General Chat / George W. Bush

This reply would have been hysterical, had Git not edited his post numerous times.

Indeed.


Ty: Wait.
Ty: I will unedit it.
Gramsci: I edited it.
Ty: FUCKER!
Ty: No!
Gramsci: I see.
Ty: Unedit it!
Gramsci: I'm going to IM Iris right now, and make him take a look at that thread.
Gramsci: You better reaccess your situation.
Ty: Never.
Ty: What the fuh.
Ty: Bastard. Now, it is not funny.
Ty:
Gramsci: Relax, Ty.
Ty: No./
Ty: !@#!@4 783478di
Ty: I am Onan in disguise.
Ty: I hate myself.

As for the Bush quotes - all the quotes I used were from that golden age before Bush got elected. There's probably millions more by now.
Back to the burning issue at hand:
Radu is retarded.

Go Utilitarianism, working for the greatest happiness, of the greatest number 

Wouldn't "as much happiness for all people" make more sense?

Gramsci: You better reaccess your situation.

Reaccess? Does that mean I need to retype my password?

Radu is retarded.

Pretty much, yeah.

Um... don't conservatives support smaller government involvement?
Wouldn't liberals have more "restrictive laws" for the bennifit of society?

That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.
Look in a dictionary and see what "liberal" means.
Then:
Shut up.

Liberal:
1. A person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
2. A person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets (which, if you study US History proves to be false. FDR (democrat) was the biggest advocate for government-regulated markets, as opposed to Hoover and Harting, who were for self-regulating markets.

Conservative:
1. Resistant to change
2. Opposed to liberal reforms
3. Avoiding excess
4. Unimaginatively conventional
5. Conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class

Democrats support stronger government involvement and regulations, which isn't a bad thing, necissarily. Republicans support a smaller government, and more self-regulation. (laissez-faire, if you will).

Get the facts strait before you call my posts retarded.
Then:
Shut up.

Whoever said anything about Democrats being liberal? That's retarded.

Here's a few more definitions for "liberal":
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
Not strict or literal; loose or approximate
Not strict or rigorous; not confined or restricted to the literal sense; free; as, a liberal translation of a classic, or a liberal construction of law or of language.


If you want to continue making an ass out of yourself, at least make adopt proper hick terminogragy.

I'm sure Greece is doing well.
They Invented democracy,after all.

I'm sure Greece is doing well.
They Invented democracy,after all.

You're a lost child.

OT: Why does it say in DRE's sig.

i'm not goona change your life

?


Thankyou for listening...

i can spell better than you.

...
I think we have a misunderstanding here...
When i say conservatives are restrictive, I mean morally restrictive. Yes, more leeway in money is something you might THINK is good, but frankly that's just your own greed talking. Its also the greed of Republicans talking. Saying they are stupid isn't true, it's just that I feel they push for morally restrictive laws that are more "accentuated" to their own dogmatic ideals of what is "right". AKA, ignorant fools who want you to follow THEIR idea of what is morally correct. Fuck that. You see how selfish that is? Everything about Republicans always seems to target the smaller audience, the audience who has always made sure to vote(people with lots of money and don't want to lose it).

The majority of people as a whole would be democrats. But the problem is that a huge chunk of that demographic seems to think they won't make a difference (mostly those who are not wealthy, as they don't have much anyway, they don't think the government really has an adverse affect on them). This bit I got from a government teacher who used to live in DC, and was republican himself, so I don't want to see any naysayers of that interjection. I think it's safe to say that if everyone eligible voted, republicans would never get a majority of the ballot.

That's all for now, no more tangents. Feel free to scavenge my post for discrepancies to lash back at me with, yeah.

I think, no matter what anybody else says, that George Bush is doing a good job as President. Some people need to get their facts straight *glares at DRE*

~Resident Madman ~

*sigh*
i c ded pplz,you read my sig wrong,that's slang,FYI.
Sheesh,it was just my opinion about Bush being a dumbass and all.

