- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Dubya
DubyaFollow
I just wanted to know why George W. bush is not very good... i here it from people(say on this forum) and tv shows(SNL... i know it supposed to be funny). seriosly i need some answers... from people who know the ****.
He doesn't take crap from anyone. It's that he is the guy no one can push into making any decision other than what he believes in.
It has it's good sides and bad sides. Dubya is a mixed bag. I am all for his foreign policy but his domestic policy stinks.
It has it's good sides and bad sides. Dubya is a mixed bag. I am all for his foreign policy but his domestic policy stinks.
What are his policies?
his foreign policy is horrid. he defied the UN, he severed ties with france and germany. he doesnt care what other nations think, he defied the geneva conventions. and thats just the start of it.
Bush is by far the WORST president in american history.
Bush is by far the WORST president in american history.
Uhm... cause he's a puppet? They put him up infront of the teleprompter and type in what he is supposed to read. He can lie so straightly because he doesn't even have a clue otherwise. Need physical representation?
I believe there was quite a bit of heat on the Administration for the Enron disaster. Then there are allegations the Administration had knowledge of events to come before 9/11 ever occured. These allegations are further backed up by the mysterious 20 some odd pages blacked out of the 9/11 report prepared by the Bush Administration. Further more, weapons of mass destruction? No one has found any yet.
If you need proof that Bush is not in command of the military, look at the torture the iraqi POW's are going thru. Let's not bring up the beheading of a US citizen video, because there are signs in the video that it was not the Muslims who were doing the beheading. I thought after we had captured Sadam, the US troops were there till the Iraqi's could establish a firm government. However, its the US that wants to govern Iraq... yet they're still supposed to be free?
Finally, IMO of whats going on... its rather sad. We, the US, hold our heads high and say we're doing the right thing. Can you tell me how we're doing that when we're telling the Iraqi's we're there to help, but then they SEE us torturing instead. No, that is not fitting of an appropriate Administration. Therefore, either Bush (and the administration) is not in control of the situation, or Bush (and the administration) is a hypocrital dictator set on power and control.
NEVER in the US history has the US gone so far as to begin provoking war. However, in this instance, until "weapons of mass destruction" can be found, I believe the US started this fight.
I believe there was quite a bit of heat on the Administration for the Enron disaster. Then there are allegations the Administration had knowledge of events to come before 9/11 ever occured. These allegations are further backed up by the mysterious 20 some odd pages blacked out of the 9/11 report prepared by the Bush Administration. Further more, weapons of mass destruction? No one has found any yet.
If you need proof that Bush is not in command of the military, look at the torture the iraqi POW's are going thru. Let's not bring up the beheading of a US citizen video, because there are signs in the video that it was not the Muslims who were doing the beheading. I thought after we had captured Sadam, the US troops were there till the Iraqi's could establish a firm government. However, its the US that wants to govern Iraq... yet they're still supposed to be free?
Finally, IMO of whats going on... its rather sad. We, the US, hold our heads high and say we're doing the right thing. Can you tell me how we're doing that when we're telling the Iraqi's we're there to help, but then they SEE us torturing instead. No, that is not fitting of an appropriate Administration. Therefore, either Bush (and the administration) is not in control of the situation, or Bush (and the administration) is a hypocrital dictator set on power and control.
NEVER in the US history has the US gone so far as to begin provoking war. However, in this instance, until "weapons of mass destruction" can be found, I believe the US started this fight.
Quote:
Bush (and the administration) is a hypocrital dictator set on power and control.
I go with that.
One of the scariest shrubya quotes I've ever heard was when bob woodward asked him how he thought history would view his presidency. his reply was something along the lines of: History? We'll all be dead in 100 years so it doesn't matter
/shudders. Am I the only one that scares the bejeebus out of? I think the term megalomaniacal moron pretty much sums him up.
Quote:
He doesn't take crap from anyone.
Ahahahahhahaha.
Yeah, that's what it is. He's a tough guy. Mmmphahahaha.
Sorry, couldn't keep a straight face there. Let's see, who's **** on him since he's been in office?
France.
Germany.
North Korea.
Yemen.
Saudi Arabia.
Bin Laden, who I imagine is laughing his *** off at this very moment.
Ted Kennedy.
Every administration offical who quits.
What has he done about it again? Oh yeah, he invaded what appeared to be the weakest possible target, but in such a way that he didn't put into question the fact that he's an enormus walking puss[b][/b]y.
He's done nothing BUT take **** his entire term.
Quote:
It's that he is the guy no one can push into making any decision other than what he believes in.
