There are some people that have a commanding presence when speaking in public. Then there are those that don't.
Printable View
There are some people that have a commanding presence when speaking in public. Then there are those that don't.
I was saying this last night to my wife. His 'jovial belly laugh' (the one where he shakes his shoulders up and down with his arms by his side) and his haughty 'he-he-he' are also hard to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAB
IMHO, a man that is such a weak presence should have been made to realize he needs to let another represent our country. Where I come from - the first time he spoke (trying to appear authoritative) someone would have told him " sit down and shut up you stammering buffoon"..
He might be a great guy... but he does not fill the office.
He fills it a lot better than the last president ever did.....
I totally disagree with you. Clinton didn't get by on a name and family money. He might have been 'country come to town' and a womanizer - but his presence, ability to politic and intellect dwarf Bush's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Archer
So, you think it's better to have a president with no morals than to have one who believes in what is decent and right? If Clinton had done half the job he's credited with doing, Osama bin Laden would be dead or at least imprisoned and 9/11 probably never would have happened.. Clinton didn't have the backbone nor the education to stand up to much of anything or anyone. Intellect? Clinton??? What hogwash!! Tell you what, don't believe everything you hear on CNN, I know I don't. In case you haven't figured it out, Slick Willy didn't run the country, Hillary did... what scares me is she wants to do it again, only this time as President. If you think things are bad now..............
Opinions.. everyone has one. This is why I never discuss religion and politics.
As for your soapbox concerning morals - let him without sin cast the first stone. Clinton's immorality and an overbearing wife didn't make him stupid or incapable of being president. It does disqualify him from being a living saint or the pope though, I guess. He was a Rhodes Scholar and a slick talker (which means he was intelligent and could say a full sentence without fumbling for words).
As for decent and right - this is purely subjective. if you ask his people (Al-Qaeda), what Osama did was decent and right.
Face it man, like I said in the first response... he might me a great guy... but he doesn't fill the office. Tearing others down doesn't make him any bigger or make him able to say more than 5 sentences without spouting embarrassing gibberish.
So, you think it's better to have a president with no morals than to have one who believes in what is decent and right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Archer
Lets see here, One gets impeached for lying about receiving oral sex. The other orders wire taps with out any warrants, Takes us to war with faulty information. By the way since you brought up 911 seems most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia not Iraq but that is beside the point. I could go in to some detail about Bushes connection there but it's not worth the time. The people that support all this will never get it any way.
Sends our troops to war with out body armor and other items, but because he is a bible thumper he has morals?
Osama bin Laden would be dead or at least imprisoned and 9/11 probably never would have happened.
Osama bin Laden still is alive. Not imprisoned and the USA is no safer now than before 911. Any one that believes other wise is a fool. For someone who has been looking for the master mind of 911. Bush has not seemed to bring him to justice has he. Our borders are wide open while we mess around in Iraq. Save the we're bringing democracy to the middle east bs also. That wasn't the reason used when we went in there. Add the fact that this administration has outlawed showing our dead soldiers coming home so the public doesn't see the full impact of what happens. Wouldn't want a loud public outcry now would we.
Getting hit again isn't an if it's a when. Then who gets the blame? Clinton really must have pissed some people off. The guy has been gone a term and a half and you still dig at him that's too funny.
Like I said, don't believe everything you hear on CNN. And you need to do some more reading about the wiretaps. Suppose Clinton ever did anything like that?? And hijackers from Saudi Arabia? Also members of that little terrorist group Al Queda... And I didn't say Osama was dead OR imprisoned... If Clinton had taken him when the Saudi's offered him, he might have been, though. "The administration has outlawed showing our dead soldiers coming home"?? That's a new one.... how does that differ from the fact that is usually the FIRST story the alphabet stations run on the nightly news.. how many soldiers died that day? The last time I saw "dead soldiers" coming home, they were in coffins; before that they were in body bags. Is that the "full impact" of which you speak? And I only dig at Clinton when someone is spouting his so-called virtue, even though as you said, he's been out a term and a half. And if I had my choice between a man who spouts "embarrassing jibberish" (embarrassing to whom?) and had a moral compass and one who doesn't do either, I'll take the occassional "embarrassing jibberish." A man without a moral compass is emotionally and mentally incapable of being a leader to anything, family or country. Oh, there's that soapbox again...I find it interesting that you would quote from the Bible....BTW I've got to ask: Do you guys believe in killing babies, too? And you think "decent and right" is purely subjective?
He's an embarrassment to those who can conceive and verbally communicate a thought. To others, who think that their pompous thoughts and self righteousness alone should be enough - he's likely a fine man. That alone should be enough for you to drop it, but you won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Archer
Killing babies ? A reference to abortion ? You are totally out of line. Later on dude.
