In typical MSNBC and Democrat fashion George Bush is being lambasted as the California wildfires are used as a political issue. President Bush was castigated for not showing enough concern for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and now he is being castigated for showing concern by going out to California where Santa Ana aided wildfires are devistating parts of the State.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7131

Aliens are attacking!! That damned Bush!!!

President Bush was castigated for not showing enough concern for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and now he is being castigated for showing concern by going out to California where Santa Ana aided wildfires are devistating parts of the State.Inconsistency invites criticism.

My wife and I wanted to take our bikes to the park and go bike riding but it is drizzling. Damned Bush and his Neo-Con advisors. We would have eternal sunshine if Al Gore had been elected President.

Existence is political.

It is impossible to "inject" politics into it since politics was part of it to begin with.

:thumbs:
db

My wife and I wanted to take our bikes to the park and go bike riding but it is drizzling. Damned Bush and his Neo-Con advisors. We would have eternal sunshine if Al Gore had been elected President.Perhaps you miss the point of the criticism?

Inconsistency invites criticism.



Whoa! Back up a bit, Shilohproject.

George Bush was lambasated for not reacting to the Katrina situation in what some considered a timely enough and comprehensive enough fashion. He has learned from his mistakes and miscues and is not responding in a timely and comprehensive fashion.

The Lt. Governor admitted that the Federal Government had done a good job in helping fight the wildfires. He then gratutitously added that The President was somehow at fault for visiting the area. Chris Matthews then chimed in with his slanted comments trying to make it seem that The President's visit was hampering the fire fighting efforts.

Which is it, Shilohproject? Should he have gone to New Orleans but not California? Should he have gone to neither? What would you have him do?

Your partisanship is becoming more and more evident with each passing day.

Perhaps you miss the point of the criticism?

Perhaps your criticism was unwarranted and was generated by your partisanship.

This is worth bringing up again.


Whats worse, they were warned that this would happen.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/200...

May 11, 2007
As state forestry officials predict an unusually harsh fire season this summer, the California National Guard says equipment shortages could hinder the guard's response to a large-scale disaster.

A dearth of equipment such as trucks and radios -- caused in part by the war in Iraq -- has state military officials worried they would be slow in providing help in the event of a major fire, earthquake or terrorist attack.

The readiness of the Guard has been described as a national problem and has become a political liability for the Bush administration, which came under fire this week when the governor of Kansas complained that the National Guard response to a devastating tornado in her state was inadequate. National Guard readiness has become a growing concern as the Guard has taken on extra responsibilities caused by the Iraq war and the increased threat of terrorism.

In California, half of the equipment the National Guard needs is not in the state, either because it is deployed in Iraq or other parts of the world or because it hasn't been funded, according to Lt. Col. John Siepmann. While the Guard is in good shape to handle small-scale incidents, "our concern is a catastrophic event,'' he said.

"You would see a less effective response (to a major incident),'' he said.

Whoa! Back up a bit, Shilohproject.

George Bush was lambasated for not reacting to the Katrina situation in what some considered a timely enough and comprehensive enough fashion. He has learned from his mistakes and miscues and is not responding in a timely and comprehensive fashion.Has Bush ever openly admitted that he mishandle New Orleans, was wrong and has learned from his mistakes?

He then gratutitously added that The President was somehow at fault for visiting the area. Chris Matthews then chimed in with his slanted comments trying to make it seem that The President's visit was hampering the fire fighting efforts."Publicity stunt" is more like it. If you have established a feeling with people that you don't care, then suddenly show up, it may well look less than genuine. And, any presidential appearance would hamper real work. These are fair and obvious statements.

What would you have him do?Do his job without the photo-op crap.

Your partisanship is becoming more and more evident with each passing day.I used to look forward to your posts, Frogger. It seems lately, though, that if anyone disagrees with your partisan, unobjective, nondiscriminating position, you're response is something like the above. Sad.

Perhaps your criticism was unwarranted and was generated by your partisanship.I was refering to the criticism in the link you posted. Are you becoming unable to understand these things?

I was refering to the criticism in the link you posted. Are you becoming unable to understand these things?

It is almost as if he is confusing everyone he disagrees with about anything and lumps them all together.

hey dharm.. lets play the "what if" game...

if an F5 tornado hits tornado ally... people lose their houses... they are warned about tornados, but the tragedy still happens. Just because someone is warned about it doesn't mean it's the governor or president's fault that he didn't cement everyones walls with diamond casing... The relief effort is going rather well from all the reports i've heard... so go ahead and keep spewing your partisanship...

