Conquer Club

muy_thaiguy wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:I just voted for Harding.

I have to say, any President that says "I am not fit for this office" or "I don't understand this whole tax issue" deserves my vote for worst President ever.

At east he was honest about it.

I'll take a good, dishonest President over Harding any day.

What about the geezer that only lasted 22 days or something before dying in a log cabin.
Harrison? Garrison?
c. 1850s I think.
Sketchy memories, but he was the geezer that ran the "Log Cabin" campaign or something.
Anyone that dies in office, without being assassinated, is obvioulsy a Gimpo Gimboid.

Plus, his housing policy was shit.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

CoffeeCream wrote:Whoever the worst president turns out to be he's still got to be better than Ron Paul. I'm so sick of hearing about all these crazy theories and how bankers are taking us over secretly and slowly.

Wooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrd.


QFT.

Except Ron Paul isn't a conspiracy nut...

reagan doesnt even get a mention?

khazalid wrote:reagan doesnt even get a mention?

Best evah Prez thread is that way---->

khazalid wrote:reagan doesnt even get a mention?

I wanted to, but just couldnt be arsed with the inevitable 10 rounds with Nap over monetarism
Suggs feels old

suggs wrote:

khazalid wrote:reagan doesnt even get a mention?

I wanted to, but just couldnt be arsed with the inevitable 10 rounds with Nap over monetarism
Suggs feels old

Heil Reagan!

Sexy mother fcker, tho, I grant you

yay for suggs

suggs wrote:What about the geezer that only lasted 22 days or something before dying in a log cabin.
Harrison? Garrison?
c. 1850s I think.
Sketchy memories, but he was the geezer that ran the "Log Cabin" campaign or something.
Anyone that dies in office, without being assassinated, is obvioulsy a Gimpo Gimboid.

William Henry Harrison.

My God -- I think I might just be able to list all the Presidents in order!

Nah... come to think of it, I'd probably get the insignificant ones mixed up..

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Terrorists are down 40%?! Damn, I'd say it's time to buy stock in al-qaeda.

In all seriousness: really? 40%?

... Deaths caused by terrorist attacks, yes.

... The story came out in the Canadian press yesterday, but it has some rather peculiar conditions on its findings. For example, Iraqis blown up by car bombs don't count, since they are technically casualties of a real war and not victims of terrorist attacks.

... Just threw that out there cause' to hear Brits talk with such authority on things while offering nothing to support their arguments generally irritates me. I at least gave some data (as slanted as it might be). Besides, for them it's like living in a house made of sh*t and yelling about a turd on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

How about stop talking shit yourself and start placing things in context, phatjoey made a statement and I posted arguments to the contrary. If you need an internet link to persuade you that Bush has antagonised the Islamic world then you live with your head up your arse,if you dont care what the world thinks of your country then you are part of the problem and your final point simply proves you have no real argument.

Nobunaga wrote:... Deaths caused by terrorist attacks, yes.

... The story came out in the Canadian press yesterday, but it has some rather peculiar conditions on its findings. For example, Iraqis blown up by car bombs don't count, since they are technically casualties of a real war and not victims of terrorist attacks.
...

Because they are victims of a real war because the "terrorist attacks" wouldn't have happened if our troops wren't in Iraq. And by the way, your manifesto gave my the best laugh I've had in months.

suggs wrote:Sexy mother fcker, tho, I grant you

I asked my Mum tonight, and no, he didn't.

joecoolfrog wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Terrorists are down 40%?! Damn, I'd say it's time to buy stock in al-qaeda.

In all seriousness: really? 40%?

... Deaths caused by terrorist attacks, yes.

... The story came out in the Canadian press yesterday, but it has some rather peculiar conditions on its findings. For example, Iraqis blown up by car bombs don't count, since they are technically casualties of a real war and not victims of terrorist attacks.

... Just threw that out there cause' to hear Brits talk with such authority on things while offering nothing to support their arguments generally irritates me. I at least gave some data (as slanted as it might be). Besides, for them it's like living in a house made of sh*t and yelling about a turd on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

How about stop talking shit yourself and start placing things in context, phatjoey made a statement and I posted arguments to the contrary. If you need an internet link to persuade you that Bush has antagonised the Islamic world then you live with your head up your arse,if you dont care what the world thinks of your country then you are part of the problem and your final point simply proves you have no real argument.

Slightly flame-ish, but I have to say also rather hit-the nail-on-the head-ish too.

none of the above woodrow wilson takes the cupcake IMO,
previous to his administration there was no state or federal income tax.
he very sneakily called an emergency vote on a bill written and provided by bankers such as JP Morgan Chase on Christmas eve knowing no one would show to oppose it. Thus started the down fall of our country when one man took the power and wealth from the common person and put it in the hands of the greedy few....sound familiar? The American Revolution was fought to take the money from the few and give it to the many. next time you realize you only keep about forty cents of each dollar you make thank good ol woody.

king duche bag.

PhatJoey wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:

PhatJoey wrote:Where is Bill Clinton? Jimmy Carter?

They're both still embarrassing us and undermining our credibility.

You think Bush has enhanced US credibility

I think he has reminded them not to yank our chain. And to me that DOES equal a certain amount of credibility.

