| 15th September 2006 02:54 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
Brains?
[Edited by rasputin56] |
| 15th September 2006 02:56 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Dick Bush wrote:
Dear right wingers,
just drill your skulls - fuck your bloody brains 
I thought that English was your first language. Now I am no longer sure.
Riffy |
| 15th September 2006 03:09 PM |
|
|
| gimmekeef |
On a related note....I just moved into 7th place in my fantasy Bassmasters league! |
| 15th September 2006 03:11 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
gimmekeef wrote:
On a related note....I just moved into 7th place in my fantasy Bassmasters league!
I have a fear of fantasy fishing! |
| 15th September 2006 03:36 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
Nanky ?!
|
| 15th September 2006 04:45 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
glencar wrote:
Roger used to spout off about his brother's cocaine use until he was given a job working with FOB's in Hollywood.
What is a " FOB " ?!?!
Friend of Bob ?! |
| 15th September 2006 04:47 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Look, I don't have to stand here and take this from you people! What is this, gang up on the smart and studious one today? "
|
| 15th September 2006 08:29 PM |
|
|
| Mahatma Kane Jeeves |
Worst President ever??
Lyndon Baines Johnson!!!!!!!!!! |
| 15th September 2006 08:53 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Mahatma Kane Jeeves wrote:
Worst President ever??
Lyndon Baines Johnson!!!!!!!!!!
We can only evaluate the modern era. Jimmy Carter had it hands fucking down as the worst.......then came George Walker Bush III. This clown and his supporters may go down as the worst ever. Thats hard to do.
Lets turn this into a George Walker Bush III appreciation thread. Lets do it. Shall we?
Yes. Lets talk about George Walker Bush III.
Ressurectionsim of threadness.
|
| 15th September 2006 08:57 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
you be testifyin' moonie!!
|
| 15th September 2006 09:00 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Yes. Lets talk about George Walker Bush III.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html |
| 15th September 2006 09:06 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html
(Well in all fairness to Bush at least he didn't go over a bridge like a certain Dem Senator from Massachusetts.) |
| 15th September 2006 09:09 PM |
|
|
| mojoman |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
(Well in all fairness to Bush at least he didn't go over a bridge like a certain Dem Senator from Massachusetts.)
bridge over troubled water |
| 15th September 2006 09:16 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
mojoman wrote:
bridge over troubled water
Things are looking better for that family though,now that Patches has been rehabilitated. Patches would make a good running mate for Hillary. |
| 15th September 2006 09:21 PM |
|
|
| telecaster |
1. Carter
2. Johnson
3. Clinton
4. Nixon |
| 15th September 2006 09:29 PM |
|
|
| lotsajizz |
no perspective displayed....
Buchanan
Harding
Adams (the first one)
Grant
Nixon
|
| 16th September 2006 12:21 AM |
|
|
| Barney Fife |
I thought Hillary Clinton was the worst president ever.
|
| 17th September 2006 01:05 PM |
|
|
| purrcafe |
History and hindsight will surely judge our current Commander in Chief as the worst modern President. |
| 17th September 2006 01:11 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
Well....in about a year and a half we can start choosing another one. Two terms for any President is quite enough. |
| 17th September 2006 01:14 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
Barney Fife wrote:
I thought Hillary Clinton was the worst president ever.
Not yet.... I'll have a better idea after she serves her first term...2008-2012. |
| 17th September 2006 01:29 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
Not yet.... I'll have a better idea after she serves her first term...2008-2012.
ROTFLMAO!!! She has absolutly zero shot at winning the election. ZERO!! She can not carry a single red state and even blue states are up for grabs if she is the nominee. Anyone that would vote for Cankels Clinton must have something seriously wrong with them.
The bitch had to move to New York to even have a shot at her Senate run. Even in her home state of Arkansas she didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. They know her!
Judging from the Democrats brilliant political savy at picking nominees you can bank on another Republican President come 2008. Let's see here going back to 1980-Carter(LOL!!!),Mondale(LMAO!!!!),Dukaukis(ROTFLMAO!!!),Gore(Are You Fucking Kidding Me?!?!?!),Kerry(Please Stop! My Sides Are Hurting!!!!LOL!!!)
