The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
US sneers, belittles and ignores the UN before build up to invasion of Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld particularly scathing.
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
War declared over early May.
Now US asks UN to assist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3202991.stm
"Up your ass UN, we don't need no pasty Eurocrats telling us who we can and cayan't kill"
"Umm...that's not wise US"
"Screw you Eurotrash"
(fast forward to the "ceasation of hostilities")
"Ah, 'scuse us Mr UN, Mr Nice, could you like, gissa hand here? We're getting our butts kicked daily, in fact we've lost more soldiers since the invasion was over than during."
"Um...no"
"C'mon guys, we're not a police force! We kill people, we don't keep the peace"
"Um...no"
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Read what I put. I said would he be happier IF the President was a
> supporter of abortion, not that he WAS a supporter. Pro Life is
> surely where people believe any child, once it is conceived, has the
> right to live and not be terminated/aborted etc ? Doesn't Pro Life
> also entail social reforms which encourage pregnant women to keep a
> child i.e benefits etc ?
I did read it; you made no mention of pro-choice, just pro-abortion. I invited you to distinguish between the two. And you didn't. Is that because you don't understand the issue?
Some Pro Life camps do indeed advocate social reform to discourage abortion. However, they also entail removing a womans right to choose. In other words, they are in favour of curtailing human rights.
>
>
> Not by name though, but Goatboy clearly says "invade countries
> at a whim", not the singular "country", but countries,
> i.e more than one. Unless I miseed something, the only places invaded
> during Bush's administration have been Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thus far, yes you are absolutely right on that point.
>
>
>
> The trade defecity is not the same as debt though is it ? And much of
> the spending has been on the various military campaigns, support for
> allies, recovering from 9/11, increasing security etc Plus since 9/11
> the economy has been somewhat less than stable so manufacturers and
> business have had to be helped out, and Bush delivered tax reforms
> which cut government income.
>
Right...so trade deficit (being the amount owed by America to it's trading partners) is not a debt? It's just the amount owed, right? My God Bell...do you know what kind of pedant you sound like there? An amount owed to someone is a debt. If you believe otherwise then I can only envy your bank manager...
>
>
> Nope, I didn't know that, but if the success is not continued, it's
> pointless. How much of an increase and what age range ?
In pre 11 year olds there was an increase. I believe it was a 5% increase on the previous administration but if I'm honest I can't remember. I'll have a hunt for the link.
If a success is not continued, it's pointless? So...how does that square with the current failure of the US and UK to control Iraq? Are you saying that's pointless? For Gods SAKE Bell, THINK before making blanket statements like that.
>
>
> To get elected, like why idiots elected Blair for a second time
> because he was going to improve the NHS, get tough on crime etc.
> MAking changes takes time, simple as that, and the opposition parties
> don't always agree, which again makes things take longer.
As opposed to the Tories who gave us a vast improvement in public services and....oh.
Bell, ALL governments lie. Every one. By their very nature, they are deceitful and economical with the truth. Your blind faith in the Dubya administration is all the more laughable because you go as far as to deliberately avoid reading about facts that prove this in order to preserve that faith. In many respects, you're no different to a medieval churchman.
>
> I'll answer the rest later as I'm off now. Though I'd be interested
> to see how Moore explains away the 2 US courts, with judges from both
> parties, both ruling that there should have been no further
> recounts. Fact is Moore cannot refute most of those points, because
> they are fact, not debatable, but fact.
I note that you haven't answered the rest. Also, Moore does actually explain the 2 US courts and judges. He does indeed refute the points made by you. But as you've never read what he's written, you wouldn't know. Just because you've deliberately avoided the contradictory facts, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
>
> Read what I put. I said would he be happier IF the President was a
> supporter of abortion, not that he WAS a supporter. Pro Life is
> surely where people believe any child, once it is conceived, has the
> right to live and not be terminated/aborted etc ? Doesn't Pro Life
> also entail social reforms which encourage pregnant women to keep a
> child i.e benefits etc ?
I did read it; you made no mention of pro-choice, just pro-abortion. I invited you to distinguish between the two. And you didn't. Is that because you don't understand the issue?
