HomePortalSearchFAQMemberlistRegisterLog in
Log in
Username:
Password:
Log in automatically: 
:: I forgot my password
Search
 
 

Display results as :
 
Rechercher Advanced Search
Latest topics
» A Paragraph.
Tue Aug 01, 2017 11:33 pm by fuck

» COUGHING FITS PANTS OF SHIT
Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:15 pm by RED

» ATTN: stop cumming on the fucking ants
Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:46 pm by RED

» live super weed discussion
Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:01 pm by RED

» I hate myself and I want to die
Wed Feb 24, 2016 3:57 pm by fuck

» The Official Memory Thread
Tue Aug 18, 2015 10:42 pm by fuck

» Extreme Created Warfare Wrestling
Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:04 am by Deanpool

» Be The Booker Of The Month
Tue Jun 23, 2015 2:45 pm by Tʜᴇ Gʀᴀɴɢᴇ

» That's Right.
Wed Feb 11, 2015 8:28 pm by RED

» Fuck you
Sun Jan 25, 2015 6:14 pm by RED

Poll #114
Share
Top posting users this week
Did You Know?
DID YOU KNOW?

Before she dominated her competition, an 11-year-old Beth Phoenix won a coloring contest through a local New York newspaper to win two tickets to her first WWE event.
Guess the Match #16
Member of the Month
Septembers Member of the Month is CAPTAIN! Due to his highly entertaining WWE 2014 TEW Diary/Booker and activity on the site. Congratulations Captain! Keep the good work up and you may be the MoTM for October!
August 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
CalendarCalendar

Share | 
 

 US: Who to Run in 2012?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:46 am

What Republican should oppose Barack O-Fail?

There are several worthy candidates, but I'm going to say Mike Huckabee right now.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:40 am

Anybody who can actually run the country. we haven't had a good president in forever.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:42 am

Super Perfect wrote:
Anybody who can actually run the country. we haven't had a good president in forever.
Sure, if "forever" means two and a half years ago.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:49 am

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Anybody who can actually run the country. we haven't had a good president in forever.
Sure, if "forever" means two and a half years ago.
Bush wasn't that good of a president either. Clinton got lucky that his presidency was in the middle of recessions, Bush Sr. was ok, Reagan wasn't too bad, that's about how far back it goes to a good president.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:52 am

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Anybody who can actually run the country. we haven't had a good president in forever.
Sure, if "forever" means two and a half years ago.
Bush wasn't that good of a president either. Clinton got lucky that his presidency was in the middle of recessions, Bush Sr. was ok, Reagan wasn't too bad, that's about how far back it goes to a good president.
Bush and Reagan did great, while Clinton, Obama, and every other Dumb-ocrat except Kennedy stunk up the place.
Back to top Go down
TJ
#1 Contender
#1 Contender
avatar

Posts : 2041
Age : 26

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:15 am

People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 06, 2011 2:32 am

Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
Back to top Go down
White guy
Rookie
Rookie
avatar

Posts : 1228

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 3:15 pm

Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee would be epic choices. I could even vote for Michelle Bachmann or Donald Trump if it came down to it. Anything to get Barrack Saddam Hussien Obama Bin Laden out
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:56 pm

Dan wrote:
Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee would be epic choices. I could even vote for Michelle Bachmann or Donald Trump if it came down to it. Anything to get Barrack Saddam Hussien Obama Bin Laden out
Yes, Romney and Huckabee alongside McCain (and due to my NY bias Giovanni too) were the ones I supported in '08. When it got down to it, I thought the same way, anybody but him.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:21 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:05 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:06 pm

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:20 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:29 pm

