View Single Post
Old 05-05-2004, 02:50 AM
Kenny_C.002's Avatar
Kenny_C.002 Offline
/人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Hina <3
Posts: 12,268
Send a message via AIM to Kenny_C.002
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Originally Posted by Crimson Spider
I think that comes from the government limiting information to the media, because right now, the media (resident media) doesn't like Bush in the least bit. Even though they admit certain things about him, they have it as a side comment, and still try to blame Bush for every thing that goes wrong.
I think so too. I think the limited information you are getting in comparison to what we are getting can be quite different in mayn ways (one of my teachers live in both Canada and the US and she watches the news from both places, so we kinda pick bits and piece of info here and there).

As for the "blame to Bush and not to Clinton", I personally feel that both should have the blame. Since we are just talking about Bush, it seems that he is the only one getting the blame, but in reality we blame them both.

O.K. Ever watch "Bowling for Columbine"?. Well, here's the most memorable part. You remember Monica Louisnky (I do not know how to spell her last name)? Well, during the Clinton's term, possibly in order to try to deviate attention from his many sex offenses, he O.K. ed a more intense attack against Iraq when they started giving us crap again. That's one thing I liked about him: he didn't take crap from no one.
Yes. Michael Moore did many things that gets noticed around here. While some of his documentaries are quite true, they are often exaggerated to get the point through. It's his style to do so, so I don't blame him.

As for Clinton, he OKed the attack, which means America never negotiated to begin with.

That certainly isn't the story I heard. It has to be a Unanimous decision to take action, not to not take action. Remember when they started calling French Fries Freedom Fries? That's why: France decided to not support the war. If it was a unanimous decision, then we wouldn't have singled out France. I seem to remember America delaying the attack against Iraq for quite awhile, eventually giving an ultimatum when some rediculously good evidence came forth.
Yeah. Freedom fries are such because they don't want the attack on Iraq by America. They wanted negotiations. Notice that freedom fries sales did go up.

I remember the UN being established after WWII in order to prevent cruel dictoral actions such as Hitler from occuring. I didn't know Canada joined up.
Soon after we went to war, the UN decided to help us out.
Yeah we joined. Anyway, as for the UN deciding to join up, I mentioned the "chicken UN", didn't I?

Proper language wise, "there", "their", and "they're" have quite noticable differences in their pronounciation. Remember: He is from Texas. Texans aren't exactly known to have the best grammer and pronounciation out there.

What I consider a "small mistake" is a mistake that means little to nothing. So he pronounced his name wrong. So what? It didn't cost America twenty mil` because of it.
I think you did lose money in some ways, considering that free trade between the two countries were hindered during the last year. Thus a slight drop in the american economy (from this reason).
Reply With Quote