:lol: Well, agreed. But is there a better word, a more tactful one?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Printable View
:lol: Well, agreed. But is there a better word, a more tactful one?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Probably :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Everose
But why dress up idiocy.
what are they doing with the dogs and cats etc which seem to be roaming the streets?
Unless they are rabid and a danger to humans, who cares.Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
Animal Rescue
Have been watching news reports kind of like this, 100%
most of them are pets, who have been left behind due to urgency
i hope their owners care
Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Probably a lot of owners who have lost too much as is, Manker.....but you are right in that concentration on rescuing humans should come first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
nice Everose - was worried they were simply killing them off :cry:
@manker - one flood and animals instantly become rabid?
Have a wonderful friend who owned a home in Kenner, LA. He did take his family and pet and leave at the storms upgrading.
He had a home and a good job there where he worked hard for everything he earned. He has gone back and retrieved what little he can from his home. His job is gone. They are relocating to the Austin, Texas area where they will stay with his brother until other arrangements can be made. He has flood insurance (hard to get a mortgage in a floodplain area without this insurace) and will start the lengthy NFIP procedures to file an insurance claim.
I know he is relieved he and his family are alive and safe.
I know he is much more fortunate than some of the others affected by this disaster. I know he knows it, too, and feels other's losses and the loss of others deeply.
His sister tells me to not expect him to contact anyone soon. She says they are suffering from much shock and depair and it will be some time before they can come to terms with things enough to speak about the loss of their world as they knew it. :cry:
I want to hug them and make it all better. It hurts not to be able to help with the pain.
Of course not. Why would you say such a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
I still have trouble picturing how anyone that has raised the number in poverty in his country by 17%, run up a record deficit on the back of a surplus and took his country into 2 unnecessary wars..all in less than 6 years can be classed as successful ...
..unless they class succesful as "Im better off personally" that is... :rolleyes:
BTW... that guy who was fired.. isnt he the one that Bush was on TV with last week?
Bush: "Id like to shake your hand, your doing one heck of a job!"
For the ball?Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Peace bd
As you say, the cares of the people who still have relatives missing, and indeed the welfare of folk who may still be stuck in attics, come before the cares of pet owners who've lost Tiddles or Rover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Everose
I'm really not that bothered about the pets at this juncture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Come on J2, im waiting here....Quote:
If you wish to commend the reports findings, then lets commend all of them please.. say after me now... "Oil for Food was a success", bet you'd hate that
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by brotherdoobie
Undressing idiocy is something I've done many times but I absolutely refuse to dress it up :snooty:
Wont you get fired for going into work naked? :unsure:
dogs are resourceful and are used to eating nasty shit. if the city repopulates soon hopefully the strays will find their way to their owners :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Excellent!!! :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Absolutely hilarious!!!
manker is some kind of classy escort?
You need to have a boss before you can get fired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
Why classy?Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Altho' you're near the mark :naughty:
I thought you were married already? :unsure:Quote:
Originally Posted by manker
Ohhh, you were doing well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
No, I'm not married.
You don't get it do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
If a Democratic President did these same things, people across the sea would feel the same way.
Clinton's 8 years in office were much more, how should I say it....palatable by leaps and bounds. He was a dumbass for getting his dick sucked and lying about it but......many off us common folk, how should I say it......understood. :rolleyes:
He was also in the pocket of the American Car Makers, bombed the fuck out of Afganistan for no particular reason other than take attention off his dick...
He was a Hedonist that was as crooked as a 3 dollar Bill.
There were some achievements on his watch though, which you refuse to acknowledge.
The world does, as these achievements affected just about everyone, mostly in a positive manner.
Should he have been impeached? Yes, but not for what he was impeached for, getting his Dick sucked is his business, not the US publics. Between him and his wife.
Shame that you didnt impeach him for the stuff that mattered and were plain illegal. That would have opened the door onto the "perks" of your administrative system and stopped everyone else getting kickbacks though, so you didnt.
Clinton though, at least kissed you while he was shafting you...
Paul, Why your obsession with American Politics? I follow the issuesQuote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
somewhat, enough to stay informed. I also like to stay abreast world
issues. Yet, I know very little of British politics.
I'm just currious. It's not a critique.
You honestly don't believe that perks and kickbacks can be stopped,in any
administration...Do you?
The greasing of wheels is timeless.
Peace bd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
For what?