Has Bush ever openly admitted that he mishandle New Orleans, was wrong and has learned from his mistakes?

So unless Bush makes a Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, he is a phony. If he doesn't go to California he is being callous and uncaring. If he does go to California he is hampering the fire fighting effort. You really like to have it both ways, don't you Shilohproject. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

You like my posts less than you used to. Could it be because your posts are far more partisan than they were in the past and I am responding to them?

So unless Bush makes a Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, he is a phony. If he doesn't go to California he is being callous and uncaring. If he does go to California he is hampering the fire fighting effort.I was addressing the appearance and the criticisms. If you have offended a great many people and then try to ride in like a knight in shining armor, you may well look phony. You are the one who claimed he learned his lessons from the New Orleans affair; I say, did he? In my world, owning up is a part of rehabilitating one's image and regaining trust.
You really like to have it both ways, don't you Shilohproject. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.I have not as yet answered what I think should be done by a chief executive, except to get the job done and not look to grandstand. Then he'd be appreciated and his presence would be meaningful.

You like my posts less than you used to. Could it be because your posts are far more partisan than they were in the past and I am responding to them?No, it's because you seem to pretty regularly miss the point and accuse me of things that are stupid. Maybe "partisan" is your new catch phrase. I don't know. But it seems to me that you have often sounded like the partisan as of late, and any challenge is ignored on its face as being extreme and unreasonable.

For example: notice that I never said Bush was a phony, but rather that it well could look like his actions are. Go back to my first post: Inconsistency invites criticism.

No, it's because you seem to pretty regularly miss the point and accuse me of things that are stupid.

That is the most common right wing tactic on this board.

:thumbs:
db

Originally Posted by Frogger
Whoa! Back up a bit, Shilohproject.

George Bush was lambasated for not reacting to the Katrina situation in what some considered a timely enough and comprehensive enough fashion. He has learned from his mistakes and miscues and is not responding in a timely and comprehensive fashion.

Has Bush ever openly admitted that he mishandle New Orleans, was wrong and has learned from his mistakes?


Quote:
He then gratutitously added that The President was somehow at fault for visiting the area. Chris Matthews then chimed in with his slanted comments trying to make it seem that The President's visit was hampering the fire fighting efforts.

"Publicity stunt" is more like it. If you have established a feeling with people that you don't care, then suddenly show up, it may well look less than genuine. And, any presidential appearance would hamper real work. These are fair and obvious statements.



What would you have him do?

Do his job without the photo-op crap.

When there are natural disasters Presidents usually go to the area in an attempt to show support. One of the main complaints about Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina was that he did not immediately show up on the scene. Now he does and he is accused of hampering fire fighting efforts. You imply that he is not doing his job. Even the Democrat Lt. Governor said he was doing his job and was seeing that as many firefighters as possible were on the scene.



Your partisanship is becoming more and more evident with each passing day.

]I used to look forward to your posts, Frogger. It seems lately, though, that if anyone disagrees with your partisan, unobjective, nondiscriminating position, you're response is something like the above. Sad.


How should I view your comments? You go right along with the biased talking points of the Democrat Lt. Governor of California and Chris Matthews, accusing the President of going to California merely for a photo op and you don't expect to be called partisan. It is not only in this thread that you have been partisan. You bias is becoming more and more evident in more and more threads.

I admit that I am partisan against most Democrats. I dislike most of what they stand for. I dislike the way they treat the President. I tend to dislike Democrat politicians in general though not all of them in particular.

I can admit that I am partisan. You seem unable to do so.

Funny, if the President doesn't visit a site, its because he doesn't care about the people. If he does visit, its just for a "photo Op".

More damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Your partisanship is becoming more and more evident with each passing day
I cannot believe you're actually arguing this hogwash. Can you ever discuss something without injecting your senile character attacks?

Funny, if the President doesn't visit a site, its because he doesn't care about the people. If he does visit, its just for a "photo Op".
Here's the point to consider: If you don't have a reputation for actually seeming to give a damn, any appearance may seem phony. The Bush White House has managed to squander much of the respect one would hope for in the titular head of government, as did Clinton's for differant reasons. That's why the criticism exists. Simple facts, folks.

It's not about crying: "Poor, poor me. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't." It's about being responsible for the consequences of one's actions on the sense people have regarding your genuineness and desirability during a crisis.

If the Right would learn to accept criticism and learn from it, instead of becoming attack-dogs or cry babies, much of this problem would not exist.

You imply that he is not doing his job. No, I didn't.