Oh my dear lord. Can you really possibly be that amazingly gulliable? He hasn't made a decision yet. He's blindly done what other people told him to. your confusing courageousness with blind LOYALTY.
If you want a consistent Bush trait, it's loyalty. He'll blindly follow any course of action told to him by one of his handlers, regardless of how spectacularly it fails. He'll never take responsiblity for a single thing, and because of his loyalty will never assaign responsibility to someone who works for him.
Instead he'll just imagine all the problems away. Rumsfled is doing a "superb job". Cheney is wonderfull. Evevrything's fine in Stepford.
Pardon me, Washington.
Quote:
It has it's good sides and bad sides. Dubya is a mixed bag. I am all for his foreign policy but his domestic policy stinks.
If you're voting for him for his foriegn policy you have serious reality issues. Maybe you can take a moment and explainn what you think his foriegn policy is.
I'm fairly certain you're confused about the meaning of the words.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
...gbaji, now paging gbaji...
Seriously, it's like a tree-huggin' convention in here. Damn hippies.
Twiztid
Seriously, it's like a tree-huggin' convention in here. Damn hippies.
Twiztid
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Quote:
I am all for his foreign policy but his domestic policy stinks.
He's got a domestic policy?!?!?
Quote:
He'll blindly follow any course of action told to him by one of his handlers, regardless of how spectacularly it fails.
Thats why I call him a monkey, sometimes puppet... but monkey is more fitting since he looks like a chimp. LMAO... Brings another term to Curious George eh?
Edited, Wed May 26 03:56:48 2004 by ElvaanKrem
Sure. I'll take a crack at it.
First off, every president has "handlers". What do you think his staff and cabinet are there for? The only real fact here is that if you already don't like a president, you can call him reckless if he ignores his advisors, or call him "handled" (with an implication of a lack of intelligence) if he doesn't.
It's a meaningless point to make. You don't assume a pilot is incompetant because he relies on things like his instruments, and a landing beacon, and ground controllers to land that jumbo jet you're on safely, do you?
Elvaan. You get my FUD award for the week with this post. Lots of rhetoric and innuendo, but not much real fact.
Wow. Reads like a dimestore novel. So, if enough people (Democrats amazingly enough), make *accusations*, that means something? So me calling you guilible 50 times has more weight then just saying it once? Got it.
OMG! And Clinton bot a ******** in the White House. Then he bombed some terrorist group to divert attention away from the proceedings. Oddly, the same group that later flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Clintons to blame for it all!!!
See how it works? With enough things going on, and enough time, yoiu can string together any accusation you want really. Name me a president that hasn't had a pretty continous string of "bad press" during his administration, then come back and we'll talk.
Yes, and an alluminum hat will help block out the alien mind control rays. Can you be a bit more paranoid? Is this where you tell me that an evil conspiracy that apparently can't keep random US soldiers from doing stupid stuff (or keep them from revealing it if they were supposed to keep it secret), is somehow masterminding this whole thing, apparently with the goal of pissing off a bunch of nations, getting some soldiers killed, and then keeping Iraq (so as to **** off even more people)?
Um? To what purpose? See, there has to be some advantage in it for the Star Chamber folks here. So far, I don't see one. Can it possibly just be that our government really is trying to prevent a threat to the US and maybe actually do something about terrorism in the middle east, but by golly! we're all human and no one is perfect? Thus, people die. We might have less then perfect intelligence about the enemy. We might even have less then absolute control over every single member of the military! Nah? Doesn't sound like a good enough conspiracy...
No. They see pictures of US soldiers posing Irai prisoners in embarassing positions. I haven't actually seen a photo yet showing actual torture. I'm not excusing the photos and the actions they portray at all, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?
It's amazing how hard it is for people to apply their own rules to themselves. You slam the Bush administration for looking at a decade plus of evasiveness on the WMD issue by Iraq (and many many other things) as a sign they've got WMD. Yet, in the same post, you look at photos of Iraqi's being posed and assume torture. Seems to me like you reallly can't claim the high ground.
Hmmm... Barbary States (Where do you think the "Shores of Tripoli" are, anyway?). Spanish/American War? At least try to be accurate.
Technically, Iraq started the fight when they invaded Kuwait 13 years ago. We have existed under a cease-fire since that time, contingent on Iraq meeting several terms (including turning over all documentation of their WMD programs and destroying all existing WMD). They never met any of the terms. We had the legal right according to international law to invade Iraq at any point in the last 13 years. Heck.We probably should have done it back in 91, but we decided to let the UN make the call and see if their way worked. Now, if you want to make a case that Iraq was properly dealt with during the 11 years of UN inspections that were given the run around, and the trade embargoes that were ignored, and the sanctions that did nothing but punish the Iraqi people for the actions of their leaders, then please go ahead.
