I haven't even watched it the past few years, theres no point with that guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow. I don't even know what to say to that. Thanks for that intelligent and helpful post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for these "monpolies on future energy efficient ideas," do you guys know this for a fact? And if it's common knowledge, then why isn't somthing being done about it? Monopolies aren't allowed are they?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal acquisitions, sadly. They've been doing it for a hundred years. After the Anti-Trust sagas of the early 20th century, they've gotten REALLY good at bending the rules.

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your amazing opinion. It may shock you that just because he speaks very articulately and clearly with a Southern accent does not make him [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, it's fair to say that he has had better education than you will receive in your entire life.

Ehh I haven't followed what bush does anymore. Its just dissapointing.

Ehh I haven't followed what bush does anymore. Its just dissapointing.

 

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

 

 

The War in Iraq was probably one of the few things that made me not like Bush during the 2004 election. It was a bad idea to start, and a bad idea to continue. And an even worse idea to add more to it. I'm sort-of-kind-of-maybe-half looking forward to Bush getting kicked out of office. Not death. Because that would mean Cheney would be president. And that would be way worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The following is sarcasm. Please understand that. I am NOT being serious. Okay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why doesn't Bush just launch one of his "nucular" weapons against Iraq... :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flame me for any mistakes I made, or anything in my post you disagree with...

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

 

 

 

Yea, you proved it in your own post. Way to go. Maybe stupid isn't the word I'm looking for.. Maybe ignorant?

 

Ehh I haven't followed what bush does anymore. Its just dissapointing.

 

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

 

 

The War in Iraq was probably one of the few things that made me not like Bush during the 2004 election. It was a bad idea to start, and a bad idea to continue. And an even worse idea to add more to it. I'm sort-of-kind-of-maybe-half looking forward to Bush getting kicked out of office. Not death. Because that would mean Cheney would be president. And that would be way worse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The following is sarcasm. Please understand that. I am NOT being serious. Okay?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why doesn't Bush just launch one of his "nucular" weapons against Iraq... :wall:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flame me for any mistakes I made, or anything in my post you disagree with...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is, we can't just sit there and debate the past, it's happened, and now we have to accept it and move on. Something has to be done, and if we just pulled out completely, the goverment would be too unstable in Iraq, and Muslim Extremists would harbor plotting attacks against the US. So if we did pull out, we'd have to have great defense against such attacks, which are commonplace even today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To sum this up, we've/he has dug ourselves into too big a hole.

 

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your amazing opinion. It may shock you that just because he speaks very articulately and clearly with a Southern accent does not make him [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, it's fair to say that he has had better education than you will receive in your entire life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which George Bush are you speaking of? The one in the white house doesn't have an articulate bone in his body. Everytime I see him speak, I literally chuckle at him for sounding like a fumbling middle schooler. There are entire websites dedicated to how badly he sucks at speaking. The Southern Accent has nothing to do with it.

For starters, there is (to my knowledge) no "environmentally" safe way to drill for oil. Considering oil and fossile fuel burning is a major contributer to global warming.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, if you've seen "An Inconvenient Truth" then you know that there's sensitive wildlife in North Alaska that Bush has been trying to get to, it's in a NATURE reserve as well. Anyhow, no matter what, even if the oil drilling was environmentally sound, the burning of it as gasoline and whatnot doesn't help.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Especially when it's getting guzzled by egoccentric idiots who drive gas guzzling SUV's or Stupid Ugly Vehicles.

Bush has long lost my support for his stubborn interventalist style. Lets hope he doesn't intervene of China decides to invade Taiwan (Hope that never happens)

 

 

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your amazing opinion. It may shock you that just because he speaks very articulately and clearly with a Southern accent does not make him [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, it's fair to say that he has had better education than you will receive in your entire life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which George Bush are you speaking of? The one in the white house doesn't have an articulate bone in his body. Everytime I see him speak, I literally chuckle at him for sounding like a fumbling middle schooler. There are entire websites dedicated to how badly he sucks at speaking. The Southern Accent has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see anybody get up in front of over 300 million people on Live TV and not 'fumble'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's human :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because he stutters, doesn't mean he's an idiot.