Some Pro Life camps do indeed advocate social reform to discourage abortion. However, they also entail removing a womans right to choose. In other words, they are in favour of curtailing human rights.
>
>
> Not by name though, but Goatboy clearly says "invade countries
> at a whim", not the singular "country", but countries,
> i.e more than one. Unless I miseed something, the only places invaded
> during Bush's administration have been Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thus far, yes you are absolutely right on that point.
>
>
>
> The trade defecity is not the same as debt though is it ? And much of
> the spending has been on the various military campaigns, support for
> allies, recovering from 9/11, increasing security etc Plus since 9/11
> the economy has been somewhat less than stable so manufacturers and
> business have had to be helped out, and Bush delivered tax reforms
> which cut government income.
>
Right...so trade deficit (being the amount owed by America to it's trading partners) is not a debt? It's just the amount owed, right? My God Bell...do you know what kind of pedant you sound like there? An amount owed to someone is a debt. If you believe otherwise then I can only envy your bank manager...
>
>
> Nope, I didn't know that, but if the success is not continued, it's
> pointless. How much of an increase and what age range ?
In pre 11 year olds there was an increase. I believe it was a 5% increase on the previous administration but if I'm honest I can't remember. I'll have a hunt for the link.
If a success is not continued, it's pointless? So...how does that square with the current failure of the US and UK to control Iraq? Are you saying that's pointless? For Gods SAKE Bell, THINK before making blanket statements like that.
>
>
> To get elected, like why idiots elected Blair for a second time
> because he was going to improve the NHS, get tough on crime etc.
> MAking changes takes time, simple as that, and the opposition parties
> don't always agree, which again makes things take longer.
As opposed to the Tories who gave us a vast improvement in public services and....oh.
Bell, ALL governments lie. Every one. By their very nature, they are deceitful and economical with the truth. Your blind faith in the Dubya administration is all the more laughable because you go as far as to deliberately avoid reading about facts that prove this in order to preserve that faith. In many respects, you're no different to a medieval churchman.
>
> I'll answer the rest later as I'm off now. Though I'd be interested
> to see how Moore explains away the 2 US courts, with judges from both
> parties, both ruling that there should have been no further
> recounts. Fact is Moore cannot refute most of those points, because
> they are fact, not debatable, but fact.
I note that you haven't answered the rest. Also, Moore does actually explain the 2 US courts and judges. He does indeed refute the points made by you. But as you've never read what he's written, you wouldn't know. Just because you've deliberately avoided the contradictory facts, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
Light wrote:
> Supporter of abortion? Right...because pro-choice means that
> abortions should be compulsory, yeah? Do you actually know what
> pro-choice entails?
Read what I put. I said would he be happier IF the President was a supporter of abortion, not that he WAS a supporter. Pro Life is surely where people believe any child, once it is conceived, has the right to live and not be terminated/aborted etc ? Doesn't Pro Life also entail social reforms which encourage pregnant women to keep a child i.e benefits etc ?
> I don't believe Afghanistan was mentioned, but for the record I
> personally believe that invasion was justified. Shame that, after
> having promised billions in aid to the Afghan people, not one cent
> has been spent...
Not by name though, but Goatboy clearly says "invade countries at a whim", not the singular "country", but countries, i.e more than one. Unless I miseed something, the only places invaded during Bush's administration have been Afghanistan and Iraq.
> Actually, yes it has. At the end of Clinton's time in office, the
> trade deficit was cleared. Now it's back. Funny that....
The trade defecity is not the same as debt though is it ? And much of the spending has been on the various military campaigns, support for allies, recovering from 9/11, increasing security etc Plus since 9/11 the economy has been somewhat less than stable so manufacturers and business have had to be helped out, and Bush delivered tax reforms which cut government income.
> Actually, Labour's first term showed an increase in literacy and
> numeracy among children, though it has gone backwards since. Want me
> to post the link?
Nope, I didn't know that, but if the success is not continued, it's pointless. How much of an increase and what age range ?
