Quote :

"so you agree then that the dems pretty much have an obstructionist approach to bush?"

If by dems, you mean bush, and if by bush, you mean dems, then yes, I agree.

Or, have you somehow missed the whole "bush pulling out the veto stick" thing thats gonna be going on here before long?

4/5/2007 3:17:19 PM

Quote :

"If by dems, you mean bush, and if by bush, you mean dems, then yes, I agree."

suspend

4/5/2007 3:18:09 PM

haha...i really did like it better when you had me blocked...

i mean wtf?

4/5/2007 3:19:06 PM

ONE PARTY SYSTEM

4/5/2007 3:19:32 PM

Dude, you make dnl look smart, and that's pretty fucking hard to do.

Are you going to post something of merit in this section any time this year?

4/5/2007 3:19:59 PM

haha...please block me

i have posted things of value...

im done responding do you because you refuse to acknowlege anything...at all..your so pathetic dude...i dont care how small your dick is...i still respect you...relax

i wont block you because im bigger than that...apparently you arent..

please block me again

Quote :

"ONE PARTY SYSTEM"

What does bush being president and acting like one have to do with a 1 party system?

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM. Reason : adsf]

4/5/2007 3:22:37 PM

THE DEMS ARE TRYING TO BLOCK HIS APPOINTMENTS AND WHAT HAVE YOU

WE NEED A ONE PARTY SYSTEM TO ELIMINATE THIS POSSIBILITY

4/5/2007 3:24:55 PM

ok...if you say so

^your just being a smart-ass dude....thats how it works...presidents make recess appointments...everyone knows it...the dems, by all means, can stick around so that he cant...and if they do that...guess what...bush doesnt make any appointments...

dont bitch about things that your boys are screwing up and then blame them on bush....tell your boys to not go on vacation and it wont be a problem



[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:29 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/5/2007 3:26:59 PM

Quote :

"i have posted things of value..."

Like this gem

Quote :

"your so pathetic dude...i dont care how small your dick is..."

Btw, "my so pathetic" what? I wasn't aware of "my so pathetic". Guess I should check on that.


Your original stupidity in this thread

Quote :

"good for bush. The dems are nothing more than obstructionist and will block anything that he does. good for bush"

DOES NOT MAKE ONE BIT OF SENSE.

Please explain to me what the Democrats are "blocking"?



What kind of education do you have? Because I am dead serious when I say you make drunkntarded look smart. Your shit comes off as something I'd expect a freshman post. A freshman in middle school. And you can call this statement trolling, maybe it can be construed as such, but I haven't seen you entertain and post an intelligent thought in this section yet.

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:31 PM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 3:29:45 PM

^you shouldn't respond with any type of seriousness to this trikk fellow. we all know he's a fetal alcohol syndrome kid or something, come on now.

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:33 PM. Reason : ,]

4/5/2007 3:30:32 PM

haha...thanks for proving my point guys

thats all

i am just blown away by the amount of stupidy and trolling that comes out of state409...the guy is unreal

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:35 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/5/2007 3:31:31 PM

Quote :

"^you shouldn't respond with any type of seriousness to this trikk fellow. we all know he's a fetal alcohol syndrome kid or something, come on now."

Oh don't worry, it's been obvious for awhile now. But I'm that bored today and this section is dead.

I didn't see you make any point in this thread, but if we proved it, then....ok?

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:36 PM. Reason : a]

Since you couldn't read it properly on the first page

Quote :

"You're not a very good troll."

YOU

ARE NOT

A VERY GOOD

TROLL

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 3:35:32 PM

so then the thing is...

Why should bush NOT make recess appointments? Every president does it and no one makes the dems go on vacation.

Good for him for being smart and getting his people in there

And if that pisses the dems off, then screw them. They should stick around to keep Bush's people out

I am not opposed to the dems blocking any bush appointees. Good for them for standing up to him. But recess appointments are how washington works. stop complaining about it

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:37 PM. Reason : asdf]




[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:38 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/5/2007 3:36:42 PM

How did Dostoevsky know you were gonna post in this thread

4/5/2007 3:39:20 PM

Quote :

"What kind of education do you have? Because I am dead serious when I say you make drunkntarded look smart. Your shit comes off as something I'd expect a freshman post. A freshman in middle school. And you can call this statement trolling, maybe it can be construed as such, but I haven't seen you entertain and post an intelligent thought in this section yet."

Oh, there is a shirt with your name on it



[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:40 PM. Reason : a]

4/5/2007 3:39:55 PM

For example,

When the dems blocked the vote to confirm Bolton. I had no problem with that because thats thier right. But when Bolton was a recess appointtee, well, thats how it goes

4/5/2007 3:42:20 PM

Quote :

"i am just blown away by the amount of stupidy and trolling that comes out of state409...the guy is unreal"

for reference

Quote :

"If by dems, you mean bush, and if by bush, you mean dems, then yes, I agree"

suspend

4/5/2007 3:43:51 PM

Here is your idol,



Btw, trying to act all serious when we aren't, just to make a post that we are trolling and being dumb, is a waste of time. No one gives a fuck, no one cares, and it's because of people like you why this section continues to die a slow death.