Bullshit!

Site where I did.

Overheated Rhetoric
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:20 PM PT

California Fires: Sen. Harry Reid blames global warming. Sen. Barbara Boxer says they're President Bush's fault. Rather than participate in a civilized discussion, the Democrats' first impulse is to play politics.

While homes burned and hundreds of thousands were fleeing in the state next door, Senate Majority Leader Reid of Nevada moaned to the media on Tuesday that "One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming." He tried to erase his error; but not even a U.S. senator can pull words back into his mouth if he's speaking outside of the Senate floor.

Reid's attempted denial flowed from his quick realization that he had embarrassed himself. But instead of admitting he committed a gaffe, he made himself look sillier by protesting moments later that "I didn't say the reason the fires were burning in Southern California was global warming," which is exactly what he did say.

Also on Tuesday, California Democrat Boxer complained that the state's National Guard cannot effectively help during disasters such as the fires because Bush has sent too many men and too much equipment overseas.

"Right now, we are down 50% in terms of our National Guard equipment," Boxer said during a Senate hearing, "because they're all in Iraq, the equipment, half of the equipment."

Boxer's stance is a bit more plausible than Reid's nonsense, but it fails to hold up under scrutiny. Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter of California provides the bigger picture and it undermines Boxer's claim. Hunter, who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee for the past four years, notes that the U.S. has "2.5 million people under arms" and "less than 8% of those people in the war fighting . . . in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Rank politicization of the fires also can be found at the state level, where California Democratic Lt. Gov. John Garamendi said Tuesday that Bush's planned California visit is a "public relations" ploy that will distract firefighters from their duties. Garamendi would rather have "our National Guard back from Iraq" than to endure Bush's visit.

Garamendi might as well invite terrorists to return with the guard, because that's what many will do unless they're being occupied over there.

With a congressional approval rating of 11%, an all-time low, members of the Democratic majority seem to be growing more desperate, more willing than ever to employ rhetorical tricks. They could save themselves politically — and do their country a favor — if they would instead focus on strengthening the U.S. and forget attacking opponents and the American character. If they don't, they're likely to get a surprise from voters next year.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278119564469549

Publicity stunt" is more like it.

What do you think saying it was a publicity stunt implies?

What would you have him do?

Do his job without the photo-op crap.

Again, you accuse him of wanting a photo op instead of doing his job.

You can try to spin it any way you want but the words are yours, not mine.

I cannot believe you're actually arguing this hogwash. Can you ever discuss something without injecting your senile character attacks?

Speaking of hogwash... that's actually funny coming from somebody who admits they've never even bothered to vote. What the hell are you doing discussing politics anyway, Nappy? That's like you jumping into a discussion on the value of a college education. When you don't have a clue about the subject, you should really just keep your mouth shut. Which means you probably oughta be much quieter than you are.

SMW

What do you think saying it was a publicity stunt implies?Exactly what I said. The criticism is that it (the trip to the scene)appears nothing more than a publicity stunt. That has not a damn thing to do with complaining about his job performance re this crisis.

Again, you accuse him of wanting a photo op instead of doing his job.
No, once again, I did not. I said I wanted him to do his job without the photo-op crap.

Let's see if I can break this down a little. You have a wide receiver who is great on the field, but is a distraction in the field house. He does his job, well even, but with too much fanfare and show-bizz. I want him to do his job without the photo-op crap.

The problem here, Frogger, is not on the transmission end, but the reception end. You can't seem to read any thing that doesn't accept your idolatry of Bush without flipping out.

Shiloh, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the president travels to every location that is declared a NATIONAL DISASTER AREA.

I'm a little baffled by your joining in with the Bush-bashers on this subject. Next, you'll be saying he prospered from Katrina as well.

Shiloh, if I'm not mistaken, I believe the president travels to every location that is declared a NATIONAL DISASTER AREA.

I'm a little baffled by your joining in with the Bush-bashers on this subject. Next, you'll be saying he prospered from Katrina as well.I'm trying to help some of those who seem unable to understand the complaints about the photo-op trip out West, just why the President is being critisized. Too often the knee-jerk reaction is, in fact, partisan, with the Right bitching about any complaint re the White House, which is stupid.

Sorta like your comment about Katrina in this post. :@@:

I'm trying to help some of those who seem unable to understand the complaints about the photo-op trip out West, just why the President is being critisized. Too often the knee-jerk reaction is, in fact, partisan, with the Right bitching about any complaint re the White House, which is stupid.

