Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama vs Bush

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Obama vs Bush

    Might be slightly off topic, but I've been edging to get this out. Okay who would win in a fight, Obama or Bush?
    I'd say Obama would pull out with some slick moves he's got up his sleeve. :-p
    Comments?

  • #2
    Barack Obama is black and enjoys spending time in the Chicago suburbs... Obviously Obama would kick Bush's ass.


    R.I.P. Sean Taylor 1983-2007
    HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

    Comment


    • #3
      Yeah, but Bush is from Texas, so he probably has 50 guns on him at all times. Besides, Bush could cheat and nuke Barack before the fight even started.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by 49ersfan View Post
        Yeah, but Bush is from Texas, so he probably has 50 guns on him at all times. Besides, Bush could cheat and nuke Barack before the fight even started.
        I think we are assuming they are both similarly armed. Otherwise it's no question.

        EDIT: Shouldn't this be in the off topic forum?
        Last edited by MMONTERO; 05-16-2008, 09:39 AM.


        R.I.P. Sean Taylor 1983-2007
        HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

        Comment


        • #5
          Texas (not the college) kicks butt! Yeah

          Comment


          • #6
            Boo Texas. Actually I love your women but boo to the men, lol.
            WalterFootball.com Forum Moderator




            Siena NFL ATS Record(TBD)
            Down LOSING Units Through Week 16

            Comment


            • #7
              Obama's a *****, democrats are ruining the country.
              Chi-Towns Finest!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by regoob2 View Post
                Obama's a *****, democrats are ruining the country.
                Yup. Democrats are the reason why the worst president in US History was elected.
                2014-2015 Kentucky Wildcats (38-1)

                Congrats to Wisconsin. Even more congrats to UK haters.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Matt McGuire View Post
                  Yup. Democrats are the reason why the worst president in US History was elected.
                  Bush never did anything that negatively affected me. If those troops dont want to be over there tell them to stop cashing those checks. I dont remember there being a draft.
                  Last edited by regoob2; 05-17-2008, 12:50 AM.
                  Chi-Towns Finest!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Oh god, I'm I the republican area. Ahhh, runnn!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Obama vs Bush would be an Obama win....
                      Obama and McCain? McCain would break his arm trying to throw a punch, dude's too old.
                      Now, Obama vs Hillary? ...That's what I wanna see. I feel like Hillary would fight dirty, and she seems scrappy.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Matt McGuire View Post
                        Yup. Democrats are the reason why the worst president in US History was elected.
                        Are you serious? Let me get this straight here. During Clinton's 8-year term, the U.S. experienced the following:

                        1. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, which resulted in six deaths and 1,000 injured. After which, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                        2. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
                        punished.

                        3. In 1996, the Al-Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was bombed, killing 19 and injuring 200 U.S. Military Personnel, upon which President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                        4. In 1998, the U.S. Embassy in Africa was bombed, killing 257 and injuring 5,000 people. After the incident, once again President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                        5. In 2000, the U.S.S. Cole struck by a smaller boat carrying explosives on-board, which result in 17 killed and three injured. Again, in the aftermath President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                        It's one thing to say you're going to do something, and something entirely different to actually have the guts to do something which normally, no one else would want to do. All it took was a single attack for Bush to do something instead of talk about it. I can admire the fact that Bush, regardless of what popular opinion would be, makes a decision and stands by it. War is hell and not something that is easy, and no President wants to be stuck in the middle of one during his term. That's why many of them avoid it like it's the black plague. The only thing Clinton did in office (among other extra curricular activities) was precede Eliot Spitzer by cheating on his wife while in office.

                        Yet, you think our current sitting President who sent troops to war in Iraq based on U.S. intelligence reports and with the approval of Congress, who they themselves read the very same reports he did, is the worst President in our history? Y'know, it's okay to formulate a negative opinion of someone in politics, and speak out about it thanks to the freedoms granted by the U.S. Constitution. But I would hardly call formulating these opinions by spit-balling a scientific method of fact finding.

