave-owners becasue I understand CONTEXT. Blame must be allocated, and actions judged, in reference to the CONTEXT in which they were made. This is all I'm getting at. If you think a slaveowner in 1776 and a slave owner in 1996 deserve the same degree of moral culpability, well then you're (lets keep it civil).

Your second paragraph seems to imply you think democracy is not the best form of government by intoning that rulers and reps should not represent their constituents. I too think that majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions, but am not sure if this is what you're getting at. Care to elaborate?[/quote]
The point of my second comment was that sometimes the majority is very wrong, and it's vital for forward-looking leaders to take a stand.
Look at the desegregation of the schools in the south as a recent example. If Kennedy and Johnson had followed the will of the majority of their constituents in Alabama then separate but equal would yet be in force, and thousands of african-americans would've continued to have been denied a fair education.

In the matter of whether to instigate war with an unaggressive nation in an area of the world that's renowned as a powder keg waiting to blow, (and a disturbing number of people can't locate on a map) we needed more critical thinking than we did blowing with the wind.

The context of 2003 that Hillary cites as her excuse doesn't sway me. There's indeed a world's difference between slave owner in 1776 and human traffickers in 1996. However, to try to compare that to pro-war Hillary in 2003 and anti-war Hillary in 2008 is ridiculous.
Dick Cheney himself had called the idea of invading Iraq a "quagmire waiting to happen" years before. We already had a war in Afghanistan that needed our attention. The international community, with whom she claims to be so well acquainted, almost unanimously decried the idea of military action along with the sizeable American 30%.
Nonetheless she and almost everyone in the room allowed themselves to be herded into the war.

In the contexts of both then and now it was all the more important for someone as influential as she to stand up and dissent.

You're right about the weapon bit, really. Since Obama and Clinton are bosom buddies in almost everything else there's not much else he can poke her balloon with. Yet because they're so close, I'm pretty adamant that the one who had no part in the war get the nomination. (Even if it was mostly due to Bush's suaveness.) It'd be a positive sign to the rest of the world.

It's surely a good time to watch politics though. I can't wait to see the ludicrous ways Karl Rove(in his new job at Fox) finds to spin the democrat wins that are to come this year.
 
[quote name='looploop']Even if it was mostly due to Bush's :^o. [/quote]

Fixed.

Loop, good points and I agree with most of what you had to say. It appears we're at loggerheads regarding the culpability of Hillary's vote, so agree to disagree. Good civil discussion though (seemingly becoming rarer on CAG).
 
[quote name='looploop']Likewise. Nice job working with the rather lumpy difficult devil's advocate chair.:)[/QUOTE]


I find it quite comfy.

At the risk of going off topic, and stating the obvious, I like to :argue: . It really pisses the fiance off but I try to get my fill here in the vs. forum when I can.
 
[quote name='ananag112']We invaded Iraq because the US suspected that Iraq had WMDs. More cynical people would suggest we invaded them for oil.[/QUOTE]

Countries like Darfur, Rwanda, etc. have had ridiculous levels of violence and conflict for years, but the US hasn't offered to step in to stop any of this. The fact that these countries don't have the world's second largest oil deposits couldn't have anything to do with this though.
 
Iraq doesn't have the second largest oil, I think it's 3rd or 4th. :p

And Bush even admitted once that we can't leave Iraq because then "the terrorists" would take the oil.
 
[quote name='tlsar']thats right. they werent involved with al-queda.
we invaded because it was a chaotic scene over there.
there was a civil war going on, among other things.
its in our history to help out the little guy in an unjust situation.[/quote]

Wow... you are a fool...

And about 80% of Africa's countries are in a civil war, why haven't we helped them? Oh yeah... no oil....
 
[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHQ7Prwh7Gc[/MEDIA]

Bush wants to pardon himself from potential warcrimes.
 
I proudly support George W Bush, his foreign policies, and his views towards the war on terrorism (I think the troop surge was for the better), and don't forget liberals, baby killing is wrong, and evolution is wrong, and Jesus is the son of God, which exists (Jesus kicks ass especially if he has a minigun........someone should photoshop that), we need more republican, christian presidents in the US, because democrats are pussys who have pussys (unless you are a republican girl which I am not but its cool if you are) for you see:

"A Christian man whould rather die on his feet than live on his knees" - GW

and yes, the last few seconds were terribly random but I figured I could talk about the conservitive nature in a small philosophical moment. now, back to topic, Bush believes in all the stuff I believe, and keeps the country away from nuclear holocost, so Im happy with him.
 
[quote name='w00t_culafi']Bush believes in all the stuff I believe, and keeps the country away from nuclear holocost, so Im happy with him.[/QUOTE]

A good president is one who believes what you believe? Belief should be as far removed from politics as possible, and that's the point.

A good leader -- a good president -- acts on fact and objective, rational reasoning. They listen to the will of the people, and realize this is America's America.

Bush -- a bad president -- acts on faith, his personal beliefs and his personal opinions. He acts based only on his own will, with disregard for approval ratings, and thinks this is his America.
 
[quote name='w00t_culafi']I proudly support George W Bush, his foreign policies, and his views towards the war on terrorism (I think the troop surge was for the better), and don't forget liberals, baby killing is wrong, [/quote]


So baby killing is wrong... yet instigating a war with a peaceful country that results in the needless deaths of thousands of innocents is right to you? Son of God or not, Jesus didn't have many nice things to say about hypocrites.
 
[quote name='Koggit']A good president is one who believes what you believe? Belief should be as far removed from politics as possible, and that's the point.

A good leader -- a good president -- acts on fact and objective, rational reasoning. They listen to the will of the people, and realize this is America's America.

Bush -- a bad president -- acts on faith, his personal beliefs and his personal opinions. He acts based only on his own will, with disregard for approval ratings, and thinks this is his America.[/QUOTE]

QFT
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top