Sorta like your comment about Katrina in this post. :@@:

OIC, so you're actually DEFENDING the president's actions, eh? Coulda fooled me.

And BTW, I wasn't the first to bring Katrina into this discussion... just following up on your and Frogger's earlier exchange.

Originally Posted by Frogger
Whoa! Back up a bit, Shilohproject.

George Bush was lambasated for not reacting to the Katrina situation in what some considered a timely enough and comprehensive enough fashion. He has learned from his mistakes and miscues and is not responding in a timely and comprehensive fashion.


Originally Posted by Shiloh
Has Bush ever openly admitted that he mishandle New Orleans, was wrong and has learned from his mistakes?

Excuse me for being dense, but you seem to be siding with the Bush-bashers in your last statement there. Why should Bush 'openly admit' to mishandling New Orleans when it was the HURRICANE that did the damage? I suppose he should 'openly admit' that was his fault, too?

On that same subject, I've been fascinated by the differences in both the treatment and the demeanor of the evacuees in CA shelters as compared to what happened after the hurricane hit NO. Just wonder if the fact that the majority of the victims of the CA natural disaster are both white and financially well-off has anything to do with the smooth-running shelters?

Heard one Californian tell a reporter, "They are providing us with anything we want here... and I mean ANYTHING!"

How nice is that? Too bad everyone can't be white and wealthy, eh? Sure would make our president's job alot easier.

SMW

Excuse me for being dense, but you seem to be siding with the Bush-bashers in your last statement there. Why should Bush 'openly admit' to mishandling New Orleans when it was the HURRICANE that did the damage? I suppose he should 'openly admit' that was his fault, too?I'm not the one who said he'd "learned from his mistakes." Frogger was. And the question is not whether the hurricane did the damage, but rather what was the response, and was it sufficient. Please, feel free to stop with the rediculous.

On that same subject, I've been fascinated by the differences in both the treatment and the demeanor of the evacuees in CA shelters as compared to what happened after the hurricane hit NO. Just wonder if the fact that the majority of the victims of the CA natural disaster are both white and financially well-off has anything to do with the smooth-running shelters?

Heard one Californian tell a reporter, "They are providing us with anything we want here... and I mean ANYTHING!"

How nice is that? Too bad everyone can't be white and wealthy, eh? Sure would make our president's job alot easier.

SMWAre you now parrotting the "Bush is a Racist" line? I hope not.

There is significant differance in the two disasters being compared here. No one who leaves before a crisis in an orderly way faces the same stressors as people stranded on rooftops hoping for rescue, then have no where to go, no water, etc. Totally different pictures.

Shilohproject, you can say anything you want but short of going back and changing your posts you will not erase the obvious fact that you, like the Lt. Governor and Chris Matthews are simply engaging in Bush bashing.

Has Bush ever openly admitted that he mishandle New Orleans, was wrong and has learned from his mistakes?

"Publicity stunt" is more like it. If you have established a feeling with people that you don't care, then suddenly show up, it may well look less than genuine. And, any presidential appearance would hamper real work. These are fair and obvious statements.

Do his job without the photo-op crap.

I used to look forward to your posts, Frogger. It seems lately, though, that if anyone disagrees with your partisan, unobjective, nondiscriminating position, you're response is something like the above. Sad.

Guess it's that Allforums fairy putting words into people's mouths again, eh?
Sure looks like that's what you said.

There is significant differance in the two disasters being compared here. No one who leaves before a crisis in an orderly way faces the same stressors as people stranded on rooftops hoping for rescue, then have no where to go, no water, etc. Totally different pictures.

So, raging wildfires are less stressful than predicted hurricane strikes, eh?

Sorry, Shiloh... I think you're grasping at straws here.

The heart of the matter is that neither of these NATURAL DISASTERS can or should be blamed on whoever is president of this country. I received a nasty paper cut yesterday and have yet to receive condolences from the white house. Shame on them for allowing me to suffer.

:rolleyes:
SMW

Speaking of hogwash... that's actually funny coming from somebody who admits they've never even bothered to vote. What the hell are you doing discussing politics anyway, Nappy? That's like you jumping into a discussion on the value of a college education. When you don't have a clue about the subject, you should really just keep your mouth shut. Which means you probably oughta be much quieter than you are.

SMW
Speaking of senility...

Shilohproject, you can say anything you want but short of going back and changing your posts you will not erase the obvious fact that you, like the Lt. Governor and Chris Matthews are simply engaging in Bush bashing.Do you ever say, "Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying?" This is too stupid to continue.