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:42 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
what is the definition of a fair government? is democracy the only way to have a fair government? no. China, Vietnam and Laos all have pretty fair governments, despite the fact that they are communist states. Sure, China blocks freedom of the press, but that doesn't really mean that they are unfair. Saddam had a lot of allies, and a lot of people in Iraq didn't want to see Saddam fall. Matter of fact, most of the people who wanted Saddam to fall was because of religion. because they didn't share the same denomination of Islam as Saddam and his followers. maybe Saddam needed to go, but he wasn't attacking us, and if they wanted to get Saddam out of power, there would have been ways. no Iraqis ever told anybody to help them. they were glad when the Gulf War happened, but the second time around, a lot weren't too happy to see the us troops. and i never said that obama was a good president. he has put us in a deficit that we have never seen before. he has already spent more money than bush did. but he does have a great knack of making people like him, including our former enemies. and that is a very positive thing. the US and our allies did end the reign of saddam quickly. but we just barely got removed from a place that we should have been removed from 3 or 4 years ago. if bush had a good foreign policy, he would have gone about it way better than he did.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:58 pm

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
what is the definition of a fair government? is democracy the only way to have a fair government? no. China, Vietnam and Laos all have pretty fair governments, despite the fact that they are communist states. Sure, China blocks freedom of the press, but that doesn't really mean that they are unfair. Saddam had a lot of allies, and a lot of people in Iraq didn't want to see Saddam fall. Matter of fact, most of the people who wanted Saddam to fall was because of religion. because they didn't share the same denomination of Islam as Saddam and his followers. maybe Saddam needed to go, but he wasn't attacking us, and if they wanted to get Saddam out of power, there would have been ways. no Iraqis ever told anybody to help them. they were glad when the Gulf War happened, but the second time around, a lot weren't too happy to see the us troops. and i never said that obama was a good president. he has put us in a deficit that we have never seen before. he has already spent more money than bush did. but he does have a great knack of making people like him, including our former enemies. and that is a very positive thing. the US and our allies did end the reign of saddam quickly. but we just barely got removed from a place that we should have been removed from 3 or 4 years ago. if bush had a good foreign policy, he would have gone about it way better than he did.
I'll just respond to the "fair government" piece. I didn't say democracy/republic/monarchy or whatever else our allies may have are the only types of "fair" governments. A dictatorship could potentially be fair as well. But a government led by a man who killed and tortured both the innocent and guilty is completely unacceptable.

And according to the US and UK, the mission's objective was to "disarm them of potential weapons of mass destruction, take Saddam from power, and free the Iraqi people."
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:42 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
what is the definition of a fair government? is democracy the only way to have a fair government? no. China, Vietnam and Laos all have pretty fair governments, despite the fact that they are communist states. Sure, China blocks freedom of the press, but that doesn't really mean that they are unfair. Saddam had a lot of allies, and a lot of people in Iraq didn't want to see Saddam fall. Matter of fact, most of the people who wanted Saddam to fall was because of religion. because they didn't share the same denomination of Islam as Saddam and his followers. maybe Saddam needed to go, but he wasn't attacking us, and if they wanted to get Saddam out of power, there would have been ways. no Iraqis ever told anybody to help them. they were glad when the Gulf War happened, but the second time around, a lot weren't too happy to see the us troops. and i never said that obama was a good president. he has put us in a deficit that we have never seen before. he has already spent more money than bush did. but he does have a great knack of making people like him, including our former enemies. and that is a very positive thing. the US and our allies did end the reign of saddam quickly. but we just barely got removed from a place that we should have been removed from 3 or 4 years ago. if bush had a good foreign policy, he would have gone about it way better than he did.
I'll just respond to the "fair government" piece. I didn't say democracy/republic/monarchy or whatever else our allies may have are the only types of "fair" governments. A dictatorship could potentially be fair as well. But a government led by a man who killed and tortured both the innocent and guilty is completely unacceptable.

And according to the US and UK, the mission's objective was to "disarm them of potential weapons of mass destruction, take Saddam from power, and free the Iraqi people."
the group that US handed the government to was just as lethal and could potentially kill more people (its a religious conflict that has affected the middle east since the Islam prophet Muhammad died). and saddam hadn't gassed anybody since US took care of that in the Gulf War.

