View Single Post
Old 04-21-2004, 02:30 AM
VenusaurTrainer's Avatar
VenusaurTrainer Offline
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 1,387
Send a message via AIM to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via MSN to VenusaurTrainer Send a message via Yahoo to VenusaurTrainer
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
Well, I'm back, and in a political mood.

That is the complete and utter opposite of what I heard and remember. I remember Bush winning Florida back before the rest of the states had their votes polled, and it was Al Gore that had wanted the recount. Specifically calling on a media report with the relative title of "Bush to still be in the lead?" having a picture of florida painted red. First a news website.
along with

So you mean to point out a few speach errors by speaches that aren't even his own while the general idea is still being passed effectively proves that someone is an idiot. Some of the smartest men in the world couldn't speak "effectively". Atleast he's not some fake polition who uses fancy words to make himself sound smart, but rather a more down-to-earth guy.

I don't find how this is dumb. Whether your community or not has this issue may affect your opinion, but this is an issue at my place. You see, no one really cares in Nevada. You take a test, you pass or fail, you move on.

That is taken out of context like no tomarrow.

Jockularity I guess doesn't run in your evalutaion of a person I guess. And second, was he just further pressing a point with a semi-serious statement? Context.

I once again don't see what's wrong here. Unless you are going to point out the use of the word "ain't".

Are these little dashes pauses or skipping parts of a quote? I once again don't see what is wrong with this statement. Please clarify your problem here.

Oh wow a slight misuse of a word. Ever call someone by the wrong name.

I don't see what is wrong with this statement, again. The definition of appalling is used correctly here, that is Causing consternation or dismay; frightful

Once again taken out of context. It is very obvious that he was referancing to those who were violating the peacefulness of the Iraqis, and was referring to the violaters mentioned previously in the speach, or what the whole speach section was about.

That was in perspective of right now. We are NOT manufacturing nuclear weapons right now. Before, we were dumber. We know better now.

Simply put: he sees headlines in his very busy schedual only to be told them by the same people who make the headlines or the headlines are about, and skips the crap and moves onto the important stuff.

Once again an improper use of a word taken out of context disregarding the whole notion of the statement. Little reality check: when speaking to the nation, the rights words don't always come at the right time.

First of all, taken out of context failing to see the whole picture of what he is saying.

I have commented on the "wrong word under pressure" thing before.

He means he was in a small business. I commented on the pressure thing before.

Families plate is probably what he meant. But once again, sometimes someone stammers when under pressure.

Excuse me while I laugh.
*heh heh heh ha ha ha*
Now let me ask you: what kind of invalid cheap underhanded ploy is this? The speach mistakes that a person makes while under pressure and taken out of context doesn't demean his ability to govern a country. He isn't spelling things out. Often times, he's saying stuff on-spot. Unless you can go up to your entire school, give a perfect speach with no grammatical multiple times over a period of 4 years with people asking questions both on the spot and through the mail because you are required of it, then you have no room to speak. I already said this, but some people aren't as much of a fluent speaker under pressure as others. Let me know once you can comprehend the different abilities of a person to speak.

Oh wow a persons motor skills and finess in a mass-written paper determins how good of a president he should be. Ever meet a doctor?

Exuse me while I laugh.

*heh heh heh heh ha ha ha ha!*
I am doing a report on the No child left behind act. Let me tell you: it's not fake. Do me a favor, and read this
This is the legal document of the No child left behind act. Trust me: he's not lying in ANYTHING he says, and I dare you to try to prove me wrong.

WRONGO! The Elementary and Secondary Education act was issued in 1965. In this act, it required a regular overhall of it's texts every 5-7 years, which the most recent overhall was called the no child left behind act. So unless he traveled back in time and made that president write that up so he can say that, your wrong. A kids ability to pass a grade does NOT invoid the No child left behind act, which (from what I've read from the whole frikken thing) mentions nothing about holding a child back. Don't associate stuff with the act until you know it.

Do me a favor and give me all the 386 pokemon in order. Right now, without going to any website.
I fail to see intellectual comprehension of this statement. He doesn't call the troops back because firstly he promised that he would liberate Iraq of terrorrism. Pulling the troops back would make him a liar. Second, the troops are in their not only for the Iraqis safety, but for America's safety aswell. It's like putting stricter rules on a school to prevent them from getting hurt.
America has done far more good than harm, and they can't rebuild their foundation on their own.
I guess you are amongst the most who can't seem to seperate the idea of the liberation of Iraq along the the true nature with the war on terrorrism and the fight in Afghanistan. We KNOW that Iraq didn't bomb us.
Finally someone agrees with me. Lets say George W Bush did not send our troops to Iraq and Suddaum Hussiean had weapons of mass destruction. 4 years down the road USA is attacked by Suddaum with weapons of mass destruction. I think Bush made a great descion to take out Saddaum. Before he attacked us.
Reply With Quote