...
I think we have a misunderstanding here...
When i say conservatives are restrictive, I mean morally restrictive.  Yes, more leeway in money is something you might THINK is good, but frankly that's just your own greed talking.  Its also the greed of Republicans talking.  Saying they are stupid isn't true, it's just that I feel they push for morally restrictive laws that are more "accentuated" to their own dogmatic ideals of what is "right".  AKA, ignorant fools who want you to follow THEIR idea of what is morally correct.  Fuck that.  You see how selfish that is?  Everything about Republicans always seems to target the smaller audience, the audience who has always made sure to vote(people with lots of money and don't want to lose it).

The majority of people as a whole would be democrats.  But the problem is that a huge chunk of that demographic seems to think they won't make a difference (mostly those who are not wealthy, as they don't have much anyway, they don't think the government really has an adverse affect on them).  This bit I got from a government teacher who used to live in DC, and was republican himself, so I don't want to see any naysayers of that interjection.  I think it's safe to say that if everyone eligible voted, republicans would never get a majority of the ballot.

That's all for now, no more tangents.  Feel free to scavenge my post for discrepancies to lash back at me with, yeah.

I think CA is letting illegal immigrants vote now...or was that get a drivers license...either way, illegal immigrants need to be deported instead of getting special benefits here in the States.

The topic should actually read:

Gray Davis
He's really a dumb-ass.

I think CA is letting illegal immigrants vote now...or was that get a drivers license...either way, illegal immigrants need to be deported instead of getting special benefits here in the States.

Why should they be deported? Because they're "illegal"? Give me a break. They are people who come to America searching for a better life, and frankly, it is my opinion that they should at least be given the chance to have one.

Just like you, me, and everyone else who is here "legally", whatever that is supposed to mean. Besides, there are a lot of reasons why illegal immigrants need ID, other than driving.

I'm pretty sure that's why the law (if it is indeed allowing them to have drivers liscenes) was put into place. Its a good idea, imo.

Then again, when did a nutcase like you ever agree with me?

Then again, when did a nutcase like you ever agree with me?

Chauncey: when pigs fly.

G-Rocks: In anycase, I'm not citing specific persons as to why I hate Republicans (as you seem to be doing when talking about Democrats), that would be tactless.
I'm against the ideals they uphold, which are innately selfish and self serving. This is obviously something you support, made obvious by your heinous statement.

A learning experience here for yall:

democrats=less moral obligation, more financial obligation.
republicans=less financial obligation, more moral obligation.

-I agree with my money going to programs to help needy. Because well, they need it more than I do, I'm not as materialistic as most (realistically, I AM using a cable modem, but hey, I didn't buy it, and its all i have. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth)
-I don't agree with my rights being taken away for a greater "moral" good though. I see ethics as subjective, as such the government shouldn't really have any control over it other than "security" and "fraud". In this way, NE is loose with this, while rct2.com is a bunch of tightwads who would "oooh" if you said a naughty word. Get it?

Then again, my gov teacher could have lied to me... fat chance though, considering the bastard was republican. That "democrat=/republican=" thing was his by the way.

Why should they be deported? Because they're "illegal"? Give me a break. They are people who come to America searching for a better life, and frankly, it is my opinion that they should at least be given the chance to have one.

Why? Because....hmm, I don't know, they're here illegaly.

Do you realize how hard people work and how much money they pay to become legal citizens of the US? Why should we reward those who come here illegaly by just hopping a fence or jumping off a ship with the same benefits that we give the people who work so hard to come here legally? This is the thinking of people with common sense. If you wanna change the system, then that's a different story.

G-Rocks: In anycase, I'm not citing specific persons as to why I hate Republicans (as you seem to be doing when talking about Democrats), that would be tactless.
I'm against the ideals they uphold, which are innately selfish and self serving. This is obviously something you support, made obvious by your heinous statement.

If you're talking about the Gray Davis comment, then that was kind of a random thought from my immigration comment.

Then again, when did a nutcase like you ever agree with me?

Whenever I forget my common sense at home.