> And I think you'll find he was elected on promises to do things like
> turn the education system around. If he can't do it, why did he say
> he would?
To get elected, like why idiots elected Blair for a second time because he was going to improve the NHS, get tough on crime etc. MAking changes takes time, simple as that, and the opposition parties don't always agree, which again makes things take longer.
I'll answer the rest later as I'm off now. Though I'd be interested to see how Moore explains away the 2 US courts, with judges from both parties, both ruling that there should have been no further recounts. Fact is Moore cannot refute most of those points, because they are fact, not debatable, but fact.
> Supporter of abortion? Right...because pro-choice means that
> abortions should be compulsory, yeah? Do you actually know what
> pro-choice entails?
Read what I put. I said would he be happier IF the President was a supporter of abortion, not that he WAS a supporter. Pro Life is surely where people believe any child, once it is conceived, has the right to live and not be terminated/aborted etc ? Doesn't Pro Life also entail social reforms which encourage pregnant women to keep a child i.e benefits etc ?
> I don't believe Afghanistan was mentioned, but for the record I
> personally believe that invasion was justified. Shame that, after
> having promised billions in aid to the Afghan people, not one cent
> has been spent...
Not by name though, but Goatboy clearly says "invade countries at a whim", not the singular "country", but countries, i.e more than one. Unless I miseed something, the only places invaded during Bush's administration have been Afghanistan and Iraq.
> Actually, yes it has. At the end of Clinton's time in office, the
> trade deficit was cleared. Now it's back. Funny that....
The trade defecity is not the same as debt though is it ? And much of the spending has been on the various military campaigns, support for allies, recovering from 9/11, increasing security etc Plus since 9/11 the economy has been somewhat less than stable so manufacturers and business have had to be helped out, and Bush delivered tax reforms which cut government income.
> Actually, Labour's first term showed an increase in literacy and
> numeracy among children, though it has gone backwards since. Want me
> to post the link?
Nope, I didn't know that, but if the success is not continued, it's pointless. How much of an increase and what age range ?
> And I think you'll find he was elected on promises to do things like
> turn the education system around. If he can't do it, why did he say
> he would?
To get elected, like why idiots elected Blair for a second time because he was going to improve the NHS, get tough on crime etc. MAking changes takes time, simple as that, and the opposition parties don't always agree, which again makes things take longer.
I'll answer the rest later as I'm off now. Though I'd be interested to see how Moore explains away the 2 US courts, with judges from both parties, both ruling that there should have been no further recounts. Fact is Moore cannot refute most of those points, because they are fact, not debatable, but fact.
Belldandy wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Last time I looked a fair few world leaders were Christians, as is a
> fair portion of the entire world. Yes, he's pro life, so you're
> happier if the President is a supporter of abortion ? Both
> standpoints are equally valid, and you know full well that guys like
> the one executed this week are not representative of Pro-Life
> Campaigners. You object to people generalising anti-war supporters,
> yet you're happy to throw all the pro-lifers into one big group ? As
> for fundamentalist, well he believes in his faith, as do millions of
> others.
So does Usama bin Laden; he's a fundamentalist. As is Abu Bakr, the guy in Indonesia who has just been imprsioned. And Mullah Omar Mohammed; he's a fundamentalist. They all believe in their faith, as do millions of others. Does that make what they do okay in your eyes?
Supporter of abortion? Right...because pro-choice means that abortions should be compulsory, yeah? Do you actually know what pro-choice entails?
>
> Yes, six months of UN negotiations, and 12 years of various nations
> playing siege to Iraq ? You've said yourself you object to the
> reasons given for the war, not the war itself, yes ? Yet if you're
> saying this was a mere "whim" then just what is your
> position because that makes it sound awfully like you think it should
> never have happened. And last time I looked the only places invaded
> have been Afghanistan and Iraq, both in order to remove dangerous
> regimes. You're saying Afghanistan was not justified, that it was a
> "whim" ?
I don't believe Afghanistan was mentioned, but for the record I personally believe that invasion was justified. Shame that, after having promised billions in aid to the Afghan people, not one cent has been spent...