 

 

 

I laughed watching this. He's so insanely stupid, it amazes me. He speaks english on the level of a four year old, with good grammar. I have no idea how he got elected in the first place, and then re-elected. Shocks me. Show's that America is getting stupider by the minute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your amazing opinion. It may shock you that just because he speaks very articulately and clearly with a Southern accent does not make him [developmentally delayed].

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, it's fair to say that he has had better education than you will receive in your entire life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Which George Bush are you speaking of? The one in the white house doesn't have an articulate bone in his body. Everytime I see him speak, I literally chuckle at him for sounding like a fumbling middle schooler. There are entire websites dedicated to how badly he sucks at speaking. The Southern Accent has nothing to do with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd like to see anybody get up in front of over 300 million people on Live TV and not 'fumble'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He's human :roll:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just because he stutters, doesn't mean he's an idiot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course everyone makes mistakes, but not to the point where you laugh at them when they speak. Now I've seen a segment on The Late Show with Dave Letterman called 'great moments in presidential speeches' which is incredibly hilarious. It compares two of the greats as far as American presidents go (Franklin D. Roosevelt and J.F. Kennedy) to George Bush in various Presidential speeches. It makes me laugh histarically at some of the rediculous things he sais and how he sais them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: I'm aware that the segments of speech are taken out of context.

He's not the first bad speaker as President. Monroe, Polk, Grant, Garfield, Taft, etc all were crappy speakers. And they only had to speak to a few thousand people, not to the entire world!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carter and Ford sucked at speaking. LBJ stumbled all over himself. If JFK wasn't reading from a script, he was fumbling it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoops-di-doo! Not all presidents are amazing orators!

I thought, overall, it was a pretty good speech for what it was, and he delivered it well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That said, the rhetoric he used to describe the great "evil" we face (terrorists who have a "fear of freedom"? Come on. Studies show that the only real common thread among terrorists is that they have a lack of fear. Let alone a fear of freedom... :P) made me pretty angry. There were some racist ideas coming out of the President's mouth - and the President, of all people, should be the best role model. Then again, maybe I've gotten cynical, but I guess I'm almost used to it by now.

Ive got a pretty good feelign that Bush didnt even right the speech. He probably just gave it to his secretary to right. Every year he talks about all his "great" plans yet none of them ever get done. Even when he tries to help, he still manages to mess up. He's just not fit for the responsibilty of being president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, well. I might add that we are in Iraq for a reason, and that is to settle peace and create a ligit form of government in the middle-east. This is one of Bush's plans, and he has carried through with it. Things like this don't happen right away, they happen over many many years. An example might include that it took the Romans 400 years to actually fall: this meaning that things happen very slowly. Try learning of the patterns of history and the logic behind them. Bush is trying his very best, its not his fault that we have thousands of terrorists trying to kill us. Cuz yes, it is totally bush's plan to kill all the soldiers omg!!. eh.. no. Seriously, i think that you [all of you] need to learn more about patterns of history and how this dilema we're faced with today coinsides with them. Bush is a good presient, and i will stand by my word in all of its entirety. There are many more pages to this book than you have read. You might think you know a lot about it due to media and news coverage, but no, most of the things that they say are either false, partially true, or are very irrelevant and they just say it to make someone look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try taking AP world history when you get into high school. Then come back to this forum and make some comments: intelligent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Republican Out-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh.. and yes, im 16.

Ive got a pretty good feelign that Bush didnt even right the speech. He probably just gave it to his secretary to right. Every year he talks about all his "great" plans yet none of them ever get done. Even when he tries to help, he still manages to mess up. He's just not fit for the responsibilty of being president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, well. I might add that we are in Iraq for a reason, and that is to settle peace and create a ligit form of government in the middle-east. This is one of Bush's plans, and he has carried through with it. Things like this don't happen right away, they happen over many many years. An example might include that it took the Romans 400 years to actually fall: this meaning that things happen very slowly. Try learning of the patterns of history and the logic behind them. Bush is trying his very best, its not his fault that we have thousands of terrorists trying to kill us. Cuz yes, it is totally bush's plan to kill all the soldiers omg!!. eh.. no. Seriously, i think that you [all of you] need to learn more about patterns of history and how this dilema we're faced with today coinsides with them. Bush is a good presient, and i will stand by my word in all of its entirety. There are many more pages to this book than you have read. You might think you know a lot about it due to media and news coverage, but no, most of the things that they say are either false, partially true, or are very irrelevant and they just say it to make someone look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try taking AP world history when you get into high school. Then come back to this forum and make some comments: intelligent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Republican Out-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh.. and yes, im 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did, and got a 5. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the situation in Iraq right now is NOT great. I agree that the US can't just leave right now - it makes no sense to topple a government, then be like "wee, gotta go!" and leave the Iraqi people in a confused governmentless anarchy. However, that isn't what's happening right now. Iraq HAS a good government, but we maintain that they aren't strong enough to stand up on their own. We maintain that position largely because there is still so much violence that clearly the Iraqi police would never be able to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we have to examine why there is still so much violence. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more troops we bring in, the more resentful the rebels feel against this occupying force, and the more violence is created. No, I don't think the US should leave entirely, yet. I think we can't just call for immediate withdrawal of troops. However, ESCALATING the number of troops in Iraq is precisely the exact wrong thing to do.

