# Is The Bush Administration responsible for the Weather too!



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Democrates now days sound like a broken record with the first 3 words comming out of their cockholster's is "The Bush Administration ". Even Hurricains are because of the "The Bush Administration"
Funny thing is, they only can get morons to believe half the crap their trying to float. 
Then the morons run around like a bunch of mocking birds repeating blindly everything that was pumped up their butt.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

Then the morons run around like a bunch of mocking birds repeating blindly everything that was pumped up their butt.[/quote]

You just summed up the population of Cambridge Massachusetts! :lol:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

I recall an (in Jest) Fall Campaigne Ad from last election ... attributed to John Kerry.

Went something like this except this is a much shorter version ....

---------------------------------------------------------

Look around you my fellow Americans, as you can see the leaves on trees all across the America are turning brown and falling off the trees ...

This is a direct result of George Bush's failure to see or understand ... and the Republican Administration's failed policies.

I, John Kerry have a better plan and if elected, I should be able to have the leaves back on the trees in about six months.

end of ad

----------------------------------------------------------------

This Democratic Party's mind-set has been etched in stone for a while now. :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

IF GW is responsible for the recent weather, can we blame Clinton for the ice storms of 98?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Gun Owner said:


> IF GW is responsible for the recent weather, can we blame Clinton for the ice storms of 98?


We need to be specific on WHICH Clinton we blame for giving off the cold shoulder. Hilary in '08? Get ready to reverse the 'Global Warming' scare of the Left-Winged Liberal Zealots and prepare for a new Ice Age!

(Of course they will just be dealing with what GW left them...right?)


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

You know it would be interestinmg to see her win.....just to see all you conservatives moan and b*itch for 4 years. :idiot:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I don't think she has enough people including women support.
Just the dumb$ss mockingbirds.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

KEN W said:


> You know it would be interestinmg to see her win.....just to see all you conservatives moan and b*itch for 4 years. :idiot:


Seems how we have been listening to you'all for the last 8, I'd say that would be fair. After the 4 years of hell some of you might come back from the 'Dark Side' and step into the Light of the Right.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I certainly would not give George W credit for the beautiful weather we are having in North Dakota this winter. I think it is due to clean living. Of course I can only speak for myself and not the rest of you shady characters!


----------



## Invector (Jan 13, 2006)

I hurd that after trena hit the south bush was going to attack all countries that harbor storms of mass distruction and even nukeing the storms as they come to attack us. hardy har har :beer:


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

I heard some guy in my ECON class today say "So, does President Bush keep poor people poor so they will ride the buss?" :roll:

Sheeple....what can I say.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Government Welfare progams have kept (and made) more people poor than anything else in the history of mankind.

Far too many among us will settle for what they can aquire for free ... rather than create (and demonstrate) their own value and worth in order to flourish.

Hard for me to imagine ... but true ...

Or so it seems to me ...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

It's amazing how some people sit on their butts doing nothing and ***** about someone who made some money that wasn't sitting on theirs.
Than they go after the money that someone else earned like a bunch volchers.
Look at Bill Gate for example, as soon as he made a couple of bucks all the low lifes wanted him to give his money to the people that were sitting on their butts!
Time to thin the herd!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Nature's selection process has been interuptted once again.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> I recall an (in Jest) Fall Campaigne Ad from last election ... attributed to John Kerry.
> 
> Went something like this except this is a much shorter version ....
> 
> ...


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

uke:


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Whats going on, the Evangelical Christians have joined the battle against global warming.
This week they formed the evangelical Climate initiative.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> IF GW is responsible for the recent weather, can we blame Clinton for the ice storms of 98?


Oh, but isn't there a diference here? Clinton wasn't elected by the God fearing christians. Weren't we supposed to have divine guidence with Bush? *He said we would.* I was so disapointed that God didn't smile on us because we listened to the preachers and voted for Bush. I'm starting to believe God doesn't like George Bush or things would have gone better for us



> I goofed up and hit edit on here instead of quote. I hope I got everything back correct. Was that first part of the post your words or a quote?


Plainsman


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jacksbrat said:


> > IF GW is responsible for the recent weather, can we blame Clinton for the ice storms of 98?
> 
> 
> Oh, but isn't there a diference here? Clinton wasn't elected by the God fearing christians. Weren't we supposed to have divine guidence with Bush? *He said we would.* I was so disapointed that God didn't smile on us because we listened to the preachers and voted for Bush. I'm starting to believe God doesn't like George Bush or things would have gone better for us


I think your hallucinating because I don't remember im saying any such thing.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> I think your hallucinating because I don't remember im saying any such thing.


