Bush State Of The Union mashup

blissed · 27-11-06 14:07:40

There are different types of intelligence and people can have the sort of intelligence thats useful in being manipulative. Bush deliberately set out to appeal to "folks" who want someone honest and down to earth with common sense. Yet governing requires uncommon sense and the ability to co-exist with the rest of the world without bringing yourself into unnecessary conflict and wasting other peoples lives. Bush has gained the keys (and temperary loan) of the best car in the world and has crashed it, not only that, but doing this has killed a few of his passengers.

.

polarchill · 27-11-06 14:22:52

blissed wrote:

There are different types of intelligence and people can have the sort of intelligence thats useful in being manipulative. Bush deliberately set out to appeal to "folks" who want someone honest and down to earth with common sense. Yet governing requires uncommon sense and the ability to co-exist with the rest of the world without bringing yourself into unnecessary conflict and wasting other peoples lives. Bush has gained the keys (and temperary loan) of the best car in the world and has crashed it, not only that, but doing this has killed a few of his passengers.
.

And really, the whole manipulative part he was groomed for from day one. Bush Sr. raised him to be the hopeful Heir Apparent, qualifications be damned. He was trained to get there, not to deserve to be there. It's the worst part of having an election system over 200 years old. Politicians have now become experts at getting these jobs, without needing to have any of the qualifications to do them.

killik · 27-11-06 20:13:14

blissed wrote:

There are different types of intelligence and people can have the sort of intelligence thats useful in being manipulative. Bush deliberately set out to appeal to "folks" who want someone honest and down to earth with common sense. Yet governing requires uncommon sense and the ability to co-exist with the rest of the world without bringing yourself into unnecessary conflict and wasting other peoples lives. Bush has gained the keys (and temperary loan) of the best car in the world and has crashed it, not only that, but doing this has killed a few of his passengers.
.

So are you saying it was President Bush who killed the people on 9/11, the Iraqis and our troops, and not the terrorists?

What should we do when another country threatens us or has the capability to cause other nations serious harm?

Also should we just stand by and let brutal dictators slaughter innocent people like in Sudan?

blissed · 27-11-06 22:45:27

The bring it on comment was a classic of how he has raised the temperature during conflict instead of lowering it. (That comment caused the further deaths of US and UK service personnel. ) His main objective is his own glory, "mission accomplished". So he's got in the best car in the world and done a few wheelies and stunts and crashed the fucking thing in a ditch. Which is where it now sits. It's very easy tho to criticise from the sidelines, so here is a Sim.

The Blissed presidency invaded Afghanistan with UN approval in 2001. At the same time It assisted in the creation of an independent state of Palestine including the west bank with a secure border (Balkan solution) The Blissed presidency also tried to overhaul the security council to make it more effective and with other UN nations, it then tightened the no fly zones around Saddam Hussein and gradually isolated him. The rest of the country then separated into the various nations that existed before the British invasion i.e. Mesopotamia, Kurdistan. with their own UN representatives.
A Common economic community was the result of a summit of these nations that extended the hand of friendship to other people in the region. Tikret was then taken in 2003 ( after all TV and radio transmissions had been jammed there for 3 weeks) by a coalition of UN, Kurds and Shia sovereign forces in a hi and low tech (9/11 was about pen knives) gorilla campaign out of uniform using the minimum path of force.

This Common economic community in the middle east is very important because it gives the people there respect.

The governments of the East European nations that recently joined the European economic community had to "get real" to qualify and show a greater respect for their own people because meaningful investment requires security and peace.

Anyway with that record I was easily elected for 4 more years, so I'd like to thank all the people that voted for me, you've made a very wise and inspired choice yet again, I love you all!!!!!

P.S. this video is a metaphor for how the people in the region have been treated and stopping this usually off camera sort of attitude at all levels, will begin to turn the whole situation around and stop feuling the hatred that produces terrorist groups.

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/taun … water.html

.

Last edited by blissed (27-11-06 23:41:42)

killik · 28-11-06 05:13:58

blissed wrote:

P.S. this video is a metaphor for how the people in the region have been treated and stopping this usually off camera sort of attitude at all levels, will begin to turn the whole situation around and stop feuling the hatred that produces terrorist groups.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/taun … water.html
.

