Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

[NYMINUTE]

Before the inauguration, George W. Bush was invited to a 'get acquainted'<br /> tour of the White House.<br /> After drinking several glasses of iced tea, he asked President Clinton<br /> if he could use his personal bathroom. He was astonished to see that the<br /> President had a solid gold urinal!<br /> That afternoon, George W. told his wife, Laura, about the urinal. "Just<br /> think," he said, "when I am President, I'll have my own personal gold<br /> urinal!"<br /> Later, when Laura had lunch with Hillary at her tour of the White House,<br /> she told Hillary how impressed George had been with his discovery of the<br /> fact that, in the President's private bathroom, the President had a gold<br /> urinal.<br /> That evening, Bill and Hillary were getting ready for bed. Hillary<br /> turned to Bill and said, "Well, I found out who peed in your saxophone."

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

 

[gaugeguy]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by NYMINUTE:<br />George W. told his wife, Laura, about the urinal. "Just think," he said, "when I am President, I'll have my own personal gold<br />urinal!"

<br /><br />Everybody knows if there was a gold urinal, the Clinton's would have stolen it when they left

 

[Stratosfied]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

I am with GuageGuy!!!Funny joke though!

 

[Limited-Time]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Come on gg, you know politicians don't steal.......the Clintons would have appropriated it.........you Clinton bashers are all the same!

 

[technostingray]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

A better question would be, who would want a saxaphone after it has been urinated in? I could go farther, but I want to stick around for awhile....

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

technostupeedo <br />Petty Officer 1st Class <br />Member # 58576 <br /><br /> posted June 24, 2005 04:33 PM <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />A better question would be, who would want a saxaphone after it has been urinated in? <br />------------------------------------------------<br />Someone that blows

 

[PW2]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

I am sure glad you all keep telling us how bad things were under Clinton, and how good things are now under Bush.<br /><br />From an analysis of all the available empirical evidence, I would have guessed the exact opposite were true.

 

[Link]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Didnt see that one comming... funny joke NY!

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

IMPEACH BUSH!!!!<br /><br />When Clinton lied, nobody died!

 

[technostingray]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by Elmer Fudge:<br /> technostupeedo <br />Petty Officer 1st Class <br />Member # 58576 <br /><br /> posted June 24, 2005 04:33 PM <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />A better question would be, who would want a saxaphone after it has been urinated in? <br />------------------------------------------------<br />Someone that blows

What are you twying to way Elmer? You know that I have no guage to tell how fast I am going.

 

[Kenneth Brown]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> IMPEACH BUSH!!!!<br /><br />When Clinton lied, nobody died!

Not true David. Many of Clintons closest supporters are dead or in jail. And to think I voted for him.

 

[Vlad D Impeller]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Quote: "Not true David. Many of Clintons closest supporters are dead or in jail. And to think I voted for him."<br /><br /> How many?

 

[technostingray]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Figures don't but liars figure.

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

When Clinton lied, nobody died. Ooooookay. He gave nuclear reactors to North Korea and helped the ChiComs get their missiles into space. Maybe no one has died yet, but I am guessing that millions WILL die for his arrogance and abject stupidity.

 

[LubeDude]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> IMPEACH BUSH!!!!<br /><br />When Clinton lied, nobody died!

If clinton would have taken care of business like he should have 9/11 wouldnt have happened, I persoally blam that on Clinton.

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

LD, you are right. If any of these enlightened and tolerant Clinton apologists would do the research and get the "facts" they would know:<br /><br />Clinton cut funding and positions in the CIA and FBI to the point that London office had ZERO Arabic speakers, and the middle east offices were either closes due to lack of staff, or they had no Arabic speakers and middle east intel was zip, zero, nada.<br /><br />Clinton reduced our military forces roughly by half. He deactivated half of the Navy's ships, roughly half of the Air Force's Air Wings, roughly half of the Army and Marine combat operational forces, and defunded the DOD to the point that armor divisions were unable to perform ANY field training operations because they could fuel the tanks or feed the troops in the field.<br /><br />Clinton turned down THREE opportunities to take Bin Laden into custody from the Syrians.<br /><br />It was Clinton cabinet policy to outlaw profiling at airports, an act that allowed 19 middle east men to board suspiciously board planes with no luggage, even though the planes were bound across the country and the men had one way tickets.<br /><br />Sure, all this is true, but will it matter to the Marxists/socialists? Not at all. They don't care. They don't love America. They don't know American history or even basic civics. They slavishly cling to the Clinton's and the Durbins because that is their ticket to the socialist utopia they crave. If only they had a shred of ambition or self reliance.