Hillary? Please,please,please nominate her! Please! The country is begging for her to get the nominee. At that time you can drive the final nail in the coffin of the once great Democrat Party.
It's over you liberal pascifist limpwristers! Hillary will only hasten the death of the party.
Riffy |
| 17th September 2006 01:33 PM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
purrcafe wrote:
History and hindsight will surely judge our current Commander in Chief as the worst modern President.
You don't need history or hinsight - this clown was predictable before he ever took office. Watch him try to say something. |
| 17th September 2006 01:50 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
>liberal pascifist limpwristers!<
Who whipped Hitler?
 |
| 17th September 2006 02:28 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
>Dukaukis(ROTFLMAO!!!),<
Yeah in the tank....
Almost as funny as Bush landing on that carrier in full top gun gear. |
| 17th September 2006 02:45 PM |
|
|
| Riffhard |
quote:
Ten Thousand Motels wrote:
>liberal pascifist limpwristers!<
Who whipped Hitler?
That's a great point TTM. Now do you hoestly think that FDR would be a member of today's Democrat Party? Jappanese detention camps? Shit no! Today's pansy assed limpwristers bitch about Gitmo and Abu Garibe ad nauseum for one reason and one reason only. To undermine Bush. they suck by any standards and should be ashamed of their partisan,nay traitorous,behaviour.
FDR would be drummed right out of the party ala Lieberman. For that matter so would JFK and Truman.
Riffy |
| 17th September 2006 03:06 PM |
|
|
| purrcafe |
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
You don't need history or hinsight - this clown was predictable before he ever took office. Watch him try to say something.
Agreed, but my point is that all of the Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, parroting rhetoric that serves as political discourse today will be meaningless as we actually see how destructive this administrations policies are, long-term. |
| 18th September 2006 01:44 AM |
|
|
| Egbert |
This thread, at one point seen floating face-down in a vat of liquid piss and presumed dead, has risen as I predicted it would. |
| 18th September 2006 02:12 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
EVOTE.COM
KEEPING SCORE IN THE GAME OF POLITICS
http://www.evote.com/ |
| 18th September 2006 02:35 AM |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
If I were American, I suppose I'd have voted Repub. in 2000 and 2004 (simply cause Kerry would suck even worse than Gore when it came to protecting the country) but this time around the candidate better have a better approach than the Bush admin. which is certainly not a truly conservative regime based on their insane spending and heavy government involvement. Bush has been the figurehead guy for the party that deserves the presidency as I see it. Democrats, circa 2006 are looking even more shallow and desperate than thne Republicans circa 1996/the impeachment trials. They can deal with problems at home ok, but most of their everybody-is-important policies end up muddying the waters as usual.
But whenever I look at how often and how monumentally Bush's policies have screwed up, I think about how US would get its ass handed to them in foreign affairs/security issues even worse if Gore or Kerry was in charge. They'd be so non-commital, it'd be crazy. At least Clinton took force once in a while, when he wasn't appealing to bleeding hearts. They'd be typically brownosing to the handwringers if in power, thus allowing terrorist activity to run amok and free speech to get to the point of hate speech. Believe me, the corrupt (and self-righteous) Liberal party of Canada let it happen out East and a Conservative government has now inherited the mess.
The islami-fuck jihadist underbelly is so bad especially in Quebec (a heavily integrated, pro-Arab, anti-Semetic melting pot of liberalism gone wrong), it reminds me of what a Democratic gov't would allow it to get to. I'm not advocating internment camps of a particular race, but racial profiling is not out of the question. Whether these people want to become cultured or not, they must adhere to Western world and our problems. Islam is not inherently an evil, bad religion IMO, it's just stuck at the stage of fanaticism that plagued Christianity until recent centuries. It all proves George Carlin theory that God is the biggest mass murderer there is (no offense, religious folks).
But too many extreme Muslims come to the West and try to force their values, their culture into the public so that we are all bending over to kowtow to the sensetivities of their people. The cartoons were a good example. I didn't believe in showing them cause it could set off a violent reaction, but that annoys me. Do you think Islamic nations would worry about OUR reaction if they sent the first strike and depicted Jesus in a variety of offensive cartoons? No, because no one would threaten holy war in their own lands, and the same goes for here. Christianity has become too set, too cultured and sedate to get involved in another bloodbath (ok, maybe Pat Robertson types with their puritan army would take arms on Islam). And that's just the way it is. Plus not enough people are faithful enough to believe they're doing God's work whereas more Muslims are devout enough to believe in extreme actions. Because in their territory, it's their rules. But in our territory, it's still their rules too often. Get what I'm saying?