So, raging wildfires are less stressful than predicted hurricane strikes, eh?You really think the Katrina issue was about a "predicted hurricane strike?"

The heart of the matter is that neither of these NATURAL DISASTERS can or should be blamed on whoever is president of this country.Try to get this: No one blames the president for the natural disaster.

This, too, is getting too stupid to continue. What is wrong with the Far Right that they can't even understand the damn issue under discussion?:slap:

You really think the Katrina issue was about a "predicted hurricane strike?"

Try to get this: No one blames the president for the natural disaster.

This, too, is getting too stupid to continue. What is wrong with the Far Right that they can't even understand the damn issue under discussion?:slap:

I don't consider myself Far Right. Maybe you wandered too Far Left and it looks that way from where you're standing... on this issue anyway.

BTW, what's your interpretation of the issue being discussed here? Seems to me it has to do with the accusation of Bush flying to California for a photo-op? If your issue is different from that statement, I'd appreciate clarification.

SMW

If your issue is different from that statement, I'd appreciate clarification.The issue is: why is there criticism of the Bush appearance? Go back to my first post on the matter. Inconsistency invites criticism.

Speaking of senility...


Get a job, Nappy. For a young man supposedly in the prime of his life, you sure waste alot of time here insulting people with what you must believe are snappy one-liners. Ever thought of making better use of your brain by enrolling in college? If you can't handle that, at least go to work. Can't be doing much 'low-voltage electrical work' when you post here day and night.


http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/twak.gif

These one-liners are pretty damn good, I've been told.

I love having a job where I can come home for lunch every once in awhile. Then I can surprise the shit out of my haters who thought I'd be gone for the day and they can have the boards all to themselves! You should talk, anyway, Miss 6000 posts a year! How can you have more posts than me when I've been here twice as long?

The issue is: why is their criticism of the Bush appearance? Go back to my first post on the matter. Inconsistency invites criticism.

Well, dear, wish I had time to go back and look for your first post on the matter, but I don't. Forgive me for simply picking up at the point where you appeared to be bashing the president yourself. Happens sometimes when people take it upon themself to try and figure out why other people say what they say.

No harm done. No offense intended if I misunderstood your position.

;)
SMW

Do you ever say, "Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying?" This is too stupid to continue.



Sure I do and I will as soon as you say, "Sorry, I posted something I didn't actually mean. I wasn't clear in what I wanted to say."

These one-liners are pretty damn good, I've been told.

I love having a job where I can come home for lunch every once in awhile. Then I can surprise the shit out of my haters who thought I'd be gone for the day and they can have the boards all to themselves! You should talk, anyway, Miss 6000 posts a year! How can you have more posts than me when I've been here twice as long?

Hey, Nappy, I've got more posts than you too, but then I am retired and don't have to take time off for work. Hell, I can even go to Aruba if I want.

It is kind of funny how the left says our military is not trained to do police work but for some reason they are qualified to battle giant wildfires at the drop of a hat.

8%; of our total military, active duty and reserve is in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are more than enough left if they are needed to help the professionals fight the Caifornia fires.

Can you imagine the brouhaha if GWB had sent troops to battle the fires.

"He's sending the military to California. This is just a grandstand play. He didn't send the military to New Orleans. He's just creating a big photo op."

Of course after saying all that they would still deny they are bashing Bush.

Why even have firefighters any more? just have the National Guard do everything.

Yea, and then all the "elite" actors and wanna-bes in Palm beach can come out of their day spas, wine and cheese shops, and posh clubs and spit on the evil National guard as the brave minutemen try to put out the fires that are melting away the make-up on all of their precious little faces LOL.

But back to the point...

Local and State governments are supposed to be able to attack the effects of any disaster and render as much aid as possible. When they are unable to do so, that's when the government steps in. So far the wildfires have caused a lot of damage and evacuation, but only 6 deaths. People have food, water, supplies... it's actually a shame that you DON'T hear about how well the people who have lost everything have been treated. You only hear reporters crying out how doomed we all are "OH MY GOD!!! THE FIRES ARE SPREADING!!! HOMES ARE BURNING.. BURNING IN A FIRE!!! OH MY GODDD!!!".. it's almost like we have become so materialistic that the media coverage is mourning the death of all of these fantastic houses, plasma TV's, bentleys, etc...