Your obsession with Bush precludes noting that if Bush presided while the Oil-for-Food fiasco was taking place, he would have been stepping into Clinton's shoes as re: stewardship of that situation, because that is when it started...you seem, however, to believe Clinton's only negative was an Oval Office hummer, about which none of the hoi polloi have entree to opine.
In all other regards, Clinton seems to have been your kind of guy, as you've not mentioned this very salient fact, which, by the way, amounts to the same petard as the Halliburton one, which was heartily initiated by Clinton.
As to whether or not the Iraqis got fed, watered and medicated by virtue of Oil-for-Food, how well they made out was a relative thing, given that we now know how well Saddam (and a few well-chosen U.N. flunkies and figureheads) made out, too, the fact of which doesn't seem to bother you either, so eager are you to hang the whole thing on Bush, or at least mitigate the blame-worthiness of others by including him in the bargain.
I would think a fair-minded person should be outraged that Saddam lined his pockets to tha Iraqis' detriment, by virtue of a program meant to regulate his financial viability and care for his people, administered by the U.N.-not the U.S.
I've heard more outrage from this board, in this single thread, about poorly-chosen but off-the-cuff remarks made by the President's mother than I have about Oil-for-Food in the entire history of that issue... :dry:
i made a comment, apparently educating oneself is bad and prejudice is good now though :(Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
when did a hurricane become political?
where can i vote for her?
don't bother. she blows :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by 100%
Fuck are you talking about....refuse to acknowledge?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rat Faced
I have to say that in your quest to talk about Clinton to, in weird way, appease j2, you did a shit job. I mean bringing up the "perks" of our administrative system when these "perks" exist in yours is...well let's just say your system ain't near perfect either and I'm sure you bend over alot. :dry:
The main thing that pissed me off with him was "wagging the dog" and I thought it was despicable.
Shame we don't talk British politics as much. Fact is, we don't bother 'cause we're too concerned with our own.
Most Presidents make fuck all difference in my day-to-day so please explain how I was shafted by Clinton...explain it to all of us. :ermm:
Clinton > Bush
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
Peace bd
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by DanB
Seriously...
You've totally lost me here, Dave...Quote:
Originally Posted by GepperRankins
Please don't...you first. :dry:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showt...1&page=1&pp=10
j2k4. you constantly criticize me for "googling" for information. to be honest i hardly ever google. my main sources are wikipedia, BBC and GNN.tv
i am aware GNN is a little, err biased and wikipedia is susceptable to errors - on the subject of american poilitics i doubt a mistake will stay up for five minutes though
here's a little CnP
Spoiler: ShowThe economy
During Clinton's tenure, the U.S. enjoyed continuous economic expansion, reductions in unemployment, and growing wealth through a massive rise in the stock market. The economic boom ended shortly after his term ended, possibly indicative of a stock market bubble; Although the reasons for the expansion are continually debated, Clinton proudly pointed to a number of economic accomplishments, including:
* More than 22 million new jobs
* Homeownership rate increase from 64.0% to 67.5%
* Lowest unemployment in 30 years
* Higher incomes at all levels
* Largest budget deficit in American history converted to the largest surplus of over $200 billion
* Lowest government spending as a percentage of GDP since 1974 [5]
* Higher stock ownership by families than ever before
The reasons for this growth are hotly debated, but many cite his 1993 tax increase which is generally acknowledged to have reduced the deficit, which in turn lowered interest rates, which spured comsumption and consumer spending. Alan Greenspan supported this plan, which was approved by Congress without one Republican vote [6]. His critics credit solely Alan Greenspan, the Republican Congress' 1995 spending cuts, the Contract with America initiatives, or even Ronald Reagan's 1981 tax cut during the 1980's.[7]
so that's the educating oneself bit sorted.
Quote:
Those who deem non-judgementalism a desirable quality are the most judgemental and least-tolerant people I know, and many/most here on the board give lip-service to the idea, but aren't on a nodding basis with the spirit of it.
At least, by my judgement.
__________________
By what mental process do we conclude it is good to be non-judgemental?
i actually agree with you here. i just wanted to twist your words to make you sound both anti-enlightenment and pro-ignorance. the first bit i agree with, the second bit i twisted for the sake of contrast :P
busyman. :01:
I don't see a problem with googlng for info , one can never see all the info in a newspaper or online forum and have used in the past to show an example or prove a point .
I am the only one in that thread to come up with a positive accomplishment :01:Quote:
Originally Posted by Busyman
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4 about RF
j2, your statement in another thread that you don't bother much with drivel would carry more weight if you refrained from writing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RF - an hour earlier