Bush is not an oppressor, geez you sensationalists.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I voted for him in 2000 and 2004, but I am starting to regret it. Not for what he has done, but what he hasn't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I will crap bricks if the next President (Republican or Democrat) does not do what he calls for in the State of the Union.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Get us the heck away from oil. PLEASE. Federal funding for clean-fuels research would be nice too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Amen brother :pray:

 

Ive got a pretty good feelign that Bush didnt even right the speech. He probably just gave it to his secretary to right. Every year he talks about all his "great" plans yet none of them ever get done. Even when he tries to help, he still manages to mess up. He's just not fit for the responsibilty of being president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, well. I might add that we are in Iraq for a reason, and that is to settle peace and create a ligit form of government in the middle-east. This is one of Bush's plans, and he has carried through with it. Things like this don't happen right away, they happen over many many years. An example might include that it took the Romans 400 years to actually fall: this meaning that things happen very slowly. Try learning of the patterns of history and the logic behind them. Bush is trying his very best, its not his fault that we have thousands of terrorists trying to kill us. Cuz yes, it is totally bush's plan to kill all the soldiers omg!!. eh.. no. Seriously, i think that you [all of you] need to learn more about patterns of history and how this dilema we're faced with today coinsides with them. Bush is a good presient, and i will stand by my word in all of its entirety. There are many more pages to this book than you have read. You might think you know a lot about it due to media and news coverage, but no, most of the things that they say are either false, partially true, or are very irrelevant and they just say it to make someone look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try taking AP world history when you get into high school. Then come back to this forum and make some comments: intelligent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Republican Out-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh.. and yes, im 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did, and got a 5. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the situation in Iraq right now is NOT great. I agree that the US can't just leave right now - it makes no sense to topple a government, then be like "wee, gotta go!" and leave the Iraqi people in a confused governmentless anarchy. However, that isn't what's happening right now. Iraq HAS a good government, but we maintain that they aren't strong enough to stand up on their own. We maintain that position largely because there is still so much violence that clearly the Iraqi police would never be able to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we have to examine why there is still so much violence. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more troops we bring in, the more resentful the rebels feel against this occupying force, and the more violence is created. No, I don't think the US should leave entirely, yet. I think we can't just call for immediate withdrawal of troops. However, ESCALATING the number of troops in Iraq is precisely the exact wrong thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi rebels will never die off. They have patience, they can wait 10-15 years, then start attacking again. America isn't going to keep troops in Iraq for 10 years! I read an article about a few marines saying how whenever they run into "rebels" the rebels just run off and hide. Waiting for a weak tear in their army. It won't be easy to get rid of the rebels in Iraq, they have patience we DON'T have. And for the people complaining that it's taking "too long", these types of things don't happen so fast.

 

 