On a whim? Well...yes, to be honest. After all, what possible reason did they have for invading Iraq after all this time? Sept 11th? No proven connection whatsoever; if their was even a kernel of truth in the allegations that the Iraqi army went on hightened alert on Sept 10th, it would have been shouted from the rooftops. WOMD? Where? And what about North Korea's WOMD? Breaking UN sanctions? The US can hardly talk...and for that matter, what about Israel? They break them all the time. Saving the people? Funny how that was the last thing mentioned, no?
>
> Because America is of course the only country with debt and it's ALL
> been built up in one term...
Actually, yes it has. At the end of Clinton's time in office, the trade deficit was cleared. Now it's back. Funny that....
> Because one man can singlehandedly turn around the education system
> in one term, you know full well that any changes made to education
> take many years to filter through, our own Labour government, on one
> and a half terms, has still achieved very little despite some changes
> and improvements.
Actually, Labour's first term showed an increase in literacy and numeracy among children, though it has gone backwards since. Want me to post the link?
And I think you'll find he was elected on promises to do things like turn the education system around. If he can't do it, why did he say he would?
>
> And since when was it the job of the President to overturn the
> Constitution ? There are gun laws in the USA, not the same as ours,
> but there are laws, think last years death total was roughly 34000.
> The fact is, the USA is a democracy, and every person who runs on a
> platform of stricter gun control does not stand a chance. In 1999 US
> gun deaths were around 28000, so that's a rough 6000 deaths gain over
> 4 years, yet the average US yearly population growth is 3.2 million
> people a year, so despite the population growing by 12.8 million, it
> only saw a further 6000 gun deaths.
Well, he's done a good job of trying to overturn the separation of church and state, as stated in the Constitution. Want me to post links to the various ways he's undermined it?
>
>
> Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted
> about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid,
> backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that
> did they, yet...
Heh. Well, as you've admitted to never having read anything Michael Moore read, don't you feel sorta silly saying it's definitely incorrect? As it happens, every single point you made in that post is answered by Stupid White Men.
You're right though; I owe you a response on that topic. Of course, you owe Goaty and myself countless responses to countless topics, but I don't imagine you want to be reminded of that.
As a final point, you'll probably find that Goaty thinks much the same of the Democrats as the Republican; they're all &^%*($%'s. I know I think they are anyway...
Basically Bell, most of your opinions seem to come down to blind faith in America, and absolute refusal to accept that there are any faults with the US government. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you're trying to use all sorts of moral justifications to back up your opinion, and that cuts both ways. Don't you feel it would be far more honest if you just admitted that evidence and proof don't matter a damn to you, and that whatever America does, you'll support them?
> Goatboy wrote:
>
> Last time I looked a fair few world leaders were Christians, as is a
> fair portion of the entire world. Yes, he's pro life, so you're
> happier if the President is a supporter of abortion ? Both
> standpoints are equally valid, and you know full well that guys like
> the one executed this week are not representative of Pro-Life
> Campaigners. You object to people generalising anti-war supporters,
> yet you're happy to throw all the pro-lifers into one big group ? As
> for fundamentalist, well he believes in his faith, as do millions of
> others.
So does Usama bin Laden; he's a fundamentalist. As is Abu Bakr, the guy in Indonesia who has just been imprsioned. And Mullah Omar Mohammed; he's a fundamentalist. They all believe in their faith, as do millions of others. Does that make what they do okay in your eyes?
Supporter of abortion? Right...because pro-choice means that abortions should be compulsory, yeah? Do you actually know what pro-choice entails?
>
> Yes, six months of UN negotiations, and 12 years of various nations
> playing siege to Iraq ? You've said yourself you object to the
> reasons given for the war, not the war itself, yes ? Yet if you're
> saying this was a mere "whim" then just what is your
> position because that makes it sound awfully like you think it should
> never have happened. And last time I looked the only places invaded
> have been Afghanistan and Iraq, both in order to remove dangerous
> regimes. You're saying Afghanistan was not justified, that it was a
> "whim" ?
