'Miserable failure' links to Bush

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

'Miserable failure' links to Bush
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3298443.stm

[smercer]

sucked in I say

[Daniel T]

Yeah, I heard that a long time ago.

Not too long ago, some stuck-up radio DJ decided to bring Michael Moore up to the top, in place of George Bush. As you can see by the results, it didn't quite work :D

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

:D :D :D
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=miserable+failure&btnG=Google+Search

michael moore is third

[thuko135]

Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
michael moron is third

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

you cant quote what i didnt say. say it yourself it you want...

[PeOfEo]

I can google something and get negative sutff. For example If I google tony blair I get a bunch of blair bashing all over the second half of the first page and all over the second page. Google feeds off of negativity for some reason. I actually saw a whole study on it and they google people were talking about why their algorythm does this and how they are trying to change it.

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

well, but nevertheless, if you tip "stupid ostrich" or "crazy hippopotamus" tony blairs page wont come up

[wamboid]

I don't have the link, but there was an article on MSN a week or two ago about some surveys on who is the greatest president ever. One survey was older adults and one was college students. They were expecting Washington to be in there, but he was way down on the list. I think Lincoln actually won, but only with a realively small percentage. What was scary was that Clinton had 10% in one and Bush had 8%. I think that was in the college poll.

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

and where was saddam? :cool:

[wamboid]

In jail last I heard.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by wamboid
Clinton had 10% in one and Bush had 8%.If Clinton had 10, I would have expected Bush to have about 2. Although, lots of people seem to like Bush, and I can't figure out why :confused:

[thuko135]

Originally posted by Daniel T
If Clinton had 10, I would have expected Bush to have about 2. Although, lots of people seem to like Bush, and I can't figure out why :confused: 10% Clinton? Astonishing. He led the country into repression and deliberately lied to us all and his wife about you-know-who. At least I feel I can trust the current president.

For the record, I trusted Nixon while he was in office more than clinton, which is really saying something ...

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

and felt like i could trust saddam more than bush, cuz at least saddam was clear about the profit he was making and oppressing population and killing thousands of innocents, bush is just the same, but does it in a hidden way

[thuko135]

Originally posted by LiLcRaZyFuZzY
and felt like i could trust saddam more than bush, cuz at least saddam was clear about the profit he was making and oppressing population and killing thousands of innocents, bush is just the same, but does it in a hidden way That's your opinion, however wrong it is. Just remember for every so-called Bush lie, Clinton lied to us 4 times, and he never did anything as unprecented as capturing a world criminal.

[LiLcRaZyFuZzY]

if u cant make the difference between lying about a sexual (personal) relationship and lying about some MD weapons a country doesnt even have in its dream and therefore killing hundreds of thousands, then you really should review ur priorities

That's your opinion, however wrong it is
you just said it, its my opinion, wrong it cant be, not enough justified may be, but yours is incomprehensible.


If one of your friends has sex with someone you dont even know or care about, and u discover it. but tells you that he didnt(lies to you).


If that same person, wakes up one morning and thinks, and lies to everyone, you must have a nuclear bomb in your bathroom, totally destroy your home and then admit you didnt have anything, or maybe just some knives..

do you see the difference between the two?

dont get me wrong, clinton wasnt any good. Saddam was an assh(*)le, i do not approve what he did, he's place ought to be jail.