Ive got a pretty good feelign that Bush didnt even right the speech. He probably just gave it to his secretary to right. Every year he talks about all his "great" plans yet none of them ever get done. Even when he tries to help, he still manages to mess up. He's just not fit for the responsibilty of being president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, well. I might add that we are in Iraq for a reason, and that is to settle peace and create a ligit form of government in the middle-east. This is one of Bush's plans, and he has carried through with it. Things like this don't happen right away, they happen over many many years. An example might include that it took the Romans 400 years to actually fall: this meaning that things happen very slowly. Try learning of the patterns of history and the logic behind them. Bush is trying his very best, its not his fault that we have thousands of terrorists trying to kill us. Cuz yes, it is totally bush's plan to kill all the soldiers omg!!. eh.. no. Seriously, i think that you [all of you] need to learn more about patterns of history and how this dilema we're faced with today coinsides with them. Bush is a good presient, and i will stand by my word in all of its entirety. There are many more pages to this book than you have read. You might think you know a lot about it due to media and news coverage, but no, most of the things that they say are either false, partially true, or are very irrelevant and they just say it to make someone look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try taking AP world history when you get into high school. Then come back to this forum and make some comments: intelligent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Republican Out-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh.. and yes, im 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I did, and got a 5. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, the situation in Iraq right now is NOT great. I agree that the US can't just leave right now - it makes no sense to topple a government, then be like "wee, gotta go!" and leave the Iraqi people in a confused governmentless anarchy. However, that isn't what's happening right now. Iraq HAS a good government, but we maintain that they aren't strong enough to stand up on their own. We maintain that position largely because there is still so much violence that clearly the Iraqi police would never be able to deal with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But we have to examine why there is still so much violence. It is largely a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more troops we bring in, the more resentful the rebels feel against this occupying force, and the more violence is created. No, I don't think the US should leave entirely, yet. I think we can't just call for immediate withdrawal of troops. However, ESCALATING the number of troops in Iraq is precisely the exact wrong thing to do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi rebels will never die off. They have patience, they can wait 10-15 years, then start attacking again. America isn't going to keep troops in Iraq for 10 years! I read an article about a few marines saying how whenever they run into "rebels" the rebels just run off and hide. Waiting for a weak tear in their army. It won't be easy to get rid of the rebels in Iraq, they have patience we DON'T have. And for the people complaining that it's taking "too long", these types of things don't happen so fast.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not saying they will die off; I'm saying we should stop giving them something to rebel about.

Actually, very little of the insurgency is aimed at the US troops. The only US casualties in the past few months were soldiers sent to aid and reinforce Iraqi troops trying to keep the peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The current violence is not about the US. It's about the Sunni vs Shi'ite Islamic sects. Al Qaeda and the Iranian groups are giving them weapons and preaching hatred towards the other group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The anti-US forces know they can't win by force against the US. They are now just trying to wear down public opinion. It's a pretty good and legitimate strategy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bush would like nothing more than to pull out the troops. He was extremely dissapointed that the violence has set back his plan to call back the troops this April.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it was just resistance to the new government, our boys would be home this Spring. Al Qaeda saw this. They made a new war, which will keep us there for at least another two years. :(

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PS: To arc_knight: Bush doesn't write his own speeches. No President since Washington have written their own speeches. There is a staff at the White House that gets a list of main points from the President, and then writes it up in an eloquent way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And I took AP US History, Government, and Economics. In addition, I am a senior History Major. Thank you.

Ive got a pretty good feelign that Bush didnt even right the speech. He probably just gave it to his secretary to right. Every year he talks about all his "great" plans yet none of them ever get done. Even when he tries to help, he still manages to mess up. He's just not fit for the responsibilty of being president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, well. I might add that we are in Iraq for a reason, and that is to settle peace and create a ligit form of government in the middle-east. This is one of Bush's plans, and he has carried through with it. Things like this don't happen right away, they happen over many many years. An example might include that it took the Romans 400 years to actually fall: this meaning that things happen very slowly. Try learning of the patterns of history and the logic behind them. Bush is trying his very best, its not his fault that we have thousands of terrorists trying to kill us. Cuz yes, it is totally bush's plan to kill all the soldiers omg!!. eh.. no. Seriously, i think that you [all of you] need to learn more about patterns of history and how this dilema we're faced with today coinsides with them. Bush is a good presient, and i will stand by my word in all of its entirety. There are many more pages to this book than you have read. You might think you know a lot about it due to media and news coverage, but no, most of the things that they say are either false, partially true, or are very irrelevant and they just say it to make someone look bad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try taking AP world history when you get into high school. Then come back to this forum and make some comments: intelligent comments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Republican Out-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

eh.. and yes, im 16.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, your view of the Iraq war is simply Bush trying to enstate Democracy. However, thats not the main problem with the war. The main problem is there are three religious groups (Shiites, Kurds and Sunnii's) fighting for the oil region. They all wan't a peice of it and they won't settle until it happens. This could lead to all out civil war, and i doubt many people will hold their principles of fighting for democracy when they see their familys shot and blown up. The point is Bush illegally invaded a country, threw it unto turmoil and now can't leave. Whislt the country slowley decends into a war of all against each other.