I don't believe Afghanistan was mentioned, but for the record I personally believe that invasion was justified. Shame that, after having promised billions in aid to the Afghan people, not one cent has been spent...
On a whim? Well...yes, to be honest. After all, what possible reason did they have for invading Iraq after all this time? Sept 11th? No proven connection whatsoever; if their was even a kernel of truth in the allegations that the Iraqi army went on hightened alert on Sept 10th, it would have been shouted from the rooftops. WOMD? Where? And what about North Korea's WOMD? Breaking UN sanctions? The US can hardly talk...and for that matter, what about Israel? They break them all the time. Saving the people? Funny how that was the last thing mentioned, no?
>
> Because America is of course the only country with debt and it's ALL
> been built up in one term...
Actually, yes it has. At the end of Clinton's time in office, the trade deficit was cleared. Now it's back. Funny that....
> Because one man can singlehandedly turn around the education system
> in one term, you know full well that any changes made to education
> take many years to filter through, our own Labour government, on one
> and a half terms, has still achieved very little despite some changes
> and improvements.
Actually, Labour's first term showed an increase in literacy and numeracy among children, though it has gone backwards since. Want me to post the link?
And I think you'll find he was elected on promises to do things like turn the education system around. If he can't do it, why did he say he would?
>
> And since when was it the job of the President to overturn the
> Constitution ? There are gun laws in the USA, not the same as ours,
> but there are laws, think last years death total was roughly 34000.
> The fact is, the USA is a democracy, and every person who runs on a
> platform of stricter gun control does not stand a chance. In 1999 US
> gun deaths were around 28000, so that's a rough 6000 deaths gain over
> 4 years, yet the average US yearly population growth is 3.2 million
> people a year, so despite the population growing by 12.8 million, it
> only saw a further 6000 gun deaths.
Well, he's done a good job of trying to overturn the separation of church and state, as stated in the Constitution. Want me to post links to the various ways he's undermined it?
>
>
> Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted
> about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid,
> backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that
> did they, yet...
Heh. Well, as you've admitted to never having read anything Michael Moore read, don't you feel sorta silly saying it's definitely incorrect? As it happens, every single point you made in that post is answered by Stupid White Men.
You're right though; I owe you a response on that topic. Of course, you owe Goaty and myself countless responses to countless topics, but I don't imagine you want to be reminded of that.
As a final point, you'll probably find that Goaty thinks much the same of the Democrats as the Republican; they're all &^%*($%'s. I know I think they are anyway...
Basically Bell, most of your opinions seem to come down to blind faith in America, and absolute refusal to accept that there are any faults with the US government. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you're trying to use all sorts of moral justifications to back up your opinion, and that cuts both ways. Don't you feel it would be far more honest if you just admitted that evidence and proof don't matter a damn to you, and that whatever America does, you'll support them?
Belldandy wrote:
> Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted
> about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid,
> backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that
> did they, yet...
---
As you haven't replied to your calling everyone a communist, then the next post saying that you weren't calling everyone a communist.
Bell, mate, pull that stick out of your ass, lighten up and get laid.
Or failing that, stop spilling patriot-goo over the laminated Bush & Clancy photo under your stars and stripes and realise that you are a parody of yourself.
> Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted
> about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid,
> backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that
> did they, yet...
---
As you haven't replied to your calling everyone a communist, then the next post saying that you weren't calling everyone a communist.
Bell, mate, pull that stick out of your ass, lighten up and get laid.
Or failing that, stop spilling patriot-goo over the laminated Bush & Clancy photo under your stars and stripes and realise that you are a parody of yourself.
I'd like to point out the subsequent post where I tell Saggy not to bother replying because I just wrote crap on the spot.
As it stands though, I do believe George W Bush is a draft-dodging illiterate who's brother has criminal connections to Colombia thanks to his former busines partner, currently serving about 20 years for drug trafficking, a clueless simpleton who is little more than a puppet for big business interests (indicated by the number of his staff that are CEOs and on the payroll of oil-related companies like Enron, Halliburton etc), and dangerously ill-informed on the world.
