Bush and Kerry are related, it wouldn't have made a difference who's in office. Bush by no means a dictator. To tell you the truth, it really doesn't matter who's in office anyway, Special Interest and Big Business run Washington DC.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mircrowave! wrote: [/QUOTENAME]then he, Joe Pesci, and Chavez should go make GONE FISHIN' 2.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ihavenolegs wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Geroge W Bush [/QUOTE]
Ah, an anti-Bush retard. We spell it George as most George's do.
[/QUOTE]
It's called a typo! W and I have something in common, we both spell George they same way! LOL! I'm not really anti-Bush either, how can you seriously come up with that assumption by reading one post?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ihavenolegs wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Geroge W Bush [/QUOTE]
Ah, an anti-Bush retard. We spell it George as most George's do.
[/QUOTE]
It's called a typo! W and I have something in common, we both spell George they same way! LOL! I'm not really anti-Bush either, how can you seriously come up with that assumption by reading one post?
Then proove your intellegence other than some random insult. State your case. Do you have one or do you just like calling people names?
What's your solution for the War on Terror? Economy? Alternate energy sources? Same Sex marriage? Aren't all marriages the "same-old sex?"
What's your solution for the War on Terror? Economy? Alternate energy sources? Same Sex marriage? Aren't all marriages the "same-old sex?"
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud. Heck, the Mexicans still can't figure out who their President is!!!
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud. Heck, the Mexicans still can't figure out who their President is!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ihavenolegs wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Bush and Kerry are related, it wouldn't have made a difference who's in office. Bush by no means a dictator. To tell you the truth, it really doesn't matter who's in office anyway, Special Interest and Big Business run Washington DC.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.
Bingo.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mircrowave! wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud.[/QUOTE]
I think that Mari is talking about the Election of Chavez.
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud.[/QUOTE]
I think that Mari is talking about the Election of Chavez.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mircrowave! wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud. Heck, the Mexicans still can't figure out who their President is!!![/QUOTE]
Not true, you should read the paper more often. It was decided a couple of weeks ago.
I remember when I posted the fraud about the elections of 2004 and I got bashed... Thank God now everyone in the world sees that.[/QUOTE]
There was no fraud on the election of 2004.
Bush simply had more electoral votes than Kerry. The US doesn't base their election process on the popular vote. That doesn't work and would encourage voter fraud. Heck, the Mexicans still can't figure out who their President is!!![/QUOTE]
Not true, you should read the paper more often. It was decided a couple of weeks ago.
Which paper? Some British tabloid? The New York Post?
Sorry, I don't read The Enquirer.
Sorry, I don't read The Enquirer.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2396424&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
MEXICO CITY Sep 5, 2006 (AP)— Felipe Calderon became president-elect of Mexico on Tuesday, two months after disputed elections, when the nation's top electoral court voted unanimously to reject allegations of fraud and certify his narrow victory.
MEXICO CITY Sep 5, 2006 (AP)— Felipe Calderon became president-elect of Mexico on Tuesday, two months after disputed elections, when the nation's top electoral court voted unanimously to reject allegations of fraud and certify his narrow victory.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]BTW... Danny Glover is friendly with Chavez, he came here once for a meeting with the loonatic from Miraflores.[/QUOTE]
The guy from Angels in the Outfield?
The guy from Angels in the Outfield?
The guy from the Lethal Weapon movies.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Marial-B wrote: [/QUOTENAME]BTW... Danny Glover is friendly with Chavez, he came here once for a meeting with the loonatic from Miraflores.[/QUOTE]
The guy from Angels in the Outfield?[/QUOTE]
The same. Glover is out there.....
The guy from Angels in the Outfield?[/QUOTE]
The same. Glover is out there.....
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ihavenolegs wrote: [/QUOTENAME]http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2396424&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
MEXICO CITY Sep 5, 2006 (AP)— Felipe Calderon became president-elect of Mexico on Tuesday, two months after disputed elections, when the nation's top electoral court voted unanimously to reject allegations of fraud and certify his narrow victory.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but what about the Bush elections? That's what YOU were raving about.
PS: thanks for the info on Mexico. See? news to me too! Viva President Calderon!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Glover is out there.....[/QUOTE]
Boy, he sure is!