4/5/2007 3:44:10 PM

^
btw

[Edited on April 5, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : asdf]

4/5/2007 3:44:54 PM

Quote :

"Or, have you somehow missed the whole "bush pulling out the veto stick" thing thats gonna be going on here before long?"

So George Bush has an obstrutcionist approach to the Democrats

I wouldnt expect your retarded ass to know Bush is the President with the fewest vetoes in OVER A CENTURY

I guess when you pay attention to headlines and not articles/stories you become as utterly retarded as Bald409c

4/6/2007 2:00:35 PM

^ that doesn't have anything to do with his party being in control of both houses does it?

4/6/2007 2:01:58 PM

Bush isnt a Democrat...and since Democrats are in control of both houses, your post makes no sense

4/6/2007 2:10:43 PM

Quote :

"Bush isnt a Democrat...and since Democrats are in control of both houses, your post makes no sense"

he's referencing the first 6 years of the administration

4/6/2007 2:46:55 PM

oh

i was referencing the fact that bald retard claimed bush was some kind of veto-everything freak when there hasnt been a president in over 100 years to veto less than him

if you wanna look back over the last 100 years or so and match up presidential and congressional majority parties to see if your point holds weight or is merely an anecdote, be my guest

[Edited on April 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

4/6/2007 2:50:42 PM

signing statements

4/6/2007 7:42:59 PM

^^You need to look up the definition of anecdote.



My response to the original topic:

I don't see what the big deal is. This is just typical political shit. It totally sucks big balls, but did you expect Dubya to be nice or something?

4/6/2007 7:58:10 PM

4/6/2007 8:08:24 PM

^^

Quote :

"a short account of a particular incident or event of an interesting or amusing nature, often biographical. "

and?

4/6/2007 10:00:56 PM

Alright, you looked up the definition of anecdote. Now let's examine your use of it.

Quote :

"TreeTwista10: if you wanna look back over the last 100 years or so and match up presidential and congressional majority parties to see if your point holds weight or is merely an anecdote, be my guest"

Let's take a look at the point that you suggest might be "merely an anecdote."

Quote :

"SkankinMonky: that doesn't have anything to do with his party being in control of both houses does it?"

Quote :

"nutsmackr: he's referencing the first 6 years of the administration"

Could either of these possibly be interpreted as an anecdote ("a short account of a particular incident or event")?

No. No, they cannot.

Learn your words, TreeTwista10.

4/7/2007 10:09:54 AM

Quote :

"So George Bush has an obstrutcionist approach to the Democrats I wouldnt expect your retarded ass to know Bush is the President with the fewest vetoes in OVER A CENTURY I guess when you pay attention to headlines and not articles/stories you become as utterly retarded as Bald409c"

It would be interesting for you to explain how your pot burnt brain makes conclusions sometimes.

So, I'll see if I can figured it out. Trikk said the congress were being obstructionist, though, it is clear that can't be the case, as the president is the one with the veto power. So if anything, he would be the one doing the obstructing. This was my statement.

Yet, somehow, you pull in some "fewest vetoes in a century", "only pay attention to headlines", "ad hominem attack" in your reply.

And I am utterly retarded? Go choke on a bong hit you moron. You're a joke to this section.

4/7/2007 2:07:37 PM

there's no need for the veto when the congress does your bidding for six years.

4/7/2007 2:51:26 PM

poor dnl.....lol

Quote :

"Dude, you make dnl look smart, and that's pretty fucking hard to do."

4/7/2007 3:00:36 PM

^^^^holy shit bridget you are one stupid girl

his anecdote was one 6 year period compared to the last ~230 years...he didnt examine all past presidents and their political parties and compare those to the majority parties in congress during each of those presidents...his anecdote was simply pointing out part of ONE president's time in office...the "particular incident" was part of one president's time in office out of 43 total presidents

^^^so steroid head...what do all your pot jokes have to do with bush having the fewest vetoes of any president in over a century? you claimed, and i quote, "Or, have you somehow missed the whole "bush pulling out the veto stick" thing thats gonna be going on here before long?"

looks like he's pulled out the veto stick fewer than any other president in the last 100 years...so what in the fuck are you talking about?

Quote :

"Trikk said the congress were being obstructionist, though, it is clear that can't be the case, as the president is the one with the veto power. So if anything, he would be the one doing the obstructing. This was my statement."