 

[LubeDude]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Right on, I couldnt have said it better myself.<br /><br />I cant for the life of me understand why the liberals cant see it. Bush isnt my poster child, but at least he is trying, to a point, and he is wanting to cut the military even more. I feel he sold us out.

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by LubeDude:<br />

Originally posted by David L. Moore:<br /> IMPEACH BUSH!!!!<br /><br />When Clinton lied, nobody died!

If clinton would have taken care of business like he should have 9/11 wouldnt have happened, I persoally blam that on Clinton.

Let us not forget that Reagan funded bin Laden during his presidency. And Bush Sr. failed/chose not to unseat Hussein. So by the logic in most of these posts we can blame 9/11 on the Republican presidents. Wait no we can't, the Republicans aren't responsible. Does that make them irresponsible?

 

[demsvmejm]

Re: Friday Chuckle (Liberals)

Originally posted by SoulWinner:<br /> <br /><br />Clinton cut funding and positions in the CIA and FBI to the point that London office had ZERO Arabic speakers, and the middle east offices were either closes due to lack of staff, or they had no Arabic speakers and middle east intel was zip, zero, nada.<br /><br />Clinton reduced our military forces roughly by half. He deactivated half of the Navy's ships, roughly half of the Air Force's Air Wings, roughly half of the Army and Marine combat operational forces, and defunded the DOD to the point that armor divisions were unable to perform ANY field training operations because they could fuel the tanks or feed the troops in the field.

This may be a simplistic point of view, but why spend money on something that is not needed? Hindsight shows us we needed those arabic translators, but at the time with the then-current knowledge, how necessary were those positions? Before you answer, filter your emotions and speak from a then-current intelligence position. What we know today had no impact on what was done then without that knowledge.<br /><br />

Originally posted by SoulWinner:<br /> Clinton turned down THREE opportunities to take Bin Laden into custody from the Syrians.

And until bin Laden did something to the US where was Clinton's right or justification for taking him into custody? Again, that was then, with different circumstances and different knowledge. We know now that he was a danger to us, but did we reasonably know that then, and could we prove it?<br /><br />

Originally posted by SoulWinner:<br />It was Clinton cabinet policy to outlaw profiling at airports, an act that allowed 19 middle east men to board suspiciously board planes with no luggage, even though the planes were bound across the country and the men had one way tickets.<br /><br />Sure, all this is true, but will it matter to the Marxists/socialists? Not at all. They don't care. They don't love America. They don't know American history or even basic civics. They slavishly cling to the Clinton's and the Durbins because that is their ticket to the socialist utopia they crave. If only they had a shred of ambition or self reliance.

How dare you attempt to judge me? I have more ambition and self-reliance than most of the society that I observe on a daily basis. When you had to choose between your personal comfort and the social good at the expense of slight personal inconvenience which would you choose? Self interest right? Thought so. Most of society would. Fortunately for us, our military personnel choose the social good, even when it means significant personal inconvenience, including sometimes death. How do you feel being judged?<br /><br />As for profiling, should we profile anyone who openly promotes a deity as a kook? Or a nutcase? How 'bout an extremist? I have very deep rooted christian beliefs. I speak about God and prayer when appropriate in a social setting. So should I, like you SW be "profiled" as a religious zealot? We are normal people, at least I think I am, not to say you're not. So you see, how do you decide what parameters to use to profile? In the first half of this century it was Blacks. Today society still profiles them based on stereotypes. But can you say that every black person you know fits that "profile"? I couldn't count on both hands the number people I know that don't fit their races' stereotype.<br /><br />I agree it would be nice if we could apply todays knowledge and experiences in past situations to avoid the tragedies that have befallen the United States. But as a reasonable and intelligent person I can understand the impracticality of expecting a president of the past to apply knowledge not available to him yet to a situation in order to prevent a catastrophe. The characteristic I possess is called "Common Sense". And before you try to apply this statement to Bush, remember he had the intelligence and information available to him. But he was disinterested in it because it didn't support the alternate-reality he was living in.