MEXICO CITY Sep 5, 2006 (AP)— Felipe Calderon became president-elect of Mexico on Tuesday, two months after disputed elections, when the nation's top electoral court voted unanimously to reject allegations of fraud and certify his narrow victory.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but what about the Bush elections? That's what YOU were raving about.
PS: thanks for the info on Mexico. See? news to me too! Viva President Calderon!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Haystacks Calhounski wrote: [/QUOTENAME] Glover is out there.....[/QUOTE]
Boy, he sure is!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sherwood Forest wrote: [/QUOTENAME]how do u mak fun of Fox because its the only news that doesnt chose sides
and if it seems like they do all of you people think its the wrong side.[/QUOTE]
I get all my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
...FOX News is definitely not the only news network that gets picked on.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that all major news networks get picked on all the time. Fox just seems to be conservative at times, whether it is or is not. However, it's not so much the networks that are biased as it is the people who represent it...and since EVERYONE is biased to some extent, you really have to expect that.
But at least the Daily Show and Colbert Report don't try to hide the fact that they are massively liberal. I think all news networks should take after their example. Each one should pick a side and compete with other networks in that respect. And occasionally you could have some cross-network debates and such...it would be amazingly fun to watch. You could have a channel for the Democrats...one for the Republicans...hey, even give the Libertarians a channel.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that disageeing with the Bush administration instantly labels us a radical liberals?
The majority of people who disagree with the policies of our government happen to be moderate (both liberal and conservative), but either way we get placed on the other extreme side of the political spectrum along with Michael Moore and Rage Against The Machine.
Sure most comedians happen to be liberal, moderates, non-partisan, or libertarian. While there's no doubt that they seem to have more sympathy for Clinton than Bush, did they distance themselves from making Clinton jokes during the Monica Lewinsky scandal?[/QUOTE]
You make a number of good points, however, it doesn't relate to my post. I never called anyone a radical liberal, however it is fairly obvious that Colbert and Stewart have liberal leanings.
Of course, everytime something big hits the news, the Daily Show will attack it. They will always attack the current administration, no matter where it is aligned. And it's all in the good name of comedy. However, it's obvious that they hit harder against the right, and in a more serious fashion than for the sake of pure comedy.
Now, here I only refer to the Daily Show, and not any other comedians or people in general.
I, for one, disagree with most aspects of the Bush administration, however, I do consider myself very much so in the middle of the road - with mostly classically liberal views. So I do think that in disagreeing with Bush, you have people from all areas of the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right.
and if it seems like they do all of you people think its the wrong side.[/QUOTE]
I get all my news from the Daily Show and the Colbert Report.
...FOX News is definitely not the only news network that gets picked on.[/QUOTE]
I'm pretty sure that all major news networks get picked on all the time. Fox just seems to be conservative at times, whether it is or is not. However, it's not so much the networks that are biased as it is the people who represent it...and since EVERYONE is biased to some extent, you really have to expect that.
But at least the Daily Show and Colbert Report don't try to hide the fact that they are massively liberal. I think all news networks should take after their example. Each one should pick a side and compete with other networks in that respect. And occasionally you could have some cross-network debates and such...it would be amazingly fun to watch. You could have a channel for the Democrats...one for the Republicans...hey, even give the Libertarians a channel.[/QUOTE]
Why is it that disageeing with the Bush administration instantly labels us a radical liberals?
The majority of people who disagree with the policies of our government happen to be moderate (both liberal and conservative), but either way we get placed on the other extreme side of the political spectrum along with Michael Moore and Rage Against The Machine.
Sure most comedians happen to be liberal, moderates, non-partisan, or libertarian. While there's no doubt that they seem to have more sympathy for Clinton than Bush, did they distance themselves from making Clinton jokes during the Monica Lewinsky scandal?[/QUOTE]
You make a number of good points, however, it doesn't relate to my post. I never called anyone a radical liberal, however it is fairly obvious that Colbert and Stewart have liberal leanings.
Of course, everytime something big hits the news, the Daily Show will attack it. They will always attack the current administration, no matter where it is aligned. And it's all in the good name of comedy. However, it's obvious that they hit harder against the right, and in a more serious fashion than for the sake of pure comedy.
Now, here I only refer to the Daily Show, and not any other comedians or people in general.
I, for one, disagree with most aspects of the Bush administration, however, I do consider myself very much so in the middle of the road - with mostly classically liberal views. So I do think that in disagreeing with Bush, you have people from all areas of the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right.
I didn't say anything about the 2004 election!