It takes freedom of religion to a new level because it allows them to teach hateful brands of speech with repressive, preachy attitudes that we are subjected to all under the guise of a free, educated, tolerant society. Well goddamnit, when is the freakin' middle east gonna come around to being free, educated and tolerated? Probably never. And therein lies the conflict. The next president shouldn't be such a sensetive whimp on that issue although Bush has been firm and overly iron-fisted on some issues of security, he hasn't been on the restrictions I've mentioned. People are all worrying this would all lead to an erosion of civil liberties and rights as if the government was gonna start spraying down peaceful immigrant protests with fire hoses and dogs, ala the 50s and 60s. That whole talk gets me shaking my head.
It's a common fear of a technological world controlled by a select few, like 1984 or.... uh, the People's Republic of China. With the internet, abundance of educated minds and influence, this is unlikely to become a huge issue (unless of course the internet became controlled too). Plus, Western countries lose their reputations as free nations which betrays the origins of America in the first place. In a sense, facism got it right when it dictated that there are certain cases and situations, IMO, when individual rights are NOT the top priority and people need to learn to deal with it or face the consequences. I'm no big right-winger, in fact I'm left of centre, but this is the most pressing problem in our modern world. And all I hear from Democrats is empty solutions that will further add to the tension.
We live in a culture of victimization, where the only thing that matters above all are whether peoples' feelings are hurt and not about how it affects the general population. As for the amount of suckiness done by presidents; When you look at it, all presidencies leave a destructive effect on some level. Just depends how. Someone somewhere will find a way to blast your regime. For my money, as far as the 20th century goes, the worst were/are:
1. Carter
2. Ford
3. Warren Harding
4. George Dubya (I know I supported his party above, but the guy himself hasn't had too much success and I can't credit the post-9/11 victories to him cause if 9/11 never happened, then what does he acheive? Unless he foiled it that is)
5. Nixon (eliminate his crooked, corrupt, crazy bastard ways that would make GWB blush and he did a good job)
How bout best?
1. F. Roosevelt
2. T. Roosevelt
3. Reagan (oh he was a bit lovably aloof, but he managed to have an iron handed approach that restored American pride and influence. Leave it to a Bush to deflate that sense of acheivement)
4. Clinton, might've been Kennedy if he'd been in power for longer.
5. Woodrow Wilson
The rest (from good to mediocre), aka the meh crowd:
1. Eisenhower
2. Truman
3. Calvin Coolidge
4. William Taft
5. Herbert Hoover
6. George Bush, mach I
7. LBJ
(Mckinley just lasted till 1901 before he got whacked, as the mob would say, in Niagra Falls)
[Edited by Prodigal Son] |
| 18th September 2006 07:23 AM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
The Lovenstein Institute
Today is Monday, September 18, 2006
The Presidential IQ Report
WASHINGTON --In a published report, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania has detailed findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published its research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others.
According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 60 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points:
147 Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 Harry Truman (D)
122 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
174 John F. Kennedy (D)
126 Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
155 Richard M. Nixon (R)
121 Gerald R. Ford (R)
176 James E. Carter (D)
105 Ronald W. Reagan (R)
98 George H. W. Bush (R)
182 William J. Clinton (D)
91 George W. Bush (R)
The six Republican presidents of the past 60 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.
The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.
No president other than Carter (D) has released his actual IQ, 176. Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings were due to his apparent difficulty to command the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.
The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers.
Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, so in many ways that made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We had to rely more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."
The Lovenstein Institute of Scranton Pennsylvania think tank includes high caliber historians, psychiatrists, sociologists, scientists in human behavior, and psychologists. Among their ranks are Dr. Werner R. Lovenstein, world-renowned sociologist, and Professor Patricia F. Dilliams, a world-respected psychiatrist. This study was commissioned on February 13, 2001, and released on July 9, 2001, to subscribing member universities and organizations within the education community.
|