The moral question, Sat, is which is better:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stability at the cost of a government that actively persecutes it's own civilians (with sons that have a beheading [specialInterest], mind you).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Or instability with free government?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's hard for me to accept option B, but I would much rather have it over complete violations of human rights. At least the various sects have the freedom to worship instead of being ditched in mass graves for thinking differently.

He's not the first bad speaker as President. Monroe, Polk, Grant, Garfield, Taft, etc all were crappy speakers. And they only had to speak to a few thousand people, not to the entire world!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carter and Ford sucked at speaking. LBJ stumbled all over himself. If JFK wasn't reading from a script, he was fumbling it up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoops-di-doo! Not all presidents are amazing orators!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Historians say lincoln was also a bad speaker. He had a very squeaky voice in reality, not the booming voice portrayed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The supposed "disenfranchising of thousands of African Americans" was just a bunch of hooey. Both Republican and Democrat members of the Senate realized this. Why can't you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The recount was refused and Bush and his team saw to it that the recount never officialy happened for Florida. Thats why the media did it. They found Gore won by 662 votes, and Gore would have won Florida and taken the 25 electorial points, therefore becoming the president.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the disenfranchised americans, votes with small marks on them and punching your ballot card twice, when it clearly shows your choice where rejected. Gadsden County in Florida which contains the higher percentage of black people had a higher spoil rate. Many voters wrote in 'Al Gore' - these votes where rejected as 'Al' counted as a stray mark.The recount for Florida was stopped by Harris who was a Bush supporter, and she did everything she could to stop it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These are all matters of history. If you were to ask my opinion on the war, though, I would have to tell you that war with Iraq has been coming for a while, and I think it takes a very honorable man , and a legion of other honorable men to keep going when they need to keep going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They didn't need to go in the first place, Tony Blair could face a criminal war charge. Bush has entered Iraq - overthrown the only power that was keeping the Sunni's Shiites and Kurds from killing one another. Yes he was doing this in an illegal way, but is seemed Bush didn't even know of the situation in Iraq. Now the only solution is dividing the country into three sectors. However each group wants the prosperous oil region. They will fight and fight for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I said it once, and will say it again. The media is NOT the legitimate power which appoints government officials. Also, the "media" of which you speak only recounted votes in heavily Democratic communities, since these were the communities where they ASSUMED people were being "disenfranchised."

 

 

 

In reality, a recount of ALL the communities has not been done.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About your "disenfranchisement" of African Americans, you make a poor case, and I, for one, resent your implication. African Americans can follow instructions as well as anyone else, and just because a particular group lives in a region does not give anyone cause to blame all problems on that group. You are presupposing that the average African American is incapable of punching a hole in paper with instructions right in front of him, while anyone else is capable of this feat. This is racism, pure and simple, and any African American should resent your implication.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About your take on the war. This all seems to be your opinion except for one thing. Again it is just an implication, as you did not come out and say he is a war criminal, but Tony Blair is just as susceptible to criminal war charges as Winston Churchill was. He is the Prime Minister of England, not just a wild general doing his own thing. Any war criminal charges aimed at him would be by unlearned or greedy people, mark my words. They would be unlearned in the way of war, or they would be greedy of his governatory power. Tony Blair did what needed to be done, and did it well. Some dislike him for that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barihawk, and sharef10, I would also like to add a +3 to your statements.

 

 

 

We desparately need to research fuels like ethanol and natural gas. Kudos to Brazil for their fine initiative, I say. They got their whole country to switch to a cleaner, replenishable fuel. It's cheaper, too :wink:

I'm actually curious about something. Where did the stereotype that Republicans hate people of African descent come from? I've heard this all the time, and see it on shows like Chapelle's show and Mind of Mencia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apparently, just voting Republican makes me racist? Heck, before Clinton the only non-racist Democrat President was Kennedy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

John Davis was a Democrat, too. Fun coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry for getting off track, but it bothers me. I especially dislike how any black man who runs for President on the Republican ticket is branded a "traitor" by the NAACP.