"Today on CNN... 500 more plasma TV's have been burned in the fire, and some lovely lakefront property has been scorched! You can go to cnn.com to see the exact number of items destroyed, and the aftermath of these tragic deaths. Oh, and by the way.. the people who own these glorious items are okay and are being helped BUT WHO CARES ABOUT THAT.. OHH MY GODDD ANOTHER PORSCHE JUST WENT UP IN FLAMES!!! OHHH THE HUMANITY!!!"

He didn't send the military to New Orleans. The military was involved in New Orleans.

When GWB offered to send the military the governor refused them. They went only later.

everyone loves to forget or ignore that frogger

When GWB offered to send the military the governor refused them. They went only later.So you're saying that I'm right and your previous post wasn't? Whaaaat?

everyone loves to forget or ignore that froggerWho, exactly, is this "everyone" you speak of?

everyone who claims there was no military available because they were "all in Iraq".

Hey, Nappy, I've got more posts than you too, but then I am retired and don't have to take time off for work. Hell, I can even go to Aruba if I want.
I love the dynamic between you and SMW! Oh Foolsworth, I think you have a contender for the romantic attentions of our dearest SMW!

Wait a minute. I just had an idea! I think maybe SMW is playing both of you! She's just angling to get all the men revolving around her! Oh, you slick, slick witch! Oh how I'd love to see all the steamy PMs flying around the three of you!

Though the mental images engendered by said PMs would probably be a bit much. *gag*

Unlike you, I have a woman in my life, Nappy. But all is not lost for you. There is always Mary Thumb and her four daughters.

Oh I bet you've had more than one, Frogger. From the way you throw insults around here, I think you're just letting off steam because your wife treats you like shit. The kind of thing that leads men into strip clubs and mistresses!

OK, take it easy on the wife insults napster.

Excuse me if I'm just a little "flippant" about all that, trav.

Excuse me if I'm just a little "flippant" about all that, trav.

I don't think it's necessary, or desireable, to get that personal Napster. :)

So it's okay for Frogger?

why oh why do i pay $79.99 a month for cable?

why oh why do i pay $79.99 a month for cable?
Because you live in Houston!:lolhit:

switching to AT&T on monday.... comcast is for the birds.

In typical MSNBC and Democrat fashion George Bush is being lambasted as the California wildfires are used as a political issue. President Bush was castigated for not showing enough concern for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina and now he is being castigated for showing concern by going out to California where Santa Ana aided wildfires are devistating parts of the State.

http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=7131

To parody the old joke, if Bush walked across the Potomac, the headlines , in some papers, would read "Bush Can't Swim".

So it's okay for Frogger?

No, I was referring to comments about someone's spouse. I don't think it's ok for anyone to comment about that sort of thing unless the discussion is about spouses.

I didn't. I said his wife probably treats him like shit. While it involves his wife, it's not about his wife. Now, if I said his wife cheats on him, I can see where you'd be coming from. It's personal, but no more personal than he's been getting, and, in my opinion, a good deal less. Not that it bothers me. :rolleyes:

I love the dynamic between you and SMW! Oh Foolsworth, I think you have a contender for the romantic attentions of our dearest SMW!

Wait a minute. I just had an idea! I think maybe SMW is playing both of you! She's just angling to get all the men revolving around her! Oh, you slick, slick witch! Oh how I'd love to see all the steamy PMs flying around the three of you!

Though the mental images engendered by said PMs would probably be a bit much. *gag*

How cute are the fantasies of a horny young man?

Is this a reversal of your previous accusation that no man could possibly stand to be around me?

Keep fantasizing, dear. After all, it seems to be all the lovelife you've got.

;)
SMW

P.S. FYI, I've been to Aruba a couple of times myself. But get your mind outta the gutter... it wasn't with Frogger.

Is this a reversal of your previous accusation that no man could possibly stand to be around me?
Not at all, dearie! See, once a man actually meets you in person, unless he's out of his mind, like Foolsworth, it takes him roughly six minutes before the fight or flight response kicks in. I know a few guys from Texas in the mid-eighty age range, they all tell me tales of the abominable she-beast somewhere outside Dallas. Just one more reason I stay the hell away from Texas!

Aruba, Jamaica, Oooh! You know I wanna take ya.

Just love that song. Love Aruba too, the music, the people, the beaches. Great place to visit.

Wednesday, I'm going. Can't wait!

You're leaving The States. You're not the only one who can't wait.:lolhit:

Oh don't I know it! :) I'll be sure to drop in once or twice to send my goodwill!

watch out for those Venezuelan women. They will tear you up. They are as beautiful as Brazilian women but they really have an attitude.

They are as beautiful but they really have an attitude.

ummm what is central/south americam women alex?