Originally posted by dottewellThis is, and has always been, a far more pressing issue than "recs" in terms of what needs to be done to improve the site and make the forums more attractive to potential new subscribers.
speech at the Labour party conference in the UK, I have to ask...
What the hell happened to America? Look at what you had; look at what you have now. It's beyond reason.
-dottewell
Check with Russ, the Americans are surely lining up to join the site.
What the hell happened to You?
P.S. maybe Hillary will get 8 more years.
Originally posted by xsI'm betting that if Hillery is in as president, Bill is out as husband before Hillary is out as president.
This is, and has always been, a far more pressing issue than "recs" in terms of what needs to be done to improve the site and make the forums more attractive to potential new subscribers.
-dottewell
Check with Russ, the Americans are surely lining up to join the site.
What the hell happened to You?
P.S. maybe Hillary will get 8 more years.
Originally posted by DraxusDoesn't it make you ask questions when pretty much the whole rest of the planet whines about your president? They didn't whine about the last one!
We whined about Clinton when we had him in office too. We'll whine about the next president as well.
What is really bad is when the rest of the world whines about our presidents. That's just asinine.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, at the beginning of Bush's presidency I actually lived outside of the US, and there didn't seem to be a big issue. However, during Clinton's reign I lived inside of the US and so I don't know if people outside of the US whined about him or not.
Doesn't it make you ask questions when pretty much the whole rest of the planet whines about your president? They didn't whine about the last one!
People inside of the country however couldn't stop crying about the poor guy.
And, honestly, no, it doesn't make me ask questions if the rest of the world has a problem with President Bush. This is due to the fact that I couldn't care less 🙂
Originally posted by ZahlanziAnd you are the one to set us straight, right?
dude first of all i am not anti american, i am anti bush
but i do have something against americans: apathy, insensitivity, pride. those americans who protest in the streets against the war are called hippies and ignored. in the oil thread one argued that the enviros should "back off" and let the oil companies drill for more oil.
i have something against ...[text shortened]... rading other pupils math tests.
you have so much yet most of you are content with so little
Also, being anti-Bush shows a lack of understanding about how our government works. President Bush may hold some sway right now, but imperialism has been going on for a long time now and is not completely his fault. He is also one man amongst his entire administration. His administration is only one of three branches of government. You can't single out President Bush. The congress, justices and people in his administration are also at fault for what we have done as a country.
Besides, I'm more worried about how my government has worked on taking over smaller countries for a century now than this isolated presidency who has only continued the standard before him.
Originally posted by zeeblebot
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZmOTBmNjA0ZGFmMGY4ZjM5ZGY1M2IzMWQ4MTBmMTY=
"September 26, 2006 8:21 AM
Did Clinton Really Give Bush A “Comprehensive Anti-Terror Strategy?”
The former president says he did. The record says he didn’t.
By Byron York
“The country never had a comprehensive anti-terror operation until I came to office,” former president Bill Clinton told Fox News on Sunday. “I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy.”
“We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al Qaeda,” says Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a new interview with the New York Post. “The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn’t [fight al Qaeda] is just flatly false.”
Well, which is it? ...
Time said Clarke presented the “strategy paper” to national-security adviser Sandy Berger on December 20, 2000, but Berger decided not to act on it. ....
“There was never a plan, Andrea,” Clarke answered. ...
...
“There was no new plan.”
...
“Plan, strategy — there was no, nothing new.”
...
Amid all the controversy, some former Clinton-administration officials began to pull back on their story. One of them — who asked not to be named — told NR that Time didn’t have it quite right. ...."