Well, I do. Preachers all over the country were praising the "born again christian" that we should vote for and Bush saying he listens to a "higher power". Do you have selective memory?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

No I don't have selective memory. I remember preachers saying they thought he would be good, but I don't remember Bush saying he would have devine guidance. I think your so partisan the truth escapes you. Get real.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

I'm just saying that maybe George Bush isn't hardly as much of a "christian" as he proclaimed.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

So because he think he is a good christian that means what? God is going to make us all safe, give us all a million dollars, what? Your not making a point. 
Your original post said "Weren't we supposed to have divine guidence with Bush? He said we would" and that is just not true.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

I just can't understand why a christian can't help but have his faith in God shaken somewhat by the events that has happened sense Bush was elected. We went through relatively quiet and prosperous 8 years with what was considered to be an immoral president, and used that to elect a moral "born again chriatian". Either God isn't in control as thay think, or he's trying to tell them something.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Was it quiet in 1993 when the first attempt was made to bring down the Towers?

How about in 1998 when the embasies were bombed?

Or maybe it was nice and quiet onboard the USS Cole in 2000?


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Was it quiet in 1993 when the first attempt was made to bring down the Towers?


But they failed, didn't they? And the people responsible are now locked up. Why did they fail while that immoral Clinton was president, but succeed after Bush, the moral christian believer was elected? Wouldn't you expect just the opposit to happen?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I'd hardly call 6 deaths, over 1000 injuries, and $250,000,000 in rebuild costs a failure.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

jacksbrat ... have you heard of the thing called "The Learning Curve?"

Did you notice that Clinton treated the situation as a "Crimminal Offense" ...

GWB treated it as an "Act Of War" which it is and was even back in 1993.

If these folks aquire nuclear weapons and use them ... do you realize for a second just how silly and stupid your side of this debate will sound??

you are indeed one goofy and naive person for certain.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

jacksbrat said:


> I just can't understand why a christian can't help but have his faith in God shaken somewhat by the events that has happened sense Bush was elected. We went through relatively quiet and prosperous 8 years with what was considered to be an immoral president, and used that to elect a moral "born again chriatian". Either God isn't in control as thay think, or he's trying to tell them something.


So is that what you want, our faith shaken? Is it just W that you hate or God too?

I'll tell you why it was relatively quiet for eight years; because you don't always smell the rot until you open the lid. Are you really so ill informed that you don't remember all the instances where Clinton said "we will track down and punish the people responsible"? The liberals on this site may have some different priorities than the conservatives, but for the most part their arguments contain factual information to support their hypothesis. You on the other hand have your head buried in the sands of political partisanship. We have had this type come and go, and the conservatives have appreciated every one of you.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> We have had this type come and go, and the conservatives have appreciated every one of you.


Darn Right! They are fun


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

i can't resist .It was Pat Robertson who said GW would be guided by divine a divine power . After all he has said and done I wouldn't trust him either .


> [/quot
> PostPosted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 1:22 pm Post subject: Re: Is The Bush Administration responsible for the Weather t
> Then the morons run around like a bunch of mocking birds repeating blindly everything that was pumped up their butte]
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> There are records that GW is the worst ever person in these regards .


I would like to see credible records that say such. Even then are they scientific, or just opinion? It would take years of scientific investigation to evaluate what you have said, therefore I can only believe it is more of the sky is falling rhetoric. I am not happy with many environment policies on either side, however the environment will survive longer with Bush than my firearms and hunting will survive Kennedy, Schummer, Hillary, Fienstien, Boxer etc etc etc.

You know I really don't like defending Bush, but give us a better alternative.

And who are the parrots?


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

Not years of scientific investigation . Just five n' half years of experience .
The " Take Your Guns Away " thing . A repeated resounding myth . Now if you said take the guns away from criminals it would have been easier for me to understand . Now I know you are not going to set up your decoys around a bank so you can rob it , and so do they ! [ Them , They , Those kind of people ] When will people understand that the government is not and never will be run from Hollywood . We are the government - We The People !
Will your Grandchildren be able to hunt Federal & Public lands ? If there are none then hunters will dwindle . Hunters need to fight for the preservation of these lands and the wildlife that preside in them . 
Too much - " The cart before the horse " , " Or -" Close the barn after the cows got out " . Looking down the road - What if ?

I do not know how to distinguish between our waking life and a dream . Are we not always living the life that we imagine we are ?
----- Henry David Thoreau


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It looks like we are in a cliché match. I always thought cliché's were useful when they related to the subject, I don't think yours do.

I sometimes wonder if it is we the people. I don't think far left liberals like that idea. They look at us as the unwashed masses that don't need guns, and themselves as the elite intellectuals who need bodyguards with guns (ie. Rosie Odonnall). There is a woman who's word is worth nothing. Remember when she agreed not to bring up guns while interviewing Tom Selak on her talk show? It was the first thing she brought up. All the far left liberals are of equal integrity.

atec


> I have been a member of three political forums and have eaten up hours of *sane* moments in my mind


Three political forms?????????????? Do you have political ambitions?

I would question sane part if you can't see what the radical left is doing to the democratic party. Your blindfolded when it comes to the second amendment controversy that is sure. There is a lot of money backing up these fanatics, and more people each day believe their garbage. You for one.


----------



## goldhunter470 (Feb 25, 2005)

> It looks like we are in a cliché match.


winning isn't the only thing, it's everything
Screwed up as Hogan's Goat.
in a pickle
whatever floats your boat
at least it was a very interesting experience 
in a brown study
Oh what a tangled web we weave
eat your own words
and so to bed
Don't go away mad. Just go away.

Is this a CAGE MATCH!?!?! I think I just won, brother. OH YEAH!!


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> If these folks aquire nuclear weapons and use them ... do you realize for a second just how silly and stupid you side of this debate will sound??


Questian: How many WEAPONS of MASSSSSSS DISTRUCTION were used on 9/11? How many Iraqi's were invalved? Both WMD'S and Iraqi's were induced into this "war on terror" by George Bush. Appearantly the hijackers they either chose not to use WMD's or could not get any before 9/11. I bet that's not the case any more. Thanks george.


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

We need more Jack, give us some more, you are a picture of why the Dem's can't win an election. More jack, more jack, more jack.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

jacksbrat

My question still stands ...

You jumped through a few hoops there ...but did not touch my question


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> We need more Jack, give us some more, you are a picture of why the Dem's can't win an election. More jack, more jack, more jack.


No, stupid preachers, millions spent on right wing propaganda, and gullable brainwashed folks like you believing their lies are why the "dems" haven't won. But they can only fool people so long.



> jacksbrat ... have you heard of the thing called "The Learning Curve?"


Yes, to bad Bush hasn't.



> Did you notice that Clinton treated the situation as a "Crimminal Offense" ...


Because that's what they are. There was no country or foriegn government invalved in 9/11. It damn sure wasn't Iraq.



> GWB treated it as an "Act Of War" which it is and was even back in 1993.


Bush also said Iraq was invalved, and they had WMD and... This wasn't his only mistake. He's always wrong.



> If these folks aquire nuclear weapons and use them ... do you realize for a second just how silly and stupid you side of this debate will sound??


Once again, How many WEAPONS OF MASSSSSS DISTRUCTION was used on 9/11. Bush added this to the mix.



> you are indeed one goofy and naive person for certain.


The way I see it, anyone that buys into this phoney war is the idiot.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> How many WEAPONS OF MASSSSSS DISTRUCTION was used on 9/11


We don't normally think of jet planes as WMD's, but on September 11 they worked quit well don't you think?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> invalved, DISTRUCTION, phoney


These are just a few examples.... but please, if your going to try and argue a superior mindset, please try a little harder to spell correctly. These words are INVOLVED, DESTRUCTION, and PHONY.

and just for some more point counter-point....



jacksbrat said:


> Because that's what they are. There was no country or foriegn government invalved in 9/11.


What the hell do you call the Taliban in Afghanistan???????


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> These are just a few examples.... but please, if your going to try and argue a superior mindset, please try a little harder to spell correctly. These words are INVOLVED, DESTRUCTION, and PHONY.


I'll make a deal with you. I'll admit my spelling isn't so good and any time you can't figure out what I'm saying because of it, I'll get out my dictionary and look it up for you, if you won't use my spelling as an excuse to avoid answering my questions. Deal????


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Im not using it as an excuse, just offering a friendly tip. As for not answering questions, please answer mine regarding the Taliban...


----------



## atec (Jan 29, 2006)

I will say just one more thing and I'm done with this ping - pong - match.
It always disturbs me that all supporters of this lame administration elude to linking people who disagree with them , and somehow associate them with the " Extreme Left Wing " . I am a God fearing , hard working , railroad worker from MI , and I just simply choose to disagree with your Man's policy .Not much more than that . Except I do care about people and workers' struggle in the United States . I'm Done ! :wink:


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> What the hell do you call the Taliban in Afghanistan???????


I don't think I'd call them the government of Afghanistan. If we are going to have troops on Islomic soil, that's where they should be. And it should be made very clear that they were there to capture criminals, not to Americanize their country. Our presence in Iraq is helping their cause.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

jacksbrat said:


> > What the hell do you call the Taliban in Afghanistan???????
> 
> 
> I don't think I'd call them the government of Afghanistan. If we are going to have troops on Islomic soil, that's where they should be. And it should be made very clear that they were there to capture criminals, not to Americanize their country. Our presence in Iraq is helping their cause.


What then would you call them? They were in full control of the country, they had selected representatives acting as liasons in other countries. They made the laws, and they enforced the laws they made. I do believe that government means "governing body"...

Regarding our troops in Afghanistan, they are there and they are apprehending criminals. They are gathering intel on suspected and known terrorists, and they are working very hard to put an end to Al Qeida in that area.

As for "Amercanizing" the country, after toppling the Taliban, a new framework for government was needed. What better government is there besides a government that allows for the freedom of its citizens? By your description, we've Americanized Germany, Japan, South Korea, and (albeit indirectly) the entire eastern block. The former socialist countries (former for a reason) are still working out the kinks that came in when an entire way of life is changed, but the rest of these countries seem to be doing fairly well.

Since you are obviously against our presence in Iraq, all I can say is that if Clinton had been proactive and gone in and shut the Taliban down when we first knew they were going to be a problem, we wouldnt have had 9/11. Mr Bush is taking on the very hard job of being proactive, not reactive. A job that unfortunatly allows whining, second guessing liberals the chance to say "If it hasnt happened, it probably wasnt going to happen,"

In the end, it boils down to 2 kinds of people. The kind that protect freedom and the kind that use the freedom to blindly question the motives of those who have and continue to protect it.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Clinton was giving them money and looking the other way and releasing terrorist from jail and giving out pardons. :evil:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

How many people does the weapon have to kill before you consider it a weapon of mass destuction?..............3000 or so..............


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> We don't normally think of jet planes as WMD's, but on September 11 they worked quit well don't you think?


Who said Bush didn't find WMDs in Iraq. Didn't they find some planes buried in the desart. Yea, that'll work. My sheep will buy anything


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Where did they find SADAAM,............... that's made-up too :eyeroll: 
Not the sharpess knife in the drawer are ya boy?


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

> Where did they find SADAAM,............... that's made-up too


Why don't we drop him from a plane and see how big of a Condi and Dick mush-room cloud he'd make?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Sounds like the first great idea you've had since you arrived here.

Dont think it'd make much of a cloud, but I bet the bounce would be cool.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

FYI
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." ----Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."> ----Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
----Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

How in the world can these people now claim President Bush Lied on Iraq?
Simple: They think the American people don't remember them making these statements.

Now that's comming from a Democrats........it must be true.


----------



## jacksbrat (Feb 12, 2006)

How many wrongs does it make to make a right? This is Bush's war, no matter how you spin it.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> FYI
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." ----Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."> ----Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
> ...


So when do we invade North Korea and Iran.They will have nuclear capabilities and be much more of a threat than Saddam ever was.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

North Korea is definitely going to come to a head, but not as soon as Iran, thats going to be the one to watch. Lots of tough decisions for the free world to make, do we cower when threatened by dictators or do we face them thats the real question.
Scary stuff when you consider the possibilities either way.
I vote we face them down for what its worth.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Isreal will take care of Iran.They will never let them have nuclear weapons.Will that start another Mid-East war?

We should tell China to take care of North Korea....or we will let Japan develop nuclear weapons.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

KenW wrote: Isreal will take care of Iran.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't get the impression Israel has the capability to "take care of Iran."

Iran is a huge spread out country with it's program spread all over the place ... Israel can't even fly to Iran without multiple refuelings.

Atleast America can get there from multiple places in rather short hops there and back ... now granted the big firepower would be coming in the form of Stealth Bombers from Kansas ... but the idea that Israel could take care of Iran is a pipe dream even though they might wish to God they could.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

KEN W said:


> So when do we invade North Korea and Iran.They will have nuclear capabilities and be much more of a threat than Saddam ever was.


It is only a matter of time before these issues come to a head. North Korea is further off, as they do not have long range missiles as of yet. If they did, the United States, under the auspices of the Nuclear Regulatory agency and the United Nations would have already taken out Kim J. He understands the implications of his actions to enough of a degree to understand that at all times we have a nuclear class sub sitting off the Korean peninsula aimed at his palace.

Iran is a different story. They are much more formidable. The country is better defended, is larger, and has a much more unstable government. The fact that they are pursuing weapons grade plutonium should be a concern to the entire world. That is why there is currently so much more diplomatic activity from the UN Security Council. Thankfully, at present time their nuclear timetable is slow, otherwise we would already have begun initiating other forms of stronger "diplomacy" to enforce the worlds security. The Shah's decisions over the next decade will be the biggest factors in how that area of the world will develop.....

Hopefully for his sake and ours he is not foolish.....


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The world is always waiting for us to take care of these things, then many ***** when we do. Perhaps we should tell Iran screw with us or anyone who supports us and we will make your nation and people disappear in a mushroom cloud. Screw with anyone else and it really isn't our business. I think France and Germany would all of a sudden become good allies in short order.

We should do about the same with foreign aid. Don't like us, defend yourself and feed yourself. I watched a TV show this week-end that discussed that. I am for helping people, but if they hate me they can starve. It's time the world really appreciates the things we do.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

AMEN!!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

i agree :beer: ......time to get off the pot.you are either our friend or your not and you can take care of yourself.


----------

