View Single Post
Old 05-05-2004, 12:58 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Originally Posted by Kenny_C.002
Sorry. I was saying that the governments all control what is to be broadcasted within their own country. Right now I'm talking about just American media being controlled to a certain extent by the American government.
I think that comes from the government limiting information to the media, because right now, the media (resident media) doesn't like Bush in the least bit. Even though they admit certain things about him, they have it as a side comment, and still try to blame Bush for every thing that goes wrong.

Not really. Thinking back, America never really went the way to negotiation to begin with. It's natural to bomb the living daylights out of anything that oppose them.
O.K. Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"?. Well, here's the most memorable part. You remember Monica Louisnky (I do not know how to spell her last name)? Well, during the Clinton's term, possibly in order to try to deviate attention from his many sex offenses, he O.K. ed a more intense attack against Iraq when they started giving us crap again. That's one thing I liked about him: he didn't take crap from no one.

YEs, it was a unanimous decision to TAKE ACTION, NOT TO BOMB THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF IRAQ TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY KILLING EVERYONE. They wanted action to ensure that people in both sides are safe. When they said "take action", they meant negotiations, not bombing.
That certainly isn't the story I heard. It has to be a Unanimous decision to take action, not to not take action. Remember when they started calling French Fries Freedom Fries? That's why: France decided to not support the war. If it was a unanimous decision, then we wouldn't have singled out France. I seem to remember America delaying the attack against Iraq for quite awhile, eventually giving an ultimatum when some rediculously good evidence came forth.

btw, Canada joined the UN in the past (I think it's some time after WW2).
I remember the UN being established after WWII in order to prevent cruel dictoral actions such as Hitler from occuring. I didn't know Canada joined up.
As for the "about time" thing, see above.
Soon after we went to war, the UN decided to help us out.
Small mistakes is tolerable, but this is more of a large mistake when you say the Prime Minister's name a food. I doubt anyone could make a mistake between Cretian and Poutine, being completely different in pronounciation (I'm talking like proper language-wise). It's like calling Mr. Mao of China "Sir Macdonalds". It's not as simple as a "simple mistake".
Proper language wise, "there", "their", and "they're" have quite noticable differences in their pronounciation. Remember: He is from Texas. Texans aren't exactly known to have the best grammer and pronounciation out there.

What I consider a "small mistake" is a mistake that means little to nothing. So he pronounced his name wrong. So what? It didn't cost America twenty mil` because of it.

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
Reply With Quote