Bush's Lunacy?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@22 June 2004 - 00:54
Well nobody replied :blink:


















http://www.jackbishop.com/images/iq.jpg

---

Vid-

What, exactly, is this supposed to indicate?

Well, let's see:

Nixon had the highest IQ of any Republican, and he was a scoundrel; he resigned his office before he was impeached.

Clinton had the highest IQ of any Democrat, and he, too, was/is a scoundrel, but he also managed to be impeached, and stay in office.

I would say Clinton had what might be called VIQ: Variable Intelligence Quotient; that is to say, it might have actually approached 182, but only when his very survival was at stake.

I think, for example, when he told Hillary of his peccadilloes, he must have been at his very best, IQ-wise, to escape with his life, especially considering she herself is (it is generally conceded) the smartest woman on the face of the earth.

In any case, the uselessness of the whole exercise is surely indicated by Carter's having the second-highest IQ (175), isn't it?

What a resoundingly successful presidency he had! :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@26 June 2004 - 01:47
And so how can we remove Saddam other than how we did?

---

You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

---

Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes+26 June 2004 - 08:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 26 June 2004 - 08:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ruthie@26 June 2004 - 06:35
Are you saying that because of Saddam&#39;s violence against his countrymen, our violence in Iraq is irrelevant?

---

Never said it, never implied it. You are flailing.

I was saying that innocents will die to remove him, but in doing so, those killed will be a small number compared to those that would have died had he remained.

The sanctions came from the UN. Oh right, the US controls the UN. But then why did the UN oppose the war.?

As a liberal, who never voted for Bush, I never dreamed that I would be posting as I do. But, I just hate listening to bullshit. [/b][/quote]
Hobbes

Therein lies the dilemma with such equations. At what point will the carnage and violence unleashed in Iraq tip the scales into the red. The innocents we kill are our responsibility no one elses. Their tears and blood cast a shadow on us.

I am not advocating the return of Saddam - we are responsible for the mess we clean it up. However, we went in because we said he was a threat to us - not because we wanted to be nice to Iraqis. Given that he now appears to have been a toothless paper tiger we are only left with the "being nice to Iraqis" justification. This is actually a bind. It means that we have to see the job through and pay through the nose in order to do so. If he had been sitting on huge stock piles of weapons on the verge of attack we could have justified his removal and subsequently left the Iraqis to get on with things. The lack of resources after the initial conflict would suggest that we had little idea as to what the Iraqis would subsequently do.

Although the first couple of weeks of Shock and Awe targeted Ministry buildings the power grid was brought down by the end. We are still paying for its reconstruction, in both the lives of contractors and money. Soldiers I have spoken to that have returned from Iraq say the place is a shambles. Furthermore, as soon as something is fixed the insurgents blow it up again. The British positions in Basra are much quieter than further north but the feeling is that things are getting more edgy not less.

GW cannot have an IQ of 91 surely? That is very close to below average intelligence (which is putting it nicely) Having said that, I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@26 June 2004 - 12:13

....I consider IQ ratings little more than a parlour game.

---

I believe you&#39;ve put your finger on it, Biggles.

To those who worship Clinton&#39;s "intelligence":

Clinton&#39;s potential for utter idiocy was revealed just a few days ago during the Dimbleby interview, wherein he sputtered incoherently at a particularly inopportune juncture. ;)

Intelligence, and stupidity likewise, most always suffer involuntary and/or selective application, and, to be perfectly accurate, this phenomenon applies to everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 16:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 16:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-clocker@26 June 2004 - 11:43
You assume that we needed to remove Sadam in the first place.
How come?

---

Are you serious? You really think Saddam should have been left in power? Someone who murders millions of his own people, someone who used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, someone who posed a threat to the security of the world really should have been given more time to stay in power. [/b][/quote]

So, i assume your now proposing the Invasion of all the countries that were, and still are more vicious that Iraq ever was?

Sudan, for example...?


