what do you guys think of G. Bush???

Isn't like-hate an oxymoron? [/pedantic]

Shouldn't your location by Airstrip One? [/Orwellian]


What's that smell? It smells a bit like flatulence... [/predictive]

Does no-one in Belgium have a sense of humour?

I think we should bomb you for being a 'tard.

Like I give a flying fu[b][/b]ck what someone in Belgium that dosen't want to be there thinks of my opinion?!?!

Does no-one in Belgium have a sense of humour?

Well, Belgians have a sense of humor but it's really alien to anything you might faintly recognize. Sadly their sense of humor is completely overshadowed by a self-imposed inferiority complex. As a friendly neighbor we leave them to revel in their self-pity.

Does no-one in Belgium have a sense of humour?

Well, Belgians have a sense of humor but it's really alien to anything you might faintly recognize. Sadly their sense of humor is completely overshadowed by a self-imposed inferiority complex. As a friendly neighbor we leave them to revel in their self-pity.

lol
i can say a lot of you dude

Yeah, the waffles are good.

Everytime I think of waffles, I think of the scene in Shrek, "I'M MAKING WAFFLES!"

A donkey making Belgium waffles.. nice.


Yes, I know. Just like Bush makes good beer.

Don't like em' looking like they have BuckWheat caught in a leg lock??

Are the Little Rascals/Our gang references out of Date?...Am I ...Behind the times?

A. You can't remove Iraq.

B. If you could, he'd still be one of the worst...ever. Wait a few years until
the books flood the market on the sh*t he's done on behalf of his corporate cronies.

C. Media? Liberal? Pleeeeease. You have Fox, Rush, Hannity, Savage and all those
other a**holes. Anytime something is reported that doesn't favor Republicans,
it's considered "liberal".

I seem to recall nearly a decade ago not be able to read or watch the news
without the "liberal" media tearing Clinton a new one.

D. Grow up.

I'd say, give it your best shot.

lol, well here are some things we belgians say about you guys:

-waaaay to loud
-to fond of cheese (omg is that a cheeseburger in your avatar? 8O )
-you have waaay to much mills in your country
-just watch the austin powers movies 8)

i guess you say about us that we're greedy and such, that's not true
but hey! my arguments are probably not true neither

...*enters, wiping remains of Rolf Harris off thick co[b][/b]ck*...

Oh no. I'm not going to get drawn into Rolf Harris' naff lines.

Now Bruce Forsythe, that's a different story.....

..*Richter scale measurable FART!*..

You can understand why they brew such strong beer. Makes them forget they actually live, albeit for a brief while. Then it's back to dullness.

Oh, "higher" definitely. Then, when you knock his syrup off, we can go "Good Game, good game".

I'd like to squirt a "Brucie Bonus' on his shiny bonce.

I agree that Bush has helped America's economy along. I also agree that Clinton was not a good president by comparison either.

However, now that North Korea has (allegedly) nuclear capability again...

To start off with, the UN is a waste of time. It has had THREE chances since WW1 - in various forms - and the only thing the UN does during any conflict is sit off to one side and criticize.

Secondly, America abused nuclear technology to END WW2. What should have happened then was to dismantle any/all nuclear armament programs. Instead, America and Russia decided to have a penis competition.
This situation then got even MORE out of hand.

The upshot of the matter is, if Bush wants to actually do something GOOD, then he must forget about Iraq and middle east until he has removed the nuclear threat.

Discuss.

1) The UN can't force a nation into anything, and that is what makes it worthwhile. The socio-economic and other important factors that lead to war cannot just be discounted or rectified by the UN or any organization. Wars happen for a reason.

2) The UN has been a stabilizing influence, a huge one especially in light of...

3) Nuclear weapons. They're awesome. And not only in the true biblical sense of the word. They are the ultimate end-game, world-destruction move that makes our world what it is today.

The truth is, armed conflict is no longer practical on any massive scale. War, like it was fought before, and conquest are no longer possible. Humanity is forced to use economy and diplomacy.

Ask yourself this: do you really think a cold war would've been possible without nuclear weapons. No. In the absence of The Bomb, World War 3 would have been a certainty sometime before 1970. And another one after that. And another, until a clear winner was decided or all was lost.

And when we deny a nation the right to nuclear weapons, we deny them true sovereignty. (A good thing for us in light of what those nations represent)

The situation rather appeals to me, in fact. It's very direct. No lies, no hypocrisy and no pussyfooting Either we, as humanity, are worthy and we learn to live. Live together, live in peace.

Or, we die. Spectacularly. Not through providence or meteor or sun explosion or something else we can blame, no, we die by our own hand, through something of our own device.

It'd be beautiful if I wasn't almost sure that our chance of survival is close to 0.

"dogmatic"

Just wonderful!

Love it! Just love it!

First year uni all over again and in a good sense to, mate.

Out of interest, why would one be "unfortunate" to live in Belgium?

Mate, you have STELLA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Focking good enough reason to be happy right there, mate.

GAH!
Again with the stupid!

What sort of power do you wish it had? The power to be a non-legitimate US mouthpiece? That's not how international relations work!

The UN is not there to force countries into submission, even when the majority of countries will it, otherwise the invasion of Iraq wouldn't have happened. The UN is there to provide a means for constructive dialog among all the different nations, the good, the bad, the ones you don't agree with, the ones that don't agree with you... ALL nations. And the very different points of view of those nations make it impossible to agree on anything really important, hence the "no power".

BUT. THAT. IS. THE. WHOLE. FOCKING. POINT.

A UN completely under the control of western civilization, with its purpose the spreading of "western" values, would be completely illegitimate, non-functional and useless.

By cutting taxes mainly for the rich, using Reagan era "trickle-down" ideas?
The same thing Bush's own father called "Voodoo economics" when he was running?

The 90's boom was helped in great part by policies put in place late in Bush Sr
term in office. But overall, the economy is cyclical. If in fact the current Bushco
had anything to do with this current economy, just wait until the bill comes due. Plus
interest. You want to talk about taxes...

NK developed the bomb under Clinton's watch. They came out and said they had an active nuclear program. That's not something you just start up over night. It began under Clinton.

The Stock Market is growing thanks for the tax cuts, which gives a lot of companies and people money to invest, generating revenue for more companies to expand, hire people, etc.

Unemployment is at historic lows right now.
Small business is taking off.

The economy is in great shape aside from a soft housing market, which had been going up way too much anyhow and this is expected.

Afghanistan, if you recall, needed to happen and was the American's demand to go for Osama. Don't blame Bush for that one. If you think the Taliban coming back is Bush's fault, then you're an idiot. Bush flat out states that the Generals on the ground determine what happens, how many troops, etc.
You have to blame the Generals on the ground for faults in Afghanistan.
As is the same with Iraq. Bush doesn't study war, he puts the military there to do their job. Blame the Generals for their failures.

Very typical of an American society. Blame the President and hold no one else to fault. The President makes the decision to act. It falls upon the people below him to make the choices.

I dislike when someone blindly accuses a single person for a vast majority of things like a war in Iraq.

Yes, he put us there. The people below him claimed they were able to handle it.

Who do you trust? Hindsight is 20/20 as they. When Iraq started, I don't believe too many people were saying we shouldn't go in there.

Its easy to say lets do something.. Tell the President to go for Osama, then back out when the going gets a little tough.

Here I was last night watching the History channel. A 5,000 strong US marine invading force lands on a beach.. within hours, 1,500 are casualities.

Today, the American people are quick to turn and run. Their Will is weak. We're in a war, doesn't matter how we got there, we're there. Deal with it.

Regardless, I'm glad Saddam is out. I beleive he had more control of being organized and capable of acquiring WMD than Al Qaeda is.

As far as Katrina.. He put someone in charge who he felt was capable. You know what? Shit like that happens all the time.
Red Tape caught the whole thing up.

I was talking to a friend who's brother is serving in Iraq. He had to have his own tools shipped to him in Iraq because his vehicles were breaking down and he didn't have any tools to fix them.

The money is there. The equipment is available. The hold up is the paperwork.

That's overall gov't to blame, not any single person.

You may pay more now than 5 years ago, but how much have you increased pay in 5 years? are you in a new tax bracket, etc? Did you figure that into why you're paying more?
Honestly, I'd hope you pay more each year. That means you're making more money each year.

...*bleats to the angry, temperamental snorkius*...

You mention the stock market rising during the Bush43 tenure. The Clinton years were MUCH more prosperous to stockholders!

Here is the most important reason that Bush has earned my support:
How many successful terrorist attacks have occurred in the U.S. since 9/11?