There was no weapons of mass destruction, and there isn't any need for freeing the iraqi people. the only people who really didn't like the Saddam rule moved to a little unrecognized country at the border of Iraq.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:45 pm

Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
what is the definition of a fair government? is democracy the only way to have a fair government? no. China, Vietnam and Laos all have pretty fair governments, despite the fact that they are communist states. Sure, China blocks freedom of the press, but that doesn't really mean that they are unfair. Saddam had a lot of allies, and a lot of people in Iraq didn't want to see Saddam fall. Matter of fact, most of the people who wanted Saddam to fall was because of religion. because they didn't share the same denomination of Islam as Saddam and his followers. maybe Saddam needed to go, but he wasn't attacking us, and if they wanted to get Saddam out of power, there would have been ways. no Iraqis ever told anybody to help them. they were glad when the Gulf War happened, but the second time around, a lot weren't too happy to see the us troops. and i never said that obama was a good president. he has put us in a deficit that we have never seen before. he has already spent more money than bush did. but he does have a great knack of making people like him, including our former enemies. and that is a very positive thing. the US and our allies did end the reign of saddam quickly. but we just barely got removed from a place that we should have been removed from 3 or 4 years ago. if bush had a good foreign policy, he would have gone about it way better than he did.
I'll just respond to the "fair government" piece. I didn't say democracy/republic/monarchy or whatever else our allies may have are the only types of "fair" governments. A dictatorship could potentially be fair as well. But a government led by a man who killed and tortured both the innocent and guilty is completely unacceptable.

And according to the US and UK, the mission's objective was to "disarm them of potential weapons of mass destruction, take Saddam from power, and free the Iraqi people."
the group that US handed the government to was just as lethal and could potentially kill more people (its a religious conflict that has affected the middle east since the Islam prophet Muhammad died). and saddam hadn't gassed anybody since US took care of that in the Gulf War.

There was no weapons of mass destruction, and there isn't any need for freeing the iraqi people. the only people who really didn't like the Saddam rule moved to a little unrecognized country at the border of Iraq.
Regardless of Saddam's role, due to his past actions, the death penalty was the right thing to do. And although no nuclear/biological weapons were found, doesn't mean they lacked that threat and it's better safe than sorry. Suppose they were creating such weapons secretly and assumptions were made and we did nothing about it? Once those weapons are used, there's no real fighting back, it would be the end.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:50 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Super Perfect wrote:
Jarrett wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
People keep forgetting about Nixon's presidency and the things he did...

As to who'll be the Republican nominee, I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah Palin or even Donald Trump got there. Just saying, the American public usually will vote for the more appealing candidate regardless of their policies. Like Obama for example, all he had to do was get a picture of himself with the word "Change" under it and everyone ate it up.
Unfortunately true.
You mean, great foreign policy, great black rights policies, great economics, flawed by one mistake to get him re elected? I'd say that, besides the last part of his presidency, he was a great president.

And bush made everyone hate the US, he had the worst foreign policy in memory. it takes all of Obama's strong foreign policy (the only strong thing of his administration) to take us out of the Bush problem.