Fact:
The Pentagon banned photographs of the caskets of American soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq, Only released after they were forced to do so by a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
Fact:
Wail Alshehri, Waleed M. Alshehri, Abdulaziz Alomari, Satam M.A. Al Suqami, Mohald al-Shehri, Hamza Alghamdi, Ahmed Alghamdi, Hani Hanjour, Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Majed Moqed, Salem Alhazmi, Saeed Alghamdi, Ahmed Alnami
Saudi Arabia.
15 of the 19 hijackers had Saudi Arabia as there home Country. None of them was from Iraq. Were the war on terrorism is being fought. Obviously they were members of Al Queda. And yes Al Queda has terrorists from all over the world. Doesn't change the fact that the US went to war in Iraq claiming they had WMDs and we didn't find any. That were still there even after we learned they didn't have any.
Fact:
Commanders have asked soldiers to contact family members when in Iraq and have them send them body amour.
Do you guys believe in killing babies, too? And you think "decent and
right" is purely subjective?
Opinion:
Decent and right is subjective. It depends on your personal beliefs. The earth is a big place and what is decent to you is abhorrent to another.
As for killing babies, Killing any one with no good reason should be abhorrent. Why should age make it worse. But then again since you must be taking about abortion. You would have to define a what a baby means to you. Don't bother I wont get any farther into this. Your opion is clear as is any one who posts this thread. No more needs to be said.
As for Bush, he is the President. I don't have to like it. That's the good thing about America. We all have the right to voice our opinion. I am not going to have big brother drag me out of bed tonight. Then spend the rest of my life locked away or shot.
Clinton may not have been the best president we had but in fact he didn't do anything good for the country he also didn't do anything bad either.
http://www.checkpointdelta.net/htm/charger/deficit.jpg
I guess this is one good thing to be said for Clinton.
You also say you can't believe everything you hear on CNN...where are you getting your information from and why do you think what you say is more accurate then what we hear on CNN.
Are you related to George?
HMMMM I put the post up just because I thought it was amusing. Had no plans for causing the big political debate here.
Ahh its cool RAB, we need a little stimulation around here sometimes.:)
I think Reaper said everything I meant to say...lol.
You know, this discussion was actually about the presence of a person - and the current leader's lack thereof. This simple issue has been hijacked and drug down to a 'morality' issue. Included in this, a personal jab at the possibility of us condoning 'child killing'. Enough is enough. I'm a conservative myself.. but I can be one without demanding the next door neighbor is one - and saying the rest of his life is ruined since his views are a bit more liberal than mine. Let the Man upstairs be the judge of that. That is why we have a separation of church and state. Getting the waters muddy doesn't change the fact we were all laughing about earlier.
Bush is an embarrassing buffoon. The only good thing is that his mistakes don't warrant apologies, like one of our other wonderful conservatives, Pat Robertson.
__________________________
Edited: 2-3-06
It's obvious your barking up the wrong tree if you're looking for "Bush" backers here.
Hey CPD I found this pic of Bush without his makeup on. Check it out. :agree.gif:
Thats one thing about this country, even though you might have freedom of speech you still have to watch what you say or you risk having the men in black knocking on your door...you can say what you want about the president, just as long as you leave out the bad stuff...He represents the country so i guess people don't need to hear from me if he's a buffoon or not. He's pretty much proven that all on his own!:saint2:Quote:
Originally Posted by "Reaper"
1. You have to watch what you say - in that you can't threaten the life of the president. Nobody here even comes close to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charger
2.The criticism is NOT of the office. It is of the man attempting to fill it.
Two very important things to consider when looking at this. I have no desire for violence against the man - or the downfall of the democratic government. Those are key differences between a critic and an enemy.
Edited: 2-3-06
_________________________________________
I would also like to apologize publicly to brother Archer. He felt some of my statements were made to make him appear 'un-American'. This thread was temporarily locked to keep it from getting out of hand while I am at work.
Although the wording was in no way meant to portray him as such (it was simply a comparison), I have edited the comments and would like to say that he has a right to any opinion he wishes - as long as it doesn't conflict with the staff's. :Smile J-k:
As our president has so eloquently said..
"Fool me once...shame...................................... ......shame on you............................................... ......a fooled man can't be fooled again....."
Regards Doc Archer,
BTR
You ban other members for making derogatory statements about some one else, but you can make a post like this.
I think the posts should all be Deleted, or maybe you don't have to go by the same rules we do?
Please explain that Baron. Keep in mind the whole thread wasn't about a forum member or a squad - it was concerning someone we all have the right to vote for or against - and therefore have the right to an opinion concerning them. At least it was until a point.
Giving tax breaks to major corporations to farm out american jobs to foreign countries make George W a great president? And we may have had Hillary guidng Bill's decisions,so is that any worse than having Pop Bush guiding George W?
Not Pop Bush more likely Dick Chainey.:agree.gif:Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas
I found this...