So you're saying that if we are nice to the terrorists then they will stop blowing up innocent people?

msnevil · 28-11-06 08:24:41

1Offroad · 28-11-06 15:42:15

small contribution from an old Euroview... For a oneway "easy to use" killik view...

We agree that Bi(u)sh opened everlasting topic about small "pupet" in a hands of big players. In a last 80 years those guys manage Pearl Harbour, Kenedy in "Tex-ass" and 9/11. After that in a war they can sell all their toys. And if they needed they can produce the 4th and 5th event.... Only "million voters" never thing about that...

Action - reaction.... hard scrubing => hard pleasure

Wake up kilik and stop asking Oprah's "if we are nice to the terrorists then they will stop?"

Bush said "My gramatical error's are missunderestimated". Like mine too..

blissed · 28-11-06 17:22:21

killik wrote:

blissed wrote:
P.S. this video is a metaphor for how the people in the region have been treated and stopping this usually off camera sort of attitude at all levels, will begin to turn the whole situation around and stop feuling the hatred that produces terrorist groups.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/2006/11/taun … water.html
.
So you're saying that if we are nice to the terrorists then they will stop blowing up innocent people?

If we're nice to people, they won't become terrorists.

This not only feels right, it's a pretty sound lesson from Northern Ireland.

.

nihpuad · 28-11-06 21:01:02

killik wrote:

You're not making any sense. You feel [Bush] and his administration are of low intelligence yet apparently they are so smart they can make up false data and dupe the entire country.

It's not that simple: Regardless of their opinions of Bush, nobody suggests that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz (sp?), John Bolton, et al., are stupid; only that they're arrogant political "fundamentalists" in service of a (IMHO dangerous) shared neoconservative world view. Nobody I know doubts that the Bush administration is capable of pulling off the deceptions alleged, even among those who think W himself is too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot.

That said, it's not that simple, either:

jwhite wrote:

W. graduated from Yale, hence cannot be a totl moron.

He's not a "total moron": Even some of his staunchest critics from the old days in Texas, people like Molly Ivins and the late, lamented Ann Richards (whom W succeeded as Texas Governor), credit him with a significant degree of native intelligence. What he's not, however, is an intellectual, or a scholar, or even a reader. Of this fact he himself is almost defiantly proud, however wrongheaded that seems to me.

As to Yale, his admission there, let alone graudation, was almost certainly due to class and family influence (despite all the Texas swagger, the family is old Connecticut money), rather than to any merit of his own. He laugh's about being a C student; a "gentleman's C" from Yale, "earned" by a member of the privileged elite (and a family legacy, to boot), is no evidence of particular intellectual gifts.

Finally, and more to the important point that any critique of the president's faculties...

blissed wrote:

If we're nice to people, they won't become terrorists.
This not only feels right, it's a pretty sound lesson from Northern Ireland.

Bingo! Look, nothing justifies terrorism... but people don't just wake up one day and become terrorists out of inborn sadism. They become terrorists because they're pissed (in the American sense of that idiom ), and they're pissed for some reason. Now whether their reasons are wholly wrong or wholly right or (as is usually so) somewhere in between, understanding those reasons is a d@mn useful thing for the targets of their rage. When possible within reason and the bounds of honor, mitigating those reasons is a smart thing, too, and I don't want to hear anything about "appeasement": restraining yourself from poking a pit bull with a sharp stick is not "appeasing" the dog.

But best of all is to try, wherever possible, not to piss people off in the first place, and that's the real weakness of the Bush administration: They don't give a rat's @ss who we piss off. In fact, they think it's unmanly (and yes, that gender-specific term is deliberate) to worry about who we piss off.

Invading Iraq was never about fighting terrorism: These guys had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11, which only served to give them political cover for what they wanted to do anyway. But that attitude... not just about Iraq, but the way Bush gave North Korea the back of his hand just days after his inauguration (kneecapping Colin Powell, who was in South Korea at the time, in the process); the way he summarily withdrew us from the Middle East peace process; the contempt for international institutions such as the International Criminal Court and the UN, not to mention the Geneva Conventions or habeas corpus; the scorn for France and the rest of so-called "Old Europe" during the run-up to war; the casual dismissal of global climate change (esp. Kyoto)... just our general arrogance regarding the entire rest of the world.... [sigh] "They" don't really "hate us for our freedom": Plenty of places that never get attacked are just as free as we are, at least in the cultural senses that fundamentalist Islam allegedly "hates." They hate us because we give them reasons to hate us, and the reprehensible, inexcusable ways in which they express their hatred don't change that.