If I woke tomorrow to hear he had suffered a massive coronary and died, you'd have to struggle to hear Hussein's laughter over my own shrieking glee.
As it stands though, I do believe George W Bush is a draft-dodging illiterate who's brother has criminal connections to Colombia thanks to his former busines partner, currently serving about 20 years for drug trafficking, a clueless simpleton who is little more than a puppet for big business interests (indicated by the number of his staff that are CEOs and on the payroll of oil-related companies like Enron, Halliburton etc), and dangerously ill-informed on the world.
If I woke tomorrow to hear he had suffered a massive coronary and died, you'd have to struggle to hear Hussein's laughter over my own shrieking glee.
Goatboy wrote:
> Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan
> fundamentalist
Last time I looked a fair few world leaders were Christians, as is a fair portion of the entire world. Yes, he's pro life, so you're happier if the President is a supporter of abortion ? Both standpoints are equally valid, and you know full well that guys like the one executed this week are not representative of Pro-Life Campaigners. You object to people generalising anti-war supporters, yet you're happy to throw all the pro-lifers into one big group ? As for fundamentalist, well he believes in his faith, as do millions of others.
>that invades other countries on a whim
Yes, six months of UN negotiations, and 12 years of various nations playing siege to Iraq ? You've said yourself you object to the reasons given for the war, not the war itself, yes ? Yet if you're saying this was a mere "whim" then just what is your position because that makes it sound awfully like you think it should never have happened. And last time I looked the only places invaded have been Afghanistan and Iraq, both in order to remove dangerous regimes. You're saying Afghanistan was not justified, that it was a "whim" ?
>has plunged
> his country into debts totalling trillions,
Because America is of course the only country with debt and it's ALL been built up in one term...
>has a worse illiteracy
> rate than Peru,
Because one man can singlehandedly turn around the education system in one term, you know full well that any changes made to education take many years to filter through, our own Labour government, on one and a half terms, has still achieved very little despite some changes and improvements.
>average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per
> year,
And since when was it the job of the President to overturn the Constitution ? There are gun laws in the USA, not the same as ours, but there are laws, think last years death total was roughly 34000. The fact is, the USA is a democracy, and every person who runs on a platform of stricter gun control does not stand a chance. In 1999 US gun deaths were around 28000, so that's a rough 6000 deaths gain over 4 years, yet the average US yearly population growth is 3.2 million people a year, so despite the population growing by 12.8 million, it only saw a further 6000 gun deaths.
>a dubious (at best) electoral
> result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county
> and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral
> register board for Floriday.
Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid, backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that did they, yet...
> Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan
> fundamentalist
Last time I looked a fair few world leaders were Christians, as is a fair portion of the entire world. Yes, he's pro life, so you're happier if the President is a supporter of abortion ? Both standpoints are equally valid, and you know full well that guys like the one executed this week are not representative of Pro-Life Campaigners. You object to people generalising anti-war supporters, yet you're happy to throw all the pro-lifers into one big group ? As for fundamentalist, well he believes in his faith, as do millions of others.
>that invades other countries on a whim
Yes, six months of UN negotiations, and 12 years of various nations playing siege to Iraq ? You've said yourself you object to the reasons given for the war, not the war itself, yes ? Yet if you're saying this was a mere "whim" then just what is your position because that makes it sound awfully like you think it should never have happened. And last time I looked the only places invaded have been Afghanistan and Iraq, both in order to remove dangerous regimes. You're saying Afghanistan was not justified, that it was a "whim" ?
>has plunged
> his country into debts totalling trillions,
Because America is of course the only country with debt and it's ALL been built up in one term...
>has a worse illiteracy
> rate than Peru,
Because one man can singlehandedly turn around the education system in one term, you know full well that any changes made to education take many years to filter through, our own Labour government, on one and a half terms, has still achieved very little despite some changes and improvements.
>average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per
> year,
And since when was it the job of the President to overturn the Constitution ? There are gun laws in the USA, not the same as ours, but there are laws, think last years death total was roughly 34000. The fact is, the USA is a democracy, and every person who runs on a platform of stricter gun control does not stand a chance. In 1999 US gun deaths were around 28000, so that's a rough 6000 deaths gain over 4 years, yet the average US yearly population growth is 3.2 million people a year, so despite the population growing by 12.8 million, it only saw a further 6000 gun deaths.
>a dubious (at best) electoral
> result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county
> and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral
> register board for Floriday.
Let's not forget the activites of the Democrats, which I have posted about before, and neither you nor Light could replay to the valid, backed up, points. But, then again, no body made a book about that did they, yet...
Goatboy wrote:
> I wouldn't worry about it
Don't worry I'm not er worried; just need to go to some chuffing meeting this afternoon: 2 hours long and won't have the time to spack out my reply. Why one earth anyone wants a meeting on the lagernoon, is beyond me.
> I wouldn't worry about it
Don't worry I'm not er worried; just need to go to some chuffing meeting this afternoon: 2 hours long and won't have the time to spack out my reply. Why one earth anyone wants a meeting on the lagernoon, is beyond me.
I wouldn't worry about it, I just used my usual ass-bot response method of spacking the keys with my digits until they formed a sentence (with little thought) and hit "post this message"
I just want to see Bush choking to death on a pretzel.
Christ...the man can't even eat a snack without injuring somebody
I just want to see Bush choking to death on a pretzel.
Christ...the man can't even eat a snack without injuring somebody
Goatboy wrote:
> The sagacious one wrote:
> But he doesn't force anyone to worship him, he doesn't enforce a
> brtual regime and he hasn't plunged America into the dark ages.
> ---
>
> Er...what news are you watching?
> Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan
> fundamentalist that invades other countries on a whim, has plunged
> his country into debts totalling trillions, has a worse illiteracy
> rate than Peru, average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per
> year, pro-lifers murdering people, a dubious (at best) electoral
> result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county
> and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral
> register board for Floriday.
I'll get back to you on this monday; I need time to think of a suitable reply. I have to resist my usual tactic of making a funny then dipping out of the debate...
> The sagacious one wrote:
> But he doesn't force anyone to worship him, he doesn't enforce a
> brtual regime and he hasn't plunged America into the dark ages.
> ---
>
> Er...what news are you watching?
> Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan
> fundamentalist that invades other countries on a whim, has plunged
> his country into debts totalling trillions, has a worse illiteracy
> rate than Peru, average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per
> year, pro-lifers murdering people, a dubious (at best) electoral
> result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county
> and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral
> register board for Floriday.
I'll get back to you on this monday; I need time to think of a suitable reply. I have to resist my usual tactic of making a funny then dipping out of the debate...
The sagacious one wrote:
> But he doesn't force anyone to worship him, he doesn't enforce a
> brtual regime and he hasn't plunged America into the dark ages.
---
Er...what news are you watching?
Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan fundamentalist that invades other countries on a whim, has plunged his country into debts totalling trillions, has a worse illiteracy rate than Peru, average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per year, pro-lifers murdering people, a dubious (at best) electoral result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral register board for Floriday.
Seems to me, short of killing his own people, he's doing pretty well on the International Bad-Man stage.
(we wont mention Attica, Kent State etc for police murdering innocent people...granted it was the 60s when blacks didnt have the right to vote)
> But he doesn't force anyone to worship him, he doesn't enforce a
> brtual regime and he hasn't plunged America into the dark ages.
---
Er...what news are you watching?
Because I see a small-eyed pro-life supporting Chrisitan fundamentalist that invades other countries on a whim, has plunged his country into debts totalling trillions, has a worse illiteracy rate than Peru, average handgun deaths in the tens of thousands per year, pro-lifers murdering people, a dubious (at best) electoral result thanks to his brother being governor in the deciding county and his dad's former personal assitant being head of the electoral register board for Floriday.
Seems to me, short of killing his own people, he's doing pretty well on the International Bad-Man stage.
(we wont mention Attica, Kent State etc for police murdering innocent people...granted it was the 60s when blacks didnt have the right to vote)
Page: