Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 27

Thread: bush's storybook reading

  1. #1
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    ok let's talk about 9-11 shall we

    the nation is under attack - Bush hears the first plane hits... then enters the classroom. Hears the second plane hits... FINISHES his story, hangs out for 5-8 minutes and then eventually meanders off to take care of business

    he's the president of the United States his job is not to be reading to schoolchildren

    his job is to protect the nation - did you guys ever think about that? t

    it was the biggest tragedy in our history i've heard some here say... so what the F was bush doing reading to schoolchildren???

    the Buck stops with Bush... and when we were under attack he didn't exactly spring into action... he finished reading the story.

    If FDR knew about Pearl Harbor why not Bush knowing about 9-11? Everything that has come since has been to his personal benefit

    as an aside has anyone been to texas lately? its the smoggiest state in the union, with all sorts of unemployment problems - Bush ran it into the ground, just like every other organization he's ever been in charge of.

    This man traded sammy sosa in his prime for a bag of magic beans.

    also lets face facts Dick Cheney is the guy running the show. Wake up and smell the java he's not called the most powerful vice president in american history cause he's hanging out somewhere minding his own business... he's the hillary behind this presidency.

    as a final note

    budget of commitee to research 9-11 - 40 million

    budget of committee to research Bill Clinton's blowjob - 250 million

    Republicans have control of the house the senate and basically the supreme court. There are no more checks and balances in the American system. This war has become a war of words where one side uses touchwords like "freedom" and "terror" to scare people into turning their brains off.

    the people who benefit are the richest 1% - not you and me. We didn't get a tax break we got a 300 dollar tax advance... the tax breaks for the rich for 2007, 08 are insane

    meanwhile the corporations that assume the rights of people pay no damn taxes>? how the hell does that work???

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Tampa
    Posts
    1,541
    Post Thanks / Like
    First of all.. Even after the tax breaks, the richest 5% still pay 85% of the nations taxes...
    You know what? I'm not even gonna get into it...
    I'm sick of the partisanship.

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    libs are desperately grasping at straws

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    all that other stuff aside


    what i really want to know is why does anyone trust a man who thinks reading a story to schoolchildren is more important than protecting the country

    he's the god-damned president folks its his job to protect the nation

    if Clinton did what Bush did on 9-11 all of us would never heard the end of it.

    thor as for the rich

    f--k em - they should be paying the most cause they control the wealth.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 8 2004, 12:26 PM
    [b] what i really want to know is why does anyone trust a man who thinks reading a story to schoolchildren is more important than protecting the country
    [/b][/quote]
    What I really want to know is did anyone trust a man dipping his wick instead of protecting the country -- Oklahoma City, WTC1, missile technology to communist china, hush money to north korea, USS Cole, Khobar Towers, Black Hawk Down...?

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    So you are saying the attacks happened but the President ignored them after they occured and decided to read to the kids in Fla.?

    I heard that polluted womb Rondi Rhodes or whatever that dumb *****es name is, try and make the same arguement on Err America and it sounds as stupid as the one you are making.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    What did your boy Bill Clinton do after the 93' World Trade Center attack?

    Ummmmm nothing, he went on to appease the terrorists for 7 more years. What a great job he and Madeline Pigbright did protecting the country, while he was busy getting sucked off by an ox, Al Queada was busy planning 9/11.

    All of a sudden libs are wanting to protect this country ....I thought you wack jobs didn't like things like the Patriot act which helps keep the country safe. :lol:

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i talk about Bush you talk about Clinton

    the time for blaming democrats is OVER

    clinton hasn't been in office since late 2000 - it's 2004 wake up and buy a calendar

    GOP controls the House the Senate and the White House

    Bush's incompetance is no fault but his own

    seriously i want to know why its acceptable for the President of the United States to read a story to schoolchildren instead of protecting the nation from an attack on its soil?

    answer that question if you can

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 8 2004, 01:51 PM
    [b] i talk about Bush you talk about Clinton

    the time for blaming democrats is OVER

    clinton hasn't been in office since late 2000 - it's 2004 wake up and buy a calendar

    GOP controls the House the Senate and the White House

    Bush's incompetance is no fault but his own

    seriously i want to know why its acceptable for the President of the United States to read a story to schoolchildren instead of protecting the nation from an attack on its soil?

    answer that question if you can [/b][/quote]
    You're talking about protecting this country. Clinton figures into the argument because he's directly responsible for the very thing you're talking about (those planes ramming into the trade towers)...8 long years of appeasment.

    What did you want Bush to do on that day, that he didn't do? I'm sure just like you bit, it wasn't exactly clear as to what had happened when that first plane hit. Or did you know as soon as the first plane hit it was a terrorist attack and not possibly a news helicopter gone astray or something else like that.

    Atleast Bush did something about the attack on our country, he went to war with these maggots. Clinton and the left simply coddled them after the 93' attack on our country.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    ya know what im willing to grant for the sake of argument that the first plane could have been a fluke

    but even after the second plane hit he kept reading... he had to basically be physically removed from the schoolroom, the President would have hung out there all day

    he didn't do his job - his job is to protect this nation, and SPRING into action when it's attacked

    not hang out and read a story to 8 year olds during the worst event on american soil since Pearl Harbor.

    you want to talk about Clnton? if Clinton was in charge during 9-11 you all would have skewered him by now... If clinton read stories to children while people were jumping from the twin towers he would have been impeached by now -

    Bush was in charge for 9 whole months prior to 9-11 and in the eyes of his supporters he gets off scott-free

    the Buck doesn't stop with Clinton it stops with Bush.

    im gonna post this again

    Budget of the 9-11 commission: 40 Mil

    Cost of the Blowjob investigation 250 Mil

    the time for blaming all the woes of the country on Democrats has long since passed

    GOP controls the house, the senate and the WHite House

    if sh-t is f-cked up its not Clinton's fault. get that through your thick skull :blink:

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@May 8 2004, 02:48 PM
    [b] ya know what im willing to grant for the sake of argument that the first plane could have been a fluke

    but even after the second plane hit he kept reading... he had to basically be physically removed from the schoolroom, the President would have hung out there all day

    he didn't do his job - his job is to protect this nation, and SPRING into action when it's attacked

    not hang out and read a story to 8 year olds during the worst event on american soil since Pearl Harbor.

    you want to talk about Clnton? if Clinton was in charge during 9-11 you all would have skewered him by now... If clinton read stories to children while people were jumping from the twin towers he would have been impeached by now -

    Bush was in charge for 9 whole months prior to 9-11 and in the eyes of his supporters he gets off scott-free

    the Buck doesn't stop with Clinton it stops with Bush.

    im gonna post this again

    Budget of the 9-11 commission: 40 Mil

    Cost of the Blowjob investigation 250 Mil

    the time for blaming all the woes of the country on Democrats has long since passed

    GOP controls the house, the senate and the WHite House

    if sh-t is f-cked up its not Clinton's fault. get that through your thick skull :blink: [/b][/quote]
    I guess he should have jumped up in front of the kids and screamed "WE"RE BEING ATTACKED"

    8 tears of coddling the terrorists and worrying about poll numbers by Clinton & co. = 9/11

  12. #12
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    Clinton was in office for less than 2 or 3 months (I believe) when the first WTC attack happened in '93. Did you hear Democrats or anybody else blaming Bush or Reagan??? Jeesh, when are you going to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING???????

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@May 8 2004, 03:32 PM
    [b] Clinton was in office for less than 2 or 3 months (I believe) when the first WTC attack happened in '93. Did you hear Democrats or anybody else blaming Bush or Reagan??? Jeesh, when are you going to hold this administration accountable for ANYTHING??????? [/b][/quote]
    The country wasn't attacked by Al Queda on Bush 41's watch.

    Nor was WAR declared on the U.S. by Bin Laden on anyone else's watch besides BILL CLINTON'S. You can try and pass the buck all you want but it all started under Clinton and the man DID NOTHING ABOUT IT. NOTHING!!!!!!!

  14. #14
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    295
    Post Thanks / Like
    So the fact that 11 months into office, Bush is TOTALLY not responsible for anything that happened? Do you even bother to read what you are writing? If Clinton had launched a pre-emtive war like Bush did you would have been up in arms so quit with re-visionist history. The GOP was to busy spending 100s of millions of dollars on Whitewater investigations, the death of Vince Foster and impeachment of Monica Lewinsky etc.. When Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, he was lambasted by the right as "wagging the dog". You can't have it both ways.

    Regardless, Bush was warned repeatedly from the day he took office that Al Queda would be his biggest national security issue and what does his adminsitration do? They focus on missile defense! Al Queda and Bin Laden himself, is holed up in Aghganistan and what does Bush do? He redirects most of our military assets (plus 700 million dollars! ) to Iraq!! A country that was no threat to anyone other than itself.

    Afterall, Syria, Iran, Eygpt, etc did not feel in the least threatened by Iraq and they are in Saddams backyard... But we had to "INVADE A DEFENSELESS NATION" that after 10 years of sanctions, had no air force, no navy and not much of an army, in our "War Against Terror". I don't know how you can sit there with a clear conscience and say this made sense.

    Even if I felt Iraq was a threat, which I didn't, it would have made more sense to allow the inspectors to continue their inspections, while we finished off Al Queda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan; then build an international force with the UN, including arab countries, to deal with Iraq, militarily if necessary. This last approach worked for Bush Sr., why not for Jr.?

