20 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterA President doesn't need to be a world class athlete. Crappy analogy.
In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and ...[text shortened]... alify you to take on the responsibilities of their job when they die, retire, or are overthrown?
Being married to the President does give one some understanding and influence I'd think, just like being the son of a President does. Members of both parties seem to value these things, and I think there is a legitimate reason, but I also think we should be wary of dynasties.
21 Jan 08
Originally posted by telerionlol 😉
Rah Rah! Go team! Repeat after me!
🙄
What a bunch of tools you and your dittohead friends make. I don't mind intelligent conservatives. Unfortunately, it's becoming harder and harder to find them these days. Most are shallow meatheads like you. Thinking is too hard for them so they resort to cheerleading.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by darthmixAgreed about Clinton. As for the NFL, if women are barred from playing then that's sexist. Why can't a woman play if she's suitable for the position? Either the sport is too dangerous for either sex or it's suitable for either sex; let's not have sexist double standards here.
Unless I'm very much mistaken women are actually barred from playing in the NFL.
Whatever you think of her, Hillary actually did accumulate some legitimate policy experience as first lady. She had a large role in formulating and promoting the Clinton healthcare initiative. Since the healthcare issue is a big part of this campaign and will be a goal for t ...[text shortened]... has experience developing and fighting for change at the executive level of government is fair.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by slimjimBush made a terrible job of being Governor of Texas. Among other things, he vetoed a Hate Crimes Bill and then lied about it during the 2000 presidential election. The "liberal" media gave Al Gore a hard time about legitimately taking credit for funding a programme that helped develop the internet, and for innocent misstatements, whereas they gave Bush a pass for saying he passed a Hate Crimes Bill which he actually vetoed.
Bush was Governor of a State. In other words dumbass he was in charge of said State. Hillary hasn't led anything.
Bush also bungled a number of other jobs, including his work at Harken Energy, and his father's Saudi oil buddies had to bail him out.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by karnachzHate crime bills are stupid.
Bush made a terrible job of being Governor of Texas. Among other things, he vetoed a Hate Crimes Bill and then lied about it during the 2000 presidential election. The "liberal" media gave Al Gore a hard time about legitimately taking credit for funding a programme that helped develop the internet, and for innocent misstatements, whereas they gave Bush a pa ...[text shortened]... including his work at Harken Energy, and his father's Saudi oil buddies had to bail him out.
12 Jul 08
Originally posted by karnachzHate crime laws say that one rape is worse than another. Or that one murder is worse than another. Motive doesn't mean a thing, all crimes should be punished equally. It goes back to the whole justice being blind thing. Bush is also stupid, should have posted that earlier.
Why do you say that? In any case, stupid or not, Bush still lied about the fact that he vetoed it, rather than supporting it.