Why? Because....hmm, I don't know, they're here illegaly.

Do you realize how hard people work and how much money they pay to become legal citizens of the US? Why should we reward those who come here illegaly by just hopping a fence or jumping off a ship with the same benefits that we give the people who work so hard to come here legally? This is the thinking of people with common sense. If you wanna change the system, then that's a different story.

What about the Cuban citizens who defect here? Should they not be allowed in because they're Cuban and not here legally? Some people cannot get here legally because of their previous restrictive government. They come because they want a better life for themselves and their family. Is that so bad?

...and other people are here illegally because they're poor, and cannot afford to move here in legal fashion. But every human being, rich or poor, deserves to live wherever they so choose.

If they choose the USA, well, good for them. I say let them stay, if you don't, well, what can I do? Nothing.

Oh, and, G-Rocks, when have you not forgotten your common sense at home, if I might ask? And how long has it been since you misplaced those little things called compassion, morals and common decency?

Must have been ages ago...

And how long has it been since you misplaced those little things called compassion, morals and common decency?

Must have been ages ago...

Am I the only one who noticed the irony in that?

I'm all for legal immigration. I think it's a great thing that makes this nation better, since that what this nation was made from to begin with.

However, no matter how well ilegal immigrants' intensions are, no matter how poor they are, they're still breaking the law, whether you agree with the law or not. Therefor, they should not receive special bennifits, drivers licences, or free health care because of it. That would be like saying that if a person is poor enough, they should have the decent right to steel whatever they need from a store. It doesn't work like that. There are ways that they can still get that stuff, but they have to do it legally, because there are laws for a reason.

As warm and fuzzy as leaving borders open to come to this country feels, we simply can't afford it. Hospitals are overcrowded, and our going bankrupt, because they have to treat anybody (legal or illegal) who comes in need of health care. (Which I'm all for, don't get me wrong), but they can't charge them, because they don't have citizenship. Even if the illegals have the money, they still can't be tracked down. And the federal government can't reimberse the hospitals, like they could with legal citizens.

Whether you agree with the law or not, they're still breaking it, and need to face the consequences. Democrats wont fix the problem, because most immigrants become Democrat. Republicans wont fix the problem, because too many bussiness owners rely on illegal immigrants to work for practically nothing, with no bennifits.

If you want to become a citizen, fine. But the first thing about being a citizen is obeying the law.


And, Git, Democrats tend to be more liberal and Rupublicans tend to be more Conservative. So, they often become interchangable.

Am I the only one who noticed the irony in that?

Nope.

I'm all for legal immigration.  I think it's a great thing that makes this nation better, since that what this nation was made from to begin with.

However, no matter how well ilegal immigrants' intensions are, no matter how poor they are, they're still breaking the law, whether you agree with the law or not.  Therefor, they should not receive special bennifits, drivers licences, or free health care because of it.  That would be like saying that if a person is poor enough, they should have the decent right to steel whatever they need from a store.  It doesn't work like that. There are ways that they can still get that stuff, but they have to do it legally, because there are laws for a reason.

As warm and fuzzy as leaving borders open to come to this country feels, we simply can't afford it.  Hospitals are overcrowded, and our going bankrupt, because they have to treat anybody (legal or illegal) who comes in need of health care. (Which I'm all for, don't get me wrong), but they can't charge them, because they don't have citizenship.  Even if the illegals have the money, they still can't be tracked down.  And the federal government can't reimberse the hospitals, like they could with legal citizens.

Whether you agree with the law or not, they're still breaking it, and need to face the consequences.  Democrats wont fix the problem, because most immigrants become Democrat.  Republicans wont fix the problem, because too many bussiness owners rely on illegal immigrants to work for practically nothing, with no bennifits.

If you want to become a citizen, fine.  But the first thing about being a citizen is obeying the law.


And, Git, Democrats tend to be more liberal and Rupublicans tend to be more Conservative.  So, they often become interchangable.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Illegal immigrants are breaking the law. If you want to change the system, then that's a different story, but people who come here illegally are still breaking the law.
It's just common sense to reward those who come here legally over the ones who come here illegaly.