The 10 years between the 2 Gulf Wars saw more deaths of Iraqi&#39;s indirectly from the UN sanctions, and directly from UK/USA bombing, than Hussain ever managed at his worst.... including his Chemical attack on the Kurds.

Deaths due to our bombing of Water Treatment Plants (against the Geneva Convention) for example.... (and Chlorine to clean the Water without the treatment plants was "Dual Use" so could not be imported)..

Deaths due to dust from Depleted Uranium shells used in the 1st war...and US troops themselves are now being diagnosed with symptoms of this, however I suppose they&#39;ll be alright as treatment is available for them

Deaths due to lack of Medical Supplies.... did you know that "Syringes", were even classed as "Dual Use"? And basic Painkillers and anti-biotics?


These matters go outside Political Party Politics, as during that decade both UK and USA had both main political parties of their countries in charge at some point.

However, no matter which way you cut it...there is no Moral High Ground for us.


Saddam did support Terrorism....he helped finance Palestinian Terorists.

However he hasnt given them half as much as Saudi Arabia, as an example.....as he really didnt give a shit for them, it was just a means of keeping the fundamentalists of his own Country happy and causing less trouble.



As to the assasination of Bush Snr.

They were linked to a car bomb by Kuwaiti Intelligence..... hardly an unbiased Agency in 1993.

I believe that 23 Cruise Missiles were fired at Iraqi Intelligence HQ for that..

23 Cruise Missiles at one building.... I wonder how much co-lateral damage that caused?

Compared to the co-lateral Damage of a Car Bomb, that may or may not have belonged to Iraqi Intelligence that is.

How many Assasinations have the CIA been involved in?..........in countries not actively bombing the crap out of them, like the USA/UK were to Iraq?


This whole argument, to me, stinks of:

Do as we say; not as we do... Its OK for us to kill who the fuck we want, but its not OK for you to defend yourselves in the only way&#39;s possible, or to fight back...

"Gods on our Side".... well, if Gods on our side, what makes us any different from the Terrorists, except a Uniform?



Quite frankly, I think im better than that.

I also believe the vast Majority of Americans and British are better than that...and in fact most people everywhere.

Its just a shame that shit floats to the top of politics... in every country.


All that we as voters in Democracies can do, is try and minimise the damage by voting in the lessor of the evils on offer...coz no matter WHICH Party they are in, make no mistake...If they can get away with it, they will stab you through the heart for a buck or more power.

<_<

Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

---

Did you know that Iraq was so unco-operative that they were suggesting and offering to pay for the technologies to confirm amounts of Chemical Weapons they had destroyed at certain sites?

They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

The US/UK blocked these Technologies being used in the Inspection Process.

Very co-operative of us, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 18:21
Rat we’ve been through this already. I now that are other’s just as or just as vicious as Saddam was but we don’t have a 12 year history and 17 UN resolutions with Sudan. It’s impossible for us to help everyone everywhere, I wish we could but we can’t.

---

:helpsmile:


An interesting use of the word help.


The imperative for war was never made clear and failed to convince most of the world (i.e. 80%). By imperative, I mean what would have happened if we had not gone to war? Why was war the only solution? Saddam was not backing Al Qaeda nor was he involved in international terrorism. His support for the Palestinians was no more than most Arab leaders and less than some.

It is true that he was a dictator. However, it would appear that every time his name is mentioned the numbers of dead increases exponentially. Approximately 1m Iraqis and Iranians died in the Iran/Iraq war - a war we approved of.

Following the abortive Kuwaiti invasion and UN sanctions it is estimated that annually about 40,000 Iraqis died prematurely do to lack of proper medical facilities - many of them children. Despite numerous suggestions that the sanctions list should be refined there was an unwillingness to take the action that could have saved these lives. Saddam did kill political opponents - probably many tens of thousands of such opponents over the 25 years of his reign of terror. However, he is not in the Hitler or Stalin league. He was just another nasty local dictator with a fondness for palaces and gold taps.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

---

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 18:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank &#064; 26 June 2004 - 18:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:34
They knew where they&#39;d destroyed them, they just didnt have confirmed paperwork as to amounts.... all evidence the Inspectors looked at appeared to Confirm what the Iraqi&#39;s were saying in these areas.. they just couldnt Verify the information (as they&#39;d been destroyed)...