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,979
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by NYJet94[/i]@May 8 2004, 04:00 PM
    [b] So the fact that 11 months into office, Bush is TOTALLY not responsible for anything that happened? Do you even bother to read what you are writing? If Clinton had launched a pre-emtive war like Bush did you would have been up in arms so quit with re-visionist history. The GOP was to busy spending 100s of millions of dollars on Whitewater investigations, the death of Vince Foster and impeachment of Monica Lewinsky etc.. When Clinton bombed Afghanistan and Sudan, he was lambasted by the right as "wagging the dog". You can't have it both ways.

    Regardless, Bush was warned repeatedly from the day he took office that Al Queda would be his biggest national security issue and what does his adminsitration do? They focus on missile defense! Al Queda and Bin Laden himself, is holed up in Aghganistan and what does Bush do? He redirects most of our military assets (plus 700 million dollars! ) to Iraq!! A country that was no threat to anyone other than itself.

    Afterall, Syria, Iran, Eygpt, etc did not feel in the least threatened by Iraq and they are in Saddams backyard... But we had to "INVADE A DEFENSELESS NATION" that after 10 years of sanctions, had no air force, no navy and not much of an army, in our "War Against Terror". I don't know how you can sit there with a clear conscience and say this made sense.

    Even if I felt Iraq was a threat, which I didn't, it would have made more sense to allow the inspectors to continue their inspections, while we finished off Al Queda and Bin Laden in Afghanistan; then build an international force with the UN, including arab countries, to deal with Iraq, militarily if necessary. This last approach worked for Bush Sr., why not for Jr.? [/b][/quote]
    No, if after the 93' bombing of thre trade tower Mr. Oral office went and attacked Al Quaeda I would have loved it. But he was too worried about what effect that might have on his poll numbers.

    And if Bush went after Bin Laden before 9/11 you libs would have been calling him a war monger, he started an illegal war blah blah blah blah. And if went to war before 9/11 and then the plan took place you would have been saying Bush caused 9-11 because he went after Bin Laden etc etc etc.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Mr. Oral office[/b][/quote]

    What's the matter pope, never got a blowjob before? You sound jealous to me. Or are you one of those Religious nuts who thinks getting your knob bobbed is a crime against the Holy Loving Lord who will reign fire upon blah blah blah....?

    While I think Bill was a ****e arse President, the fact that he got a hummer means absolutely nothing to me and the entire investigation into it was a Right Wing BS Sham, plain and simple.

    If bit's bumbers regarding funding for the 9/11 commisssion/investigation vs. the Star Commission/investigation is TRUE....then we, as a nation, have some very serious issues.

    [quote][b]8 tears of coddling the terrorists and worrying about poll numbers by Clinton & co. = 9/11[/b][/quote]

    Again, I gotta disagree with you. The political turmoil the USA has been under for the past 17-odd years (since Reagan left office) is the casue of 9/11. Every nation on earth knows the USA is so cought up in internal termoil between the Left and Right, that we no longer have the WILL to fight or unify over anything. Even when we do, it is a short-term thing, and no long term agreemnet is reached.

    Basically, our enimies know the US is now made up of 48% Left who hate the Right, 48% Right who hate Left and 4% Left Behind Moderates. Such turmoil BEGS for attack, because division like that means the USA is UNABLE and UNWILLING to unify on action.

    Both parties bear blame on the events of 9/11. The causes did not occur only under Bill's watch. George the 1st and George the 2nd (and many presidents, of both sides, before them) also bear blame in creating the political & socioeconomic conditions that allowed 9/11 to occur.

  17. #17
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 8 2004, 06:30 PM
    [b] Basically, our enimies know the US is now made up of 48% Left who hate the Right, 48% Right who hate Left and 4% Left Behind Moderates. Such turmoil BEGS for attack, because division like that means the USA is UNABLE and UNWILLING to unify on action.

    [/b][/quote]
    What came first, the chicken or the egg?

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Moses, if you are going to critique my opinions, you might want to back up your arguments with something more that jokes.

    How about some facts, figures or at least a well thought out difference of opinion.

    Or are you going to post another colorful balloon picture as your "argument"?

    Oh, and if the Christian Bible (the version I was tought as a youngster) is to be taken at face value, the Chicken came first (created by God with the rest of the animals).

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    5,281
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@May 8 2004, 06:44 PM
    [b] Moses, if you are going to critique my opinions, you might want to back up your arguments with something more that jokes.

    How about some facts, figures or at least a well thought out difference of opinion.

    Or are you going to post another colorful balloon picture as your "argument"?

    Oh, and if the Christian Bible (the version I was tought as a youngster) is to be taken at face value, the Chicken came first (created by God with the rest of the animals). [/b][/quote]
    What came first, the lefts antagonism of the right, or the rights antagonism of the left? At what ljuncture of this 'tit for tat' was it elevated to extremes?

  20. #20
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,649
    Post Thanks / Like
    Neither came first, if my understanding of history is correct (and some can question that if they wish).

    The process of division has been a constant one over the history of the USA. Hwever, in past times, the sides COULD unify for the greater good (at times) when today they cannot.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us