                        Let me just say this much. The U.S. was the victim of terrorist plots during Jimmy Carter's term in office, yet he did not nothing. Reagan took office during the following election year and cleaned up the mess. Again, the U.S. was the victim of terrorist attacks during Clinton's term in office, and like Carter he too did nothing. Bush took office the following season to clean up the mess, or at least make an effort to do so. There are two types of people in this world, talkers and doers. The Democratic party are talkers who are skilled at telling people what they wanna' hear. Republicans are doers, and will tell the people a lot of things they don't wanna' hear, but are factual none the less.

                        You decide.
                        sigpic
                        'GRD Vypers' ready to roll in '08!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Vyper View Post
                          Are you serious? Let me get this straight here. During Clinton's 8-year term, the U.S. experienced the following:

                          1. The World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, which resulted in six deaths and 1,000 injured. After which, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                          2. After the 1995 bombing in Saudi Arabia, which killed five US military personnel, President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and
                          punished.

                          3. In 1996, the Al-Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia was bombed, killing 19 and injuring 200 U.S. Military Personnel, upon which President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                          4. In 1998, the U.S. Embassy in Africa was bombed, killing 257 and injuring 5,000 people. After the incident, once again President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                          5. In 2000, the U.S.S. Cole struck by a smaller boat carrying explosives on-board, which result in 17 killed and three injured. Again, in the aftermath President Clinton promised that those responsible would be hunted down and punished.

                          It's one thing to say you're going to do something, and something entirely different to actually have the guts to do something which normally, no one else would want to do. All it took was a single attack for Bush to do something instead of talk about it. I can admire the fact that Bush, regardless of what popular opinion would be, makes a decision and stands by it. War is hell and not something that is easy, and no President wants to be stuck in the middle of one during his term. That's why many of them avoid it like it's the black plague. The only thing Clinton did in office (among other extra curricular activities) was precede Eliot Spitzer by cheating on his wife while in office.

                          Yet, you think our current sitting President who sent troops to war in Iraq based on U.S. intelligence reports and with the approval of Congress, who they themselves read the very same reports he did, is the worst President in our history? Y'know, it's okay to formulate a negative opinion of someone in politics, and speak out about it thanks to the freedoms granted by the U.S. Constitution. But I would hardly call formulating these opinions by spit-balling a scientific method of fact finding.

                          Let me just say this much. The U.S. was the victim of terrorist plots during Jimmy Carter's term in office, yet he did not nothing. Reagan took office during the following election year and cleaned up the mess. Again, the U.S. was the victim of terrorist attacks during Clinton's term in office, and like Carter he too did nothing. Bush took office the following season to clean up the mess, or at least make an effort to do so. There are two types of people in this world, talkers and doers. The Democratic party are talkers who are skilled at telling people what they wanna' hear. Republicans are doers, and will tell the people a lot of things they don't wanna' hear, but are factual none the less.

                          You decide.
                          1993 WTC Bombing arrests: Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin, Ahmed Ajaj
                          At the time the attacks were not linked to bin Laden but to Yousef himself. But considering that all involved said that this list includes every mastermind and token in that attack, I'd say Clinton did a pretty thorough job.

                          1995 Saudi Arabia bombing:
                          Arrests: Hani al Sayegh
                          The FBI knew that al Sayegh could lead them to other members of his terrorist organization but al Sayegh spit in the face of a plea agreement after getting the benefits of it. This put the FBI back to square one as there was still little free information about any sort of major threat from al Qaeda.

                          1996 Al Khobar bombing:
                          This bombing was never conclusively linked to Islamic extremists at all. While many extremists welcomed it with open arms no one has any idea who did this to this day.

                          1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings
                          Embassies in Der es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobe, Kenya were bombed in the first major attack linked to al Qaeda. As a response, the FBI put Osama bin Laden on its Ten Most Wanted list. Bill Clinton ordered and carried out Operation Infinite Reach bombing numerous targets in Afghanistan and Sudan. He also asked a defense adviser by the name of Richard Clarke to work on a covert plan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden.

                          2000 U.S.S. Cole
                          This attack was not even considered an attack by al Qaeda until intelligence put the pieces together several months after the October 12, 2000 bombing.