...


...

joecoolfrog wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Terrorists are down 40%?! Damn, I'd say it's time to buy stock in al-qaeda.

In all seriousness: really? 40%?

... Deaths caused by terrorist attacks, yes.

... The story came out in the Canadian press yesterday, but it has some rather peculiar conditions on its findings. For example, Iraqis blown up by car bombs don't count, since they are technically casualties of a real war and not victims of terrorist attacks.

... Just threw that out there cause' to hear Brits talk with such authority on things while offering nothing to support their arguments generally irritates me. I at least gave some data (as slanted as it might be). Besides, for them it's like living in a house made of sh*t and yelling about a turd on the other side of the Atlantic.

...

How about stop talking shit yourself and start placing things in context, phatjoey made a statement and I posted arguments to the contrary. If you need an internet link to persuade you that Bush has antagonised the Islamic world then you live with your head up your arse,if you dont care what the world thinks of your country then you are part of the problem and your final point simply proves you have no real argument.

... Nice dodge attempt. Show me some antagonized Mulims if you please (Al-Qaeda does NOT count, sorry).

...

<edit> Also, why should I be so concerned with what the world thinks of my country? Seriously.

...

InkL0sed wrote:

suggs wrote:What about the geezer that only lasted 22 days or something before dying in a log cabin.
Harrison? Garrison?
c. 1850s I think.
Sketchy memories, but he was the geezer that ran the "Log Cabin" campaign or something.
Anyone that dies in office, without being assassinated, is obvioulsy a Gimpo Gimboid.

William Henry Harrison.

My God -- I think I might just be able to list all the Presidents in order!

Nah... come to think of it, I'd probably get the insignificant ones mixed up..

Between me and you, and the rest of the forum, if you were a girl, I'd marry you.
I love all that stuff, naming presidents in order etc (not that i can)
Tho' I may have once compiled a list of all the Prime Ministers of Great Britain c.1720 onwards.

EMBRACE YOUR INNER GEEK! Its fucking liberating, tho it does mean...no fucking

Nobunaga wrote:
<edit> Also, why should I be so concerned with what the world thinks of my country? Seriously.

Oh wait? Seriously?


Well that's the hardest question I've had in a while, probably because I've never met anyone so ignorant to actually ask something like that.

Nobunaga wrote:
... Nice dodge attempt. Show me some antagonized Mulims if you please (Al-Qaeda does NOT count, sorry).

The fact is that most muslims really didn't mind you guys kicking saddam away, in fact they welcomed it. But the problem is that you also took over the entire country and by the looks of things you won't stop there.

Most of them really are mostly pissed off because you didn't let them handle it themselves.


Really, do you think any muslim-country likes you more now?

Nobunaga wrote:
...

<edit> Also, why should I be so concerned with what the world thinks of my country? Seriously.

...

Seriously? I'll tell you why. Because if everybody hates you they try to kill you. For most people, the math is obvious, but since I'm having trouble making a point with some I'll spell it out for you. BLOWING UP SH*T IS FUN ENOUGH AS IT IS!!! YOU DONT HAVE TO GO AROUND GIVING PEOPLE EXCUSES TO DO IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!!!! Jeez.

However, I must also contradict some of what nobunaga's contradictors say, because most Iraqis do like us being there to deal with the al-qaeda for them. We give them food, education, and soccer balls, so why wouldn't they? The area public opinion differs is in the "Sunni Triangle"-not the only area of Sunni majority but definitely the area of the worst violence. To tie that in with the article,, this was not COMPLETELY Bush's fault either, most of it was Hussein's. I say, like about 30-70% Bush-Hussein blame ratio. But I'm no socio-political analysist. Seriously, that's just the opinion i formulated after seeing all i have (which is slightly more than most Americans).

I think most muslim countries are only somewhat bothered by US presence in Iraq, except for Iran which actually is filled with terrorists and idiots. Saudi Arabia and the UAE care about as much about us in Iraq as we care about the Columbian civil war. And we dont really care about the Columbian civil war.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:
... Nice dodge attempt. Show me some antagonized Mulims if you please (Al-Qaeda does NOT count, sorry).

The fact is that most muslims really didn't mind you guys kicking saddam away, in fact they welcomed it. But the problem is that you also took over the entire country and by the looks of things you won't stop there.

Most of them really are mostly pissed off because you didn't let them handle it themselves.


Really, do you think any muslim-country likes you more now?

They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

hmm... ink, looking at your choices, i see u missed the worst.


William J. Clinton


anybody remember that dude? he got impeached i think

PhatJoey wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Nobunaga wrote:
... Nice dodge attempt. Show me some antagonized Mulims if you please (Al-Qaeda does NOT count, sorry).

The fact is that most muslims really didn't mind you guys kicking saddam away, in fact they welcomed it. But the problem is that you also took over the entire country and by the looks of things you won't stop there.

Most of them really are mostly pissed off because you didn't let them handle it themselves.


Really, do you think any muslim-country likes you more now?

They had a few decades to take care of him and they didn't. End of story.

And you guys had 2 decades to work out a cohesive strategy and didnt, no end to story in sight but plenty more bodybags.