So vetoes are the only possible tool of obsturction? Congress can't be obstructionist by not voting for something the President proposes? lay off the roids

^^so you admit he is not obstructing congress

4/7/2007 5:39:03 PM

nah. i never implied that he was. his party tried its hardest to limit debate when they were in power though

4/7/2007 5:52:17 PM

is that something out of the ordinary?

4/7/2007 5:57:55 PM

Dude, you're so far off the fucking field in this debate...but I'll give it one more go before I start posting in all caps and entertaining myself on your behalf.

Quote :

"So vetoes are the only possible tool of obsturction?"

Please, tell me what made you make this statement, because I certainly didn't imply it, and it's exactly why people think you are a clown.

Quote :

"looks like he's pulled out the veto stick fewer than any other president in the last 100 years...so what in the fuck are you talking about?"

What the fuck do you mean what am I talking about? Trikk called the congress obstructionist, without any basis, or claim to back that statement up (no surprise, he's slightly more retarded than you are). I said, in this instance, it will be the president doing the obstructing because of the veto, unless, you want to define obstructing in this instance as not giving the president exactly what he wants.

Go back to the bong hits, leave the soap box to those that aren't as burnt out as you are.

4/7/2007 7:08:16 PM

Quote :

"Please, tell me what made you make this statement, because I certainly didn't imply it,"

you implied it in the first post of Page 2

Quote :

"Quote : "so you agree then that the dems pretty much have an obstructionist approach to bush?" If by dems, you mean bush, and if by bush, you mean dems, then yes, I agree. Or, have you somehow missed the whole "bush pulling out the veto stick" thing thats gonna be going on here before long? "

you implied that the president has an obstructionist approach to congress with his veto power

Quote :

"Trikk said the congress were being obstructionist, though, it is clear that can't be the case, as the president is the one with the veto power. So if anything, he would be the one doing the obstructing. This was my statement.""

then here you say "it is clear" that congress cannot be obstructing the president since the president is the one with the veto power...implying that congress doesnt even have the ability to obstruct the president (even though their majority votes could certainly obstruct what the president wanted to do)...congress could simply obstruct the president by voting against what he proposes...at least if they're not on vacation they could

please though...maybe if you make a couple weed jokes you can convince yourself that you have somehow won the argument

i'd still like to see you relate "bush pulling out the veto stick" to him using his presidential veto powers less than any president in the 20th century

4/7/2007 7:14:37 PM

Are you too fucking stupid to realize I'm not generally speaking here? I'm talking about this single instance.

ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?

IM TALKING ABOUT THIS SINGLE INSTANCE.


Back away from the keyboard, and go back to the bong hits.

4/7/2007 8:32:30 PM

Quote :

"but then a couple posts later he's back to cuss word filled tirades and other "college educated" arguments"

4/7/2007 8:36:25 PM

Its what I figured, you have nothing to respond to your stupidity.

4/7/2007 8:48:01 PM

kinda like your last reponse, huh (^^^)

4/7/2007 8:48:28 PM

god state409c...what is up with u always thinking everyone is a drug addict or something

4/7/2007 8:49:07 PM

I responded, and summarily owned you...twice...then entertained myself, and all you could reply in your defense was some lame quote that no one cares about.

4/7/2007 8:52:16 PM

I won this thread.

4/7/2007 8:54:51 PM

here typeA, i'll respond in terms that you'll understand

I pretty much pwnt you many times, but the high concentrations of steroids in your brain at all times once again hinder your ability to even attempt to understand how bad you've been pwnt

[Edited on April 7, 2007 at 8:55 PM. Reason : ^,^^ nice double post....STEROIDS...MAKE...ME FORGET.....EDIT...POST]

4/7/2007 8:55:23 PM

This won the thread

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

Quote :

"ARE YOU TOO FUCKING STUPID TO REALIZE I'M NOT GENERALLY SPEAKING HERE?"

4/7/2007 8:57:57 PM

why do u always guestimate about users drug habits?

4/7/2007 8:59:52 PM

hey man im state409c i like to post photoshops of george bush and then post the same quote in all caps 30 straight times cause im such a composed and intelligent person

Quote :

"but then a couple posts later he's back to cuss word filled tirades and other "college educated" arguments"

4/7/2007 9:01:41 PM

Quote :

"hey man im state409c i like to post photoshops of george bush and then post the same quote in all caps 30 straight times cause im such a composed and intelligent person"

Funny, I explicitly told you how you didnt know what the hell you were talking about, and I even said I would explain it one more time before having some fun in the thread. And I did.

And you didn't reply with anything new, or in defense of yourself.

So of course Im gonna take a big poopie all over it.

tool

4/7/2007 9:04:24 PM

wow another post by TypeA that has nothing to do with anything

why dont you tell us more about how the veto is the only way to obstruct someone and how bush has been pulling out his veto stick all over the place

i pwnt this thread in my first post

4/7/2007 9:05:22 PM