---

Look they had 12 years to comply and they didn’t. If everything had destroyed the Saddam wouldn’t have kicked out the inspectors and would have let them look whenever and where ever they wanted. That wasn’t the case though. The inspectors were allowed to search when Saddam said and where he said. [/b][/quote]

These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe.... possibly in case the Allies did follow through and Invade Iraq, as so collar him for their possession then. Possibly in Compliance to what they knew what would happen, however without admitting to their people that they had complied... or possibly because their shelf life had expired, following the end of the Iraq/Iran war or scared of what the Kurd bombing consequences would be...who knows...

Before the 1st Inspection Process, where they werent co-operating, even so..


They didnt have Verifiable paperwork as to amounts involved.

The amounts of broken shell fragments and not wholley destroyed ordnance implied that the amounts they were claiming were correct.

However the technology needed to verify these amounts was Blocked...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....

---

Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+26 June 2004 - 19:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 26 June 2004 - 19:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 13:57
These weapons were destroyed in 1991 I believe....

---

Really? Then care to explain why he threw the inspectors out in 1998? [/b][/quote]
For spying as I recall. It was latter verified that the CIA had managed to get an agent or two onto the UN team.

He didnt "Throw the Inspectors" out..

He threw a spy out that was amongst the Inspectors (CIA), and the UN withdrew the rest.... As he would not thereafter allow an American Inspector, for obvious reasons...

I guess the thrown out and withdrew saga is another one of those where you sit on the political fence.

The inspectors weren’t allowed to do their work as I said earlier. Why wouldn’t Saddam allow these people to do the job that they were sent in to do? If he had nothing to hide and wanted to come forward with everything that he had he would allowed the inspectors to do their work and make a complete and full investigation.

So, I assume you&#39;d be quite happy for the KGB to have toured your military facilities in the 80&#39;s?

As thats what your saying.

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....they planted a spy, and when he was caught and thrown out (as you do when you catch spies) ... they put pressure on the UN to withdraw the inspectors, as Iraq (for pretty obvious reasons) decided they would allow no American Inspectors now... So guess who insisted that there must be an American Inspector afterwards...


Another case of "Do as we say, not as we do" <_<

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

Quote:

---

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

---

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.

1. U.N. inspectors were in Iraq, at least ostensibly looking for WMD.

Why? "Everybody" knew Saddam had none.

2. U.N. sanctions and resolutions threatened use of force in the instance of non-compliance.

Why? No signatory nation would actually follow through.

3. The U.N. resolved to keep Saddam in check militarily via embargo/blockade.

Why? He wasn&#39;t a threat to anybody.


Oooops.

There&#39;s more:

A. Depending on who you listen to, the U.N.-sponsored embargos on Iraq resulted in anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of civilian deaths, mainly children, lots of women, a sprinkling of other innocent citizens, and perhaps a soldier or two.

These deaths are the exclusive fault of the United States, as they are members of the U.N.

B. Under the good auspices of the U.N.&#39;s "oil-for-food" program, Iraqis would provided with food and medical necessities.

That the program didn&#39;t work and was a miserable failure, due to it&#39;s corrupt U.N. administration and Saddam&#39;s greed, is also clearly the fault of the U.S.

C. The U.N. will conduct it&#39;s own in-house investigation of the oil-for-food program, which will not result in public disclosure of any evidence of wrong-doing, owing to the infallibility of the U.N.

The U.S. will be blamed for any shortcomings otherwise attributable to the oil-for-food program, and chided for it&#39;s efforts to get to the bottom of things.


Uh, oh.

Time for another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@26 June 2004 - 19:52
I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

Quote:

---

He never stopped the inspectors, the Americans did....

---

I think there may be a small difference in the KGB and the UN.

The inspectors couldn’t do the job that they were sent in to do. They could only inspect what Saddam wanted them to see and when he wanted them to see it. They were left waiting at palace gates for more than an hour on some occasions. I guess Saddam needed time to vacuum and dust before letting company in.

---

Yes, there is.

However i was comparing an Intelligence Agency with an Intelligence Agency... ie CIA and KGB, not CIA with UN.


Face the facts, out of the members of the UN Security Council the US virtually controls 30% of the vote....and they still couldnt get a majority, so Russia/France didnt even need to use their veto.


@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 15:29
@ J2K4,

You know how i feel about the UN.

Neither your Government nor mine would ratify the changes that are needed, as they would both lose the power that they have in there; which is totally out of all perspective as to our respective populations :P

---

You&#39;ll never know how comforted I am by this small slice of sanity. :P

Truly, though:

If the U.N. is ever to re-intersect with propriety, I think the U.S. and the U.K. are the ideal seeds for the necessary "coalition".*

*How I&#39;ve come to hate that word&#33;

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@26 June 2004 - 16:10

Quite frankly, I think im better than that.

I also believe the vast Majority of Americans and British are better than that...and in fact most people everywhere.

Its just a shame that shit floats to the top of politics... in every country.


All that we as voters in Democracies can do, is try and minimise the damage by voting in the lessor of the evils on offer...coz no matter WHICH Party they are in, make no mistake...If they can get away with it, they will stab you through the heart for a buck or more power.

<_<

---

I was going to reply to a couple comments here, but as I read through the post to the end, I think, on a conceptual level, we are on the same page, particularly our attitude towards poltics in general. Good post.

I will just say I have absolutely no defense for the bombing of water treatment facilities and I guarantee you, that information is not known by many here.

As for the other sanctions, the deaths were not just a function of the sanctions, but equally a result of the allocation of resources. Saddam kept his military well fed and in good health, the rest were neglected and died.

Had Saddam wished to throw himself into doing what he could to assist his country, the death totals that are quoted would be a fraction. Gold toilets and palaces don&#39;t feed people. Argriculture does.

Syringes? I hope, at least, this war will bring syringe technology to Iraq.

Antibiotics? Alexander Fleming grew these things in his sink on dirty dishes. Come on, they aren&#39;t hard to make. If they can make pesticides, they can make antibiotics.

Well argued, the two of you.

If I might make one more point, it would be that certain issues, such as who is responsible for the fall-out from the sanctions, should somehow achieve the status of having been decided, or resolved between us on this board.
Certain things don&#39;t deserve a re-hashing at every turn.

Perhaps we could start a pin or something wherein these issues could be assigned a collective determination via the occasional poll; call it the "Be It Resolved" thread.

Might be an interesting exercise; we ought not lose track of those instances when we actually have a reasonably wide swath of agreement-it certainly wouldn&#39;t ever be cumbersome enough to tax the server, eh? :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@26 June 2004 - 07:34


Clinton had the highest IQ of any Democrat, and he, too, was/is a scoundrel, but he also managed to be impeached, and stay in office.

---

Sorry for the delay...didn&#39;t notice a response to the picture..i actually posted it after there was no debate on the original issue as a bit of light heartedness.


in reply to your post about clinton...i have not debated the impeachment before because i felt it represented the bottom of the barrel in trying to get clinton out (it was the republicans that instigated it) i care not about blowjobs that others get.

I will take it as read that you dissagreed with the end result of the impeachment but could you tell me what the outcome was ?

one word answer please :D

What the outcome was?

Of the impeachment?

One word?

Okay, that word would be:

Correct&#33;

The actual result was less than satisfying, though I look forward with humor to upcoming efforts to tender an amnesty or expungement upon Clinton; I&#39;m sure he thinks he deserves it; given his concern with his legacy-"...badge of honor..." and all that. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@26 June 2004 - 20:11
What the outcome was?

Of the impeachment?