I'm betting you can't though.
Look. I'm really not a huge bush fan. However, I don't automatically critisize someone for a decision because I don't like them. I don't think Bush is the brightest president we've had. Not by a long shot. But I don't think he's the dumbest either. The guy just doesn't speak well. He's also had a hell of a lot to deal with during his administration. A huge economic collapse, and a number of scandals as a result (the source of which were years old, but only became apparent when the economy turned). He had to deal with the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever, a mere 9 months after taking office. And he had to deal with a UN that decided in the midst of this to lift sanctions on Iraq, forcing us to either chose to let Iraq off the hook, or take action when our forces were already stretched thin (anyone else think the timing of that decision was not an accident?).
I think, given the issues he's had to deal with, he's done pretty well. You may not agree with his policies, but they have been consistent, and he's stuck by them. He could easily have ignored the Iraq thing. He probably would be more popular right now if he had. But it would have been counter to his foreign policy, and someimtes you have to do the unpopular thing because it's necessary. The job of president is not a game show. It's not always about ratings.
Edited, Wed May 26 04:06:09 2004 by gbaji
First off, every president has "handlers". What do you think his staff and cabinet are there for? The only real fact here is that if you already don't like a president, you can call him reckless if he ignores his advisors, or call him "handled" (with an implication of a lack of intelligence) if he doesn't.
It's a meaningless point to make. You don't assume a pilot is incompetant because he relies on things like his instruments, and a landing beacon, and ground controllers to land that jumbo jet you're on safely, do you?
Elvaan. You get my FUD award for the week with this post. Lots of rhetoric and innuendo, but not much real fact.
ElvaanKrem wrote:
I believe there was quite a bit of heat on the Administration for the Enron disaster. Then there are allegations the Administration had knowledge of events to come before 9/11 ever occured. These allegations are further backed up by the mysterious 20 some odd pages blacked out of the 9/11 report prepared by the Bush Administration. Further more, weapons of mass destruction? No one has found any yet.
Wow. Reads like a dimestore novel. So, if enough people (Democrats amazingly enough), make *accusations*, that means something? So me calling you guilible 50 times has more weight then just saying it once? Got it.
OMG! And Clinton bot a ******** in the White House. Then he bombed some terrorist group to divert attention away from the proceedings. Oddly, the same group that later flew planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. Clintons to blame for it all!!!
See how it works? With enough things going on, and enough time, yoiu can string together any accusation you want really. Name me a president that hasn't had a pretty continous string of "bad press" during his administration, then come back and we'll talk.
Quote:
If you need proof that Bush is not in command of the military, look at the torture the iraqi POW's are going thru. Let's not bring up the beheading of a US citizen video, because there are signs in the video that it was not the Muslims who were doing the beheading. I thought after we had captured Sadam, the US troops were there till the Iraqi's could establish a firm government. However, its the US that wants to govern Iraq... yet they're still supposed to be free?
Yes, and an alluminum hat will help block out the alien mind control rays. Can you be a bit more paranoid? Is this where you tell me that an evil conspiracy that apparently can't keep random US soldiers from doing stupid stuff (or keep them from revealing it if they were supposed to keep it secret), is somehow masterminding this whole thing, apparently with the goal of pissing off a bunch of nations, getting some soldiers killed, and then keeping Iraq (so as to **** off even more people)?
Um? To what purpose? See, there has to be some advantage in it for the Star Chamber folks here. So far, I don't see one. Can it possibly just be that our government really is trying to prevent a threat to the US and maybe actually do something about terrorism in the middle east, but by golly! we're all human and no one is perfect? Thus, people die. We might have less then perfect intelligence about the enemy. We might even have less then absolute control over every single member of the military! Nah? Doesn't sound like a good enough conspiracy...
Quote:
Finally, IMO of whats going on... its rather sad. We, the US, hold our heads high and say we're doing the right thing. Can you tell me how we're doing that when we're telling the Iraqi's we're there to help, but then they SEE us torturing instead. No, that is not fitting of an appropriate Administration. Therefore, either Bush (and the administration) is not in control of the situation, or Bush (and the administration) is a hypocrital dictator set on power and control.
No. They see pictures of US soldiers posing Irai prisoners in embarassing positions. I haven't actually seen a photo yet showing actual torture. I'm not excusing the photos and the actions they portray at all, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?
It's amazing how hard it is for people to apply their own rules to themselves. You slam the Bush administration for looking at a decade plus of evasiveness on the WMD issue by Iraq (and many many other things) as a sign they've got WMD. Yet, in the same post, you look at photos of Iraqi's being posed and assume torture. Seems to me like you reallly can't claim the high ground.
Quote:
NEVER in the US history has the US gone so far as to begin provoking war. However, in this instance, until "weapons of mass destruction" can be found, I believe the US started this fight.
Hmmm... Barbary States (Where do you think the "Shores of Tripoli" are, anyway?). Spanish/American War? At least try to be accurate.
Technically, Iraq started the fight when they invaded Kuwait 13 years ago. We have existed under a cease-fire since that time, contingent on Iraq meeting several terms (including turning over all documentation of their WMD programs and destroying all existing WMD). They never met any of the terms. We had the legal right according to international law to invade Iraq at any point in the last 13 years. Heck.We probably should have done it back in 91, but we decided to let the UN make the call and see if their way worked. Now, if you want to make a case that Iraq was properly dealt with during the 11 years of UN inspections that were given the run around, and the trade embargoes that were ignored, and the sanctions that did nothing but punish the Iraqi people for the actions of their leaders, then please go ahead.
I'm betting you can't though.
Look. I'm really not a huge bush fan. However, I don't automatically critisize someone for a decision because I don't like them. I don't think Bush is the brightest president we've had. Not by a long shot. But I don't think he's the dumbest either. The guy just doesn't speak well. He's also had a hell of a lot to deal with during his administration. A huge economic collapse, and a number of scandals as a result (the source of which were years old, but only became apparent when the economy turned). He had to deal with the worst terrorist attack on US soil ever, a mere 9 months after taking office. And he had to deal with a UN that decided in the midst of this to lift sanctions on Iraq, forcing us to either chose to let Iraq off the hook, or take action when our forces were already stretched thin (anyone else think the timing of that decision was not an accident?).
I think, given the issues he's had to deal with, he's done pretty well. You may not agree with his policies, but they have been consistent, and he's stuck by them. He could easily have ignored the Iraq thing. He probably would be more popular right now if he had. But it would have been counter to his foreign policy, and someimtes you have to do the unpopular thing because it's necessary. The job of president is not a game show. It's not always about ratings.
Edited, Wed May 26 04:06:09 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
But I don't think he's the dumbest either.
Really? Name one dumber.
Oh wait, Regan. You make a good point there. There hasn't been a President this stupid since Regan. Prior to that, since Ford.
I see a pattern developing here...what is it that the slowest Presidents in this century have in common...hmmm...
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
Bush is by far the WORST president in american history.
Quote:
Really? Name one dumber
Keep going back, Grant was the worst.
Quote:
Oh wait, Regan. You make a good point there. There hasn't been a President this stupid since Regan. Prior to that, since Ford.
Regan might have been a little short of grey matter but he didn't have a hair trigger and a chip on his shoulder passed down from his dad.
Quote:
NEVER in the US history has the US gone so far as to begin provoking war
Read about the French and Indian War..(different context, but we still started it)
along with the namless wars against the Native Tribes, that we don't bother to call wars , cause they were nothing but skermishes to us..
Also read about some of Teddy Roosevelt's Foreign policies...especially Panama... He was a Beast...
Quote:
No. They see pictures of US soldiers posing Irai prisoners in embarassing positions. I haven't actually seen a photo yet showing actual torture. I'm not excusing the photos and the actions they portray at all, but let's call a spade a spade, shall we? Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?
It's amazing how hard it is for people to apply their own rules to themselves. You slam the Bush administration for looking at a decade plus of evasiveness on the WMD issue by Iraq (and many many other things) as a sign they've got WMD. Yet, in the same post, you look at photos of Iraqi's being posed and assume torture. Seems to me like you reallly can't claim the high ground.
It's amazing how hard it is for people to apply their own rules to themselves. You slam the Bush administration for looking at a decade plus of evasiveness on the WMD issue by Iraq (and many many other things) as a sign they've got WMD. Yet, in the same post, you look at photos of Iraqi's being posed and assume torture. Seems to me like you reallly can't claim the high ground.
"The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said the scandal is "going to get worse" and warned that the most "disturbing" revelations haven't yet been made public.
"The American public needs to understand, we're talking about rape and murder here," he said. "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience; we're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."
Boston Herald
But because you've only seen the tamest photos Rumsfeld allows you to see, that means it's all just liberal hyperbole and nothing too bad really happened.
God, you're such a tool.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
oooo can I be a cordless screwdriver?
Quote:
Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?
Sauce for the goose.
Edited, Wed May 26 14:02:54 2004 by Yanari
The independant investigation cost about $40mil. The Monica probe (heh) cost about six and a half million.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Look blaming GWB for the actions of a few soldiers is ridiculous. We dont even hold parents responsible for the actions of their children half the time anymore. It is against the law, UCMJ and policies of my Bn Commander for Marines to Drink and Drive. Guess what they still freaking do it. The Bn commander is not held responsible for this. You know why? Because you cant control the actions of a person if they want to do something. The leadership can issue orders, give classes, whatever but they cant be there all the time to supervise every activity of every person under their charge. How can you hold GWB directly responsible for the actions of people he probably never even met. Somehow I have a hard time believing that the President said "Rummy we need better info out of those Iraqis put the order out to torture them." Please. Maybe I am naive.
I said, when this all came out, that I don't blame Bush for what happened in the prison. I do, however, hold him directly responsible for what the results will be and whose heads will roll and whose heads will remain protected by the President & Co. I don't consider the investigation over yet, so I'm reserving judgement on that as well.
That said, Gbaji's comment that all he's seen is some embarassing photos so all the liberals must be jumping to conclusions was laughable.
That said, Gbaji's comment that all he's seen is some embarassing photos so all the liberals must be jumping to conclusions was laughable.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
11 posts
One of the main resons I dont like Bush is his environmental policy. He igonored the kyoto protocol. His justification was basically, we are in a recession we need to pollute(Sorry to hyperbolize but I don't remember the exact quote). For those who don't know the Kyoto Protocol was a treaty signed in Japan to lower CO2 emissions over a period of time.
What business was 'W' in before he was President again?
What business was 'W' in before he was President again?
Quote:
For those who don't know the Kyoto Protocol was a treaty signed in Japan to lower CO2 emissions over a period of time.
Leaving developing nations to polute as much as they like, and supposing developed nations should be able to bear the brunt of the costs. I like Shrubs world view. If you aren't with us, get bent. Kyoto was not with us. Kyoto is dead here.
Yanari the Puissant wrote:
Quote:
Adding hyperbole is just another way of lying, right? Or are you saying that it's ok to stretch the truth and make a mountain out of a molehill as long as it favors your personal beliefs?
Sauce for the goose.
Yes. Which is why I disagree with that type of thing, in exactly the way I disagreed with the whole Monica thing back during the Clinton administration.
It's called being consistent in your beliefs. Despite Smash's assertions, I'm really not partisan at all. I apply the same rules and the same critisisms regardless of the party in power. When it was Clinton and folks were pushing the Lewinski thing out of proportion, I disagreed with it. Same applies today when people use the same bogus rhetoric and innuendo when slaming Bush.
Shocker. I know...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Maynard, the way you framed your question shows the bias that surrounds this presidency.
As with any decisive leader, holding a strong opinion or position immediately polarizes the constituancy into two or more camps. And considering Bush is likely the most decisive of the last three presidents that we have had, it strikes us in one of two ways: either you admire him or you detest him. If he were a middle of the road sort of person, there'd be grumblings, sure, but the reaction from the general populace would be largely neutral. As it is, he brings out strong emotions in people for good or evil, one way or the other.
Totem
As with any decisive leader, holding a strong opinion or position immediately polarizes the constituancy into two or more camps. And considering Bush is likely the most decisive of the last three presidents that we have had, it strikes us in one of two ways: either you admire him or you detest him. If he were a middle of the road sort of person, there'd be grumblings, sure, but the reaction from the general populace would be largely neutral. As it is, he brings out strong emotions in people for good or evil, one way or the other.
Totem
Quote:
Despite Smash's assertions, I'm really not partisan at all. I apply the same rules and the same critisisms regardless of the party in power. When it was Clinton and folks were pushing the Lewinski thing out of proportion, I disagreed with it. Same applies today when people use the same bogus rhetoric and innuendo when slaming Bush.
Hahahahahhahha
Hahahahahah.
Oh, my sides hurt.
Yes, you're an independent!! Your views are completely unbiased.
Did we not establish in another thread the complete ludicrousness of your position where you agree with Kerry on nearly everything, but you're voting for Bush....because you're so consistent?
You're a pathetic partisan hack of the worst stripe made laughable by the fact that you pretend to be impartial.
Bill O'Riley redux.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Bush is deciscive? and um I thought you guys were on strike or does that only count in the asylum. If so I think you guys owe me another day off.
Recent Visitors: 80
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (80)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Out Of Topic
- Dubya
© 2025 Fanbyte LLC