When will you retard hippies learn that G-Rocks is always right?

No, I'm not being sarcastic. Saying illegal immigrants don't have a right to vote is common-fucking-sense. I don't even need to argue my point here, because if you had any fucking sense, you'd see it.
Sure, the world would be great if we all hugged trees and shit, but I'd rather put a bullet to my head and paint the wall with my brains.

Anyway, Gardner, forgive any harshness. I am just bitter that RealOne turned out to be the biggest pile of shit media player I've ever seen.

What about the Cuban citizens who defect here? Should they not be allowed in because they're Cuban and not here legally? Some people cannot get here legally because of their previous restrictive government. They come because they want a better life for themselves and their family. Is that so bad?

They can always claim asylum. America isn't that much of a right-wing shithole. They may well get rejected and fed to the sharks, sure, but the fact remains that if they wanted to enter America to escape despotic rulers (which is a statement so fucking funny that I just fell off my chair - American citizens seeking asylum in Cuba actually makes more sense), they should at least have the common sense to try.

And, Git, Democrats tend to be more liberal and Rupublicans tend to be more Conservative. So, they often become interchangable.

Holy shit, could you be more patronising?
Listen: I'm smarter than Rebel, but that doesn't exactly make me smart.
The Clinton administration completely downsized the welfare state. Which is pretty much the most right-wing thing you can do, besides banning atheism (I'm sure Bush has been up all night working on that one).
Just because they're more liberal than the Na-, I mean, Republican party, it doesn't mean that they are liberal.
I mean, shit. Gun control?
Please.

Aside from all of this - how does increasing taxes and providing additional welfare and free healthcare count as "restrictive". It's not "restrictive". You pay taxes no matter who-the-fuck is leading the country. Only, in the conservative case, all that money goes to such worthwhile causes as bombin' and killin'.
I'll tell you what I call "restrictive". Censorship. Having to pay for healthcare. Not having the ability to wear a towel on your head without getting tackled to the ground by some ex-jock petrol pumper.
The conservative mindset is anti-abortion, anti-drugs, anti-
You know how it goes.

Anyway. I am going to reply to Radu's original post. I didn't earlier because I am a lazy bastard.

Then you still have no right to complain. We voted. You wern't there. You have to obey our rules.

Being a citizen, he has the right to bitch and moan, and complain, and write neat little letters to his local congressman all he wants. Just because politicians are fucking cynical enough to ignore anyone who doesn't vote, doesn't make it right. The government is meant to serve the people. All of the people.
Saying that you aren't entitled to a voice because you didn't vote is just plain stupidity speaking.

And you do sound like an idiot unless you have something worth saying. Saying he's the worst president because he trips up on words makes you sound like the shallow, ignorant, Americans who are really the problem with this country. You probably wanted to vote for Gore because he was taller and had broader shoulders.

He's not the one that sounds like an idiot.
Like it or not, being a good speaker is a central pillar of leadership. More people would have been for the war if George Bush wasn't such an unintelligable fuckbucket.
Do you seriously think that Bush's negative image overseas has all that much to do with his policies?
His policies aren't that bad.
But, in case you missed it, here is what the world thinks about Bush:
"Holy fuck. A redneck hick with all the linguistic skills of a Placebo-addicted German has hijacked America."
It's a pretty accurate observation.
I love the way most people are scratching their heads, wondering, "Why aren't people for the war?", when Bush reasons it all by saying -
"THEY'RE EVIL! WE'LL SMOKE THEM OUT!"
Way to steer public opinion.
Generally speaking, Radu, Rambo-addicts do not make good presidents.

He'd be able to get more international support if he could actually, you know, pronounce words and form coherent sentences. Look at Kennedy. Much of his great reputation came from two things: His speeches, and him getting shot.
In politics, words seem to speak louder than action.
Which is why Bush will always be remembered as mentally-challenged puppet.