                          In December 2000, Richard Clarke put onto Clinton's desk his finalized covert plan to take out bin Laden and the President signed off on it. However, not wanting to hand a war over to the next President, he instead briefed George Bush on it and entrusted him to carry it out. Instead, due to the anti-anything-Clinton-like atmosphere of the early Bush White House, Bush requested the plan be scrapped and that Clarke make a new one. On September 10, 2001, Bush signed off on a ever-so-slightly revised version of the one that had been handed to Clinton. The next day, the world shook.

                          On a side note, your logic that it only took Bush one attack to do something about the Qaeda threat is extremely flawed. He already should have known from briefings from most of the Clinton White House that al Qaeda was the number one national security threat. The fact is, that al Qaeda had planned these major attacks before but none save the World Trade Center (which occurred 30 days into Clinton's first term) succeeded due to what a former Reagan adviser believed was an unhealthy obsession with al Qaeda. This same Reagan adviser would give Clinton high marks on national security. His only criticism was that Clinton was too focused on al Qaeda.

                          EDIT: Lest this be seen as some defense of Clinton by some misled Democrat, I should also mention that I am a staunch Libertarian and, therefore, detested a lot of Clinton's policy work and Clinton, in general. However, when you look at just the facts and take off the blinders of party lines, Clinton had an extremely solid national security policy.
                          Last edited by MMONTERO; 05-18-2008, 01:07 PM.


                          R.I.P. Sean Taylor 1983-2007
                          HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            i take it from the lack or response that you admit i thoroughly and validly dissected your argument vyper...


                            R.I.P. Sean Taylor 1983-2007
                            HAIL TO THE REDSKINS!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MMONTERO View Post
                              i take it from the lack or response that you admit i thoroughly and validly dissected your argument vyper...
                              In all actuality MMONTERO, I've been away with work and in the interim, I forgot all about this thread. The only reason I noticed the thread was due to the fact because you posted yesterday, which was the threads last post, it caused it to appear to the right of the forum category on the menu screen.

                              With regards to your post, or rebuttal of my posting in particular, I gotta' ask you something. Is that what you're all about, working to getting the one-upmanship with posts? Because I never considered posting on a message board a "contest". But if that's what you do, then that's what you do.

                              Meanwhile, with regards to your post. While you made a few valid points, you did fail to point out a few things as well. Everything you listed were the results of extensive work by various government agencies per protocol following an event or disaster here in the U.S. The President does not necessarily initiate these investigations or intelligence gathering. The differing agencies have their own specific guidelines which they follow. So it isn't necessarily Clinton acting steadfastly in the wake of an incident. And here's where Bush differs from Clinton.

                              Clinton was presented with the information you listed. But rather than act upon them, he sat on the information not wanting to commit to action because he did not want to be hand-cuffed to his decisions. Giving an order to go to war is not something which is easily done. No President wants to be a wartime President. So unlike Clinton, Bush doesn't care about public opinion polls or what others think of him. Like Clinton, Bush was afforded intelligence reports but instead of just sitting on the information, he acted upon them. And all this talk going on today about how he deceived everyone or played the propaganda game is ludicrous because Congress read the very same reports. No President can go to war without the consent of Congress and the Senate. No President can just hop onto his horse and scream "yippy kah-yay" and take the nation to war without a vetting process. So it's funny to me to hear Congress play the role of victims here and make allegations that like everyone else, they too were deceived. I guess no member of congress knows how to read?

                              All in all MMONTERO, the point I was making initially was to refute this whole notion that Bush is the worst President the U.S. has known because the war in Iraq did not go according to plan, even though his predecessor had so much time on his hands in office that he had the time to get a blow in the Oval Office by someone who is not his wife, and then he blatantly lied about it to Congress.

                              Say what you will about Senator McCain, but I'd rather have McCain in office than a radical left-wing nut with a Harvard degree who can speak meticulously or the wife of the aforementioned blown President who has this certain sense of entitlement to the Democratic Presidential nomination because she is the wife of an ex-President and she was a good little sport in the wake of her husband having an affair whilst the leader of the most powerful nation in the free world.
                              sigpic
                              'GRD Vypers' ready to roll in '08!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X