Reagan had a strong economic policy, but everything else was just good.
Many of the countries that 'hate' us had already at one point before Bush was elected. The way I see it, they asked for it. And Bush has been the only one as of late who has been able to give to them what they deserve.
some of the countries. a lot of the countries turned against us because the way Bush entered into a war that had nothing to do with the original conflict, terrorists a part of a group that had never had strong roots in Iraq, and terrorists who themselves were from Saudi Arabia. Why? Because one person (not bush, Karl Rove) thought that they had weapons of mass destruction. The way i see it, we don't do much good as a nation if we just kill the people that hate us. rather, show them the good in us and the respect in us. we aren't any better than they are if we do the same things that they do. An eye for an eye leaves the world blind.
Since when do terrorists have any interest in seeing the good in people? Pretty sure that would tempt them to attack again.
so we should sink to their level? we should become terrorists ourselves? we should attack a country that had nothing to do with our current problems? neutrality is usually a strong point. because if a group attacks us when we are not involved with anything, then other countries step in on our side because we are the innocent in it. one of the reasons why Switzerland never has a war, because they are neutral all the time. but to attack a country when it was staying out of our battle, and was actually had some loose ties to the US, that makes us just as bad as the group that attacked us when we weren't doing anything wrong.
Sure, we had a reason to attack the areas the terrorists came from in order to retaliate. But still, the US and it's allies are supporters of "world peace for all" and aim to create fair government in all areas of the world. Not only were there terrorists who posed a threat to the US and UK mainly, but the government of Iraq was in an unacceptable state and was run by an unfair and unlawful ruler in Saddam Hussein. Although many aspects of the Iraqi invasion were not directly associated with 9/11, does not mean we did not have reason to do so. And in just 21 days, the Iraqi government and regime of Hussein collapsed. Something that could not have been achieved under the rule of our current sorry excuse for a "president."
what is the definition of a fair government? is democracy the only way to have a fair government? no. China, Vietnam and Laos all have pretty fair governments, despite the fact that they are communist states. Sure, China blocks freedom of the press, but that doesn't really mean that they are unfair. Saddam had a lot of allies, and a lot of people in Iraq didn't want to see Saddam fall. Matter of fact, most of the people who wanted Saddam to fall was because of religion. because they didn't share the same denomination of Islam as Saddam and his followers. maybe Saddam needed to go, but he wasn't attacking us, and if they wanted to get Saddam out of power, there would have been ways. no Iraqis ever told anybody to help them. they were glad when the Gulf War happened, but the second time around, a lot weren't too happy to see the us troops. and i never said that obama was a good president. he has put us in a deficit that we have never seen before. he has already spent more money than bush did. but he does have a great knack of making people like him, including our former enemies. and that is a very positive thing. the US and our allies did end the reign of saddam quickly. but we just barely got removed from a place that we should have been removed from 3 or 4 years ago. if bush had a good foreign policy, he would have gone about it way better than he did.
I'll just respond to the "fair government" piece. I didn't say democracy/republic/monarchy or whatever else our allies may have are the only types of "fair" governments. A dictatorship could potentially be fair as well. But a government led by a man who killed and tortured both the innocent and guilty is completely unacceptable.

And according to the US and UK, the mission's objective was to "disarm them of potential weapons of mass destruction, take Saddam from power, and free the Iraqi people."
the group that US handed the government to was just as lethal and could potentially kill more people (its a religious conflict that has affected the middle east since the Islam prophet Muhammad died). and saddam hadn't gassed anybody since US took care of that in the Gulf War.

There was no weapons of mass destruction, and there isn't any need for freeing the iraqi people. the only people who really didn't like the Saddam rule moved to a little unrecognized country at the border of Iraq.
Regardless of Saddam's role, due to his past actions, the death penalty was the right thing to do. And although no nuclear/biological weapons were found, doesn't mean they lacked that threat and it's better safe than sorry. Suppose they were creating such weapons secretly and assumptions were made and we did nothing about it? Once those weapons are used, there's no real fighting back, it would be the end.
then do more research. don't look at some map that had objects that are hotter than the rest of the place and assume that they have weapons of mass destruction.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:54 pm

Pretty off topic anywho.
Back to top Go down
SuperByNature
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker


Posts : 824
Location : Montana

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Wed Apr 13, 2011 11:06 pm

Jarrett wrote:
Pretty off topic anywho.
true.
Back to top Go down
.mop is dead.
Curtain Jerker
Curtain Jerker
avatar

Posts : 765

PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:24 pm

Hopefully Obama. Since the Republicans have re-taken control of the house, the goverment is about to shut down.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: US: Who to Run in 2012?   

Back to top Go down
 
US: Who to Run in 2012?
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» Worlds in Nice 2012
» World 2012 attributed to the city of Nice , Euros Sheffield
» Nik Stauskas - Mix Tape - Class of 2012
» 2012 Mustang Boss 302
» 2012 Cat Side x Side

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
The Universe :: Entertainment & News Forums :: News & Politics-
Jump to: