The Lies He Told (Bush)

[osharp]

Bush sum times i just dont Know about him. i think i could i sit all day and nail* him to a wall. i dont know haw he can stand to look at him self .
lies
lie 1. people form 9 11 from iroq
lie 2. wmd in iroq
lie 3. he said he knows were they are
lie 4. he spied on that one person without a worent and then blamed it on the person that rated him out (i think hes in the joynt*)
and the list gos on

[Kiros]

Wow, although a good portion of that made no sense whatsoever, Bush has probably made less lies in his lifetime than you have in a week. And if he has 'lied' a single time, then he might not have known the truth, so consider that, eh? :) Instead of trying to 'nail him to a wall,' you might want to try believing the guy before you say """LIES!!! ALL LIES!!!""" (triple quotation... 8))

[TheWizard]

I think he lied his way into war. Very bad.

[kolte]

Once again we all seem to think that George Bush is the only person running the country. The only one making decisions. Well his entire administration including Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, all of them make the decisions. And really, they cant do shit without there happy little majority in the house. With republicans controlling the house, anything bush wants to do, is passed. that means the Legislation no longer checks and balances the Ex. Office. So wait a minute, COMMUNISTS, the Administration can just get away with anything, because the house will never try and do anything. The Demo “craps" are just idiots and are completely failing to make any difference whatsoever and the Republic "cunts" are having trouble sleeping anymore after all the shit they have spewed trying “save” there dreamland Christian Moral country. I say get rid of Republicans and Democrats, Make a party from compromise, taking both Republican traits, and Democratic traits, and then create 50 other parties, and then have the house be varied with many different parties, with a freakin' independent president. That way he’s clear to make decisions to help the people, not his party. Then the house is balanced, so the people those varied parties represent, are, well, represented. Or we can just continue on our current path, it seems to be working perfectly.

[advent_child]

hmm well he needs some democratic backing and bi-partison support or nothing gets done. The republicans don't always agree with him, look at Dubai.

[kolte]

hmm well he needs some democratic backing and bi-partison support or nothing gets done. The republicans don't always agree with him, look at Dubai.

yes well, you are right about a small minority of democratic backing. And Dubai was a split debate, some republicans wanted, some didnt, most democrats didnt. I was split both ways personally, I supported the right of the free market economy and I was nervous about an arab compony running us ports. But that is another issue for another debate.

George Bush has made some mistakes.........ok many mistakes, but its only a matter of time that the democrats will take majority house, and we will slowly fix our wounds.

[advent_child]

Well I find it strange that members of congress have no quarrell with a British company running the ports, but go up in arms when an Arab company does. It shows some amount of profiling and racism, as the company would have had no power over tariffs, essentially all they would do is load and unload cargo.

[kolte]

Well I find it strange that members of congress have no quarrell with a British company running the ports, but go up in arms when an Arab company does. It shows some amount of profiling and racism, as the company would have had no power over tariffs, essentially all they would do is load and unload cargo.

well I'm not shocked nor do I find it strange that we might get a little ancy when a company from a region of the world the US is in war with, is protested for buying ports in the states. We are not in war with Europe, so its not as shocking :wink:

[advent_child]

Well I find it strange that members of congress have no quarrell with a British company running the ports, but go up in arms when an Arab company does. It shows some amount of profiling and racism, as the company would have had no power over tariffs, essentially all they would do is load and unload cargo.

well I'm not shocked nor do I find it strange that we might get a little ancy when a company from a region of the world the US is in war with, is protested for buying ports in the states. We are not in war with Europe, so its not as shocking :wink:


so in world war two, if a british company bought the ports, you would be against it because were at war with a company in the region of the world the us is in war with? THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES are our allies! We sould not hold one country accountable for another's actions.

[kolte]

Well I find it strange that members of congress have no quarrell with a British company running the ports, but go up in arms when an Arab company does. It shows some amount of profiling and racism, as the company would have had no power over tariffs, essentially all they would do is load and unload cargo.

well I'm not shocked nor do I find it strange that we might get a little ancy when a company from a region of the world the US is in war with, is protested for buying ports in the states. We are not in war with Europe, so its not as shocking :wink:


so in world war two, if a british company bought the ports, you would be against it because were at war with a company in the region of the world the us is in war with? THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES are our allies! We sould not hold one country accountable for another's actions.

you are trying to relate WW2 with the war on terror? How does that make any since? They are two VERY different wars in two very different times. WW2 was axis and allies. One group of many countries vs. another group of many countries. The war on terror is many different countries vs. an organization that spreads out over the entire world. The middle east is the mother reigion of this organization. Many many people who will stop at nothing to ensure that the western way of life is destroyed. If they would have bought our ports and gone forth, and an attack did happen, then all hell would have broken loose. Not including the loss of human life, bush would have been impeached half of congress would have freaked out, revolutions on the streets. Our economic secruity would freak and the terrorists would strike us when we were down. So go ahead, let terrorists take over our economy, see what happens.

[advent_child]

Well I find it strange that members of congress have no quarrell with a British company running the ports, but go up in arms when an Arab company does. It shows some amount of profiling and racism, as the company would have had no power over tariffs, essentially all they would do is load and unload cargo.

well I'm not shocked nor do I find it strange that we might get a little ancy when a company from a region of the world the US is in war with, is protested for buying ports in the states. We are not in war with Europe, so its not as shocking :wink:


so in world war two, if a british company bought the ports, you would be against it because were at war with a company in the region of the world the us is in war with? THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES are our allies! We sould not hold one country accountable for another's actions.

you are trying to relate WW2 with the war on terror? How does that make any since? They are two VERY different wars in two very different times. WW2 was axis and allies. One group of many countries vs. another group of many countries. The war on terror is many different countries vs. an organization that spreads out over the entire world. The middle east is the mother reigion of this organization. Many many people who will stop at nothing to ensure that the western way of life is destroyed. If they would have bought our ports and gone forth, and an attack did happen, then all hell would have broken loose. Not including the loss of human life, bush would have been impeached half of congress would have freaked out, revolutions on the streets. Our economic secruity would freak and the terrorists would strike us when we were down. So go ahead, let terrorists take over our economy, see what happens.


There is no reason to include the UAE in a list of countires that support terrorism because the government doesn't include them on the bloody list. They would be unloading and loading ships, that is it. So if a country which is based in the UAE unloads ships in the US, suddenly terrorists are running our ports?

[AC.wAkeBoArDin.06]

Monica Lewinski has more president in her than bush does.... (sexual pun for thouse who missed it)

[BillyWitchDoctor.com]

advent_child, its not like we dont like people from the UAE its just that they are near countries where terrorists are suspected to be so we are against them controlling our ports because we fear that those nearby terrorists could have ease in slipping in and getting to the US. All those countries in the mid east arent sad depressing places where people are killed and terrorized all the time, but nor are they happy places where everyone respects others ways of life. and about the British in WW2, they were our main Ally so of course we'd be trading with them. Our troops marched into battle with them, fought with them and died with them so we werent nervous about keeping open trade with them. but when we were nervous about what Germany was doing befoer the start of WW1, we stopped selling them Hydrogen so they wouldnt be able to use zeppelins as they were and it stopped their hydrogen engineering because we were worried they were doing something we didnt like. so if we dont have trade with someone, there's a reason for it because trade influences economies so much tese days

[advent_child]

WELL>>> there would be no more ships coming in from the UAE if they did get the contract. There is a growing muslim population in Europe, maybey terrorists could come in on those ships!! Maybey we should live in fear for the rest of our lives. It is a matter of opinion whether we sould base all of our decisions on where terrorists may or may not be. Why do people think that they would have complete control of the ports?

[kolte]

we don't think they would have complete controll of the ports, but its more likly with an arab county contorlling us ports that a terror attack would happen. I'm for a free economy, but I'm not ready to hand the enemy our ports. and yes, i said enemy. The government has good intintions. BUt many of the people do not!