One word?

Okay, that word would be:

Correct&#33;

The actual result was less than satisfying, though I look forward with humor to upcoming efforts to tender an amnesty or expungement upon Clinton; I&#39;m sure he thinks he deserves it; given his concern with his legacy-"...badge of honor..." and all that. :D

---

on February 12, the Senate voted on whether to remove Clinton from office. The president was acquitted on both articles of impeachment. The prosecution needed a two-thirds majority to convict but failed to achieve even a bare majority. Rejecting the first charge of perjury, 45 Democrats and 10 Republicans voted "not guilty" and on the charge of obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50. After the trial concluded, President Clinton said he was "profoundly sorry" for the burden his behavior imposed on Congress and the American people.


Now i am not going to get into the ins and outs as we will look at things differently...he did get a blowjob, but as i said before i don&#39;t care about private lives. I am not defending his mistake ( the impeachment wasn&#39;t because he got a blowjob but it was connected )
However this impeachment keeps being raised even though he was aquitted. There have been calls to have Bush impeached because he lied about Iraq, many take the view he did lie, i Know you don&#39;t, but should he be impeached and aquitted in the same way clinton was i doubt you would accept anyone raising the impeachment in the same way you do about clinton.
i look at the results for America that a president has during his term, not his social life. I will happily denounce ANY president for failings in policy



I didn&#39;t respond to this ..i got sidetracked.

Quote:

---

In any case, the uselessness of the whole exercise is surely indicated by Carter&#39;s having the second-highest IQ (175), isn&#39;t it?

What a resoundingly successful presidency he had&#33;

---

I could have made a case such as you did with reagan on carters term but i have a strong belief in the phrase i used for reagan..."the buck stops here".



EDIT: top line missed the year for those that don&#39;t know 1999 :unsure:

So, then-

Even attempts at humor are subject to the old to-may-to/to-mah-to adage, yes?

So many things are a matter of taste, these days; wouldn&#39;t you agree?

Question:

If we bow to the dictates of Miss Manners, will we even have anything to talk about?

Example:

"If it weren&#39;t for Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones et. al., Clinton&#39;s book would...":

A. Never have been written.

B. Be much thinner.

C. Already be selling at massive discounts.

D. Some or all of the above.

I personally would have defaulted to "A", but the fact "C" was the case, even at the book&#39;s debut, tells a story that isn&#39;t in the book. :)

I know it&#39;s still morning there this time so good morning J2.

As i said i had avoided debating the impeachment but for some reason i just felt i needed to finally make a point about it as it has been raised too many times as if he was actually found guilty and sentenced to political death.

On the book the "women" subject would make me less interested. I shall not be buying the book and probably won&#39;t get it out the library, but i may read the abridged excerts in the papers. It&#39;s a shame that the "women" subject seems to be what the media concentrate on the most.
I do feel it would have been written regardless of the "scandels".

I have no sympathy for the women involved either, they knew what they where getting into...but that&#39;s a different subject...



none of this has anything to do with Bush and Isreal :lol:

I to thought about buying Clintons book but I thought that &#036;35 bucks was a bit overpriced for toilet paper :lol: :P

vid-

I&#39;d be all for consigning Clinton and his book to the "resolved/disposed of" bin (I proposed the idea somewhere else in here, but can&#39;t remember where), but I fear he&#39;ll keep trying to remind us all of his ongoing relevance.

One of the reasons I hope Hillary goes down in flames is that she&#39;ll take at least a part of her husband with her.

Hank-

Using that book for toilet-paper would make you shit with a leftward bias.

Messy and unnecessary; I suggest Charmin.

BTW-

As much as I tried, I could not avoid hearing tidbits about his book, one in particular being his story that he and Hillary devoted "one entire day every week" to counselling, after he admitted the Lewinsky affair to Hillary.

This must have made quite an impression on Hillary; I don&#39;t recall hearing that she mentioned it in her book.

You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rollwave@28 June 2004 - 23:23
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D

---

you would probably describe me as a "pathetic liberal" by the sound of that. No I didn&#39;t go to Yale or Harvard as I live in the real world and didn&#39;t have the benefit of rich parents but I do have a degree even though I had to overcome a form of dyslexia.
Let me state right now for the record...a degree doesn&#39;t equal intelligence. It equals the ability to remember what one is taught. Intelligence is the ability to understand and use that knowledge outside the classroom, also the ability to think and solve.
There are autistic people unable to read yet able to perform mathematical wonders beyond the reach of many mathematicians.

Lets say there is a politician episode of "who wants to be a millionaire" and any money won would go to you....would you choose Bush jnr to play for you? :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 01:52
Lets say there is a politician episode of "who wants to be a millionaire" and any money won would go to you....would you choose Bush jnr to play for you? :)

---

I bet I know whom you would choose :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rollwave
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school.

---

Are you aware that every company Bush has run has failed miserably?

Are you also aware that he scored 25 out of 100 when he took a test to join the National Guard? Thats 1 point above being too stupid to fly. :lol:

How many of us "pathetic libs" have a powerful daddy that can get us into the best schools and let us skip the queue of thousands of people trying to get into the National Guard?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rollwave@29 June 2004 - 06:23
You libs are pathetic. Are any of you aware that G W Buash has a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, the world&#39;s top business school. Yeah but he&#39;s stupid. That reminds me of a hilarious story I read . Some lib started a web site called georgebushisanidiot.com. Then she did some research and found out that G W Bush had the same SAT score as she did. LMAO. By the way, how many of you pathetic libs have degrees from Yale AND Harvard? Show of hands please... :D

---

In his own words:

"Look at me: Proof that even a C Student can go on to become President"

If GW Bush does not even try to say he&#39;s intelligent, then I fail to see how you can.


Its not, in my Opinion, a Presidents Job to be intelligent: He appoints people to advise him...THOSE are the people that need to be intelligent.

A much more useful atribute is Common Sense.


Unfortunatly, GW Bush has neither.... in my opinion, of course. ;)

i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 18:50
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D

---

:lol:

Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@29 June 2004 - 13:50
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face :D

---

He shares that talent with me, it seems.

He is also obviously aware that even a moderately well-prepared Conservative can keep any number of libs busy. :P

My wife informs me I&#39;m developing dimples, an affliction I&#39;ve never before suffered.

She says that I&#39;m always happy after a good session here. :huh:

Which set of cheeks are those dimples on?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@29 June 2004 - 14:13

He shares that talent with me, it seems.

---

Actually i would put you in an entirely more sophisticated league j2.... we seem to take opposite sides (mostly because it&#39;s a Bush thread) a lot but you tend to try to debate rather than taunt. Rollwave has only posted a few posts and they had less to do with debate and more to do with ranting...A new account so i wondered if it was one of these "multiple personalities" of an established member.

certainly has a few conspiracy theories in his head :unsure:


Oh gosh...... it couldn&#39;t be ....internet news ???? :unsure:


@ Biggles

Quote:

---

Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed.

---

you should see me play with my one year old daughters toys :lol: :lol: All i had when i was that age was some wooden blocks :(

@ j2 again

Quote:

---

QUOTE (vidcc @ 29 June 2004 - 18:50)
i wonder who rollwave is. he is very good at getting replies. I bet he is sitting back with a big grin on his face&nbsp;




Still it is always nice to see someone so easily impressed. .

---

I am very dissapointed that you missed an opportunity here.... please try harder :lol: :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@29 June 2004 - 18:24
Which set of cheeks are those dimples on?

---

Why, the ones uppermost when I&#39;m vertically oriented, of course.

Vid-

I sense in rollwave a kindred spirit who perhaps hasn&#39;t the patience or inclination to dissect such assertions as you make.

Not everyone is blessed with my patience and/or willingness to educate.

I also believe there might be much more there than you think; caution should be your watchword.

He might be one of the true War Mongerers. ;)