Look, I'm not imagining that if we just play nice, nobody will ever attack us again. I'm not naive: The U.S. is wealthy and influential and powerful, and as a once-and-future proud American, I never want those things to change. And as long as they don't, somebody will be gunning for us, if only out of jealousy. But if we try to be better neighbors... a better citizen in the community of nations... fewer people will have reasons to attack us, and those that do will be more obviously wrong in the eyes of our friends... and maybe we'll actually have some friends.

Let me promise the majority (I think) of y'all who are not Americans that some of us here are trying to effect that change. The mid-term elections earlier this month were a start.

Whew... I guess maybe I should have posted this somewhere else (like maybe on my own blog)... but reading this thread got me all spun up. We now return you to your regularly scheduled masturbation videos...

killik · 28-11-06 23:08:04

dauphinb2 wrote:

blissed wrote:
If we're nice to people, they won't become terrorists.
This not only feels right, it's a pretty sound lesson from Northern Ireland.
Bingo! Look, nothing justifies terrorism... but people don't just wake up one day and become terrorists out of inborn sadism. They become terrorists because they're pissed (in the American sense of that idiom ), and they're pissed for some reason. Now whether their reasons are wholly wrong or wholly right or (as is usually so) somewhere in between, understanding those reasons is a d@mn useful thing for the targets of their rage. When possible within reason and the bounds of honor, mitigating those reasons is a smart thing, too, and I don't want to hear anything about "appeasement": restraining yourself from poking a pit bull with a sharp stick is not "appeasing" the dog.

Hmmm.....that makes sense. In fact it can be applied to all forms of conflict

If we are nice to criminals then they won't commit any more crimes.....err....okay that doesn't work

If we were nicer to Hitler then he wouldn't have slaughtered jews....um....okay maybe that didn't work either.

Well it must have worked for Israel since they gave Yasser Arafat everything he wanted to stop the terrorist attacks.....oops....okay that was a failure as well.

Hmmm....seems like your reasoning is faulty. Anymore bright ideas?

blissed · 29-11-06 00:11:37

This isn't the answer to the universe and everything there are still obviously other problems that need other solutions.

This I think is part of the answer to solving this particular problem.

Northern Ireland has a lot of lessons for Iraq, where the Irish Republicans had many parallels with the Palestinians and there seems to have been an accommodation. Manchester city centre was devastated by a 5000 pound bomb and there were countless terrorist attacks on England over 2 decades funded in part by private donations from the US, in the same way these terrorists are funded by private Arabian oil money.

I think applying the lessons of Northern Ireland to the middle eastern conflict is a good idea, and no one solution can solve everything, but a dynamic of different and creative ideas, one of which, is to try to stop where reasonable the reasons why people turn to violence.

.

Last edited by blissed (29-11-06 00:38:56)

blissed · 29-11-06 00:19:44

dauphinb2 wrote:

even among those who think W himself is too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot...................These guys had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11,

dauphinb2, I love the way you write
I think you should write for a national newspaper.

.

Last edited by blissed (29-11-06 00:20:32)

killik · 29-11-06 01:07:10

blissed wrote:

I think applying the lessons of Northern Ireland to the middle eastern conflict is a good idea, and no one solution can solve everything, but a dynamic of different and creative ideas, one of which, is to try to stop where reasonable the reasons why people turn to violence.
.

Some people are not reasonable, or rational, or sane. Some people turn to violence simply because they can. They see that with violent methods they can often cow peaceful people into giving them what they demand. The more they can intimidate the more they will ask for. It is a classic lesson that history is rife with examples yet people continue to ignore because they fail to hold people accountable for their actions. If terrorists blow up 3,000 people out of hatred it MUST be our governments fault....if a man kills his exwife out of jealousy it MUST be her fault....if 2 students go on a killing rampage at their school out of being teased by their classmates it MUST be the classmates fault,right? Like there is no other way for people to solve their problems except through the murder of innocent people.

killik · 29-11-06 01:12:30

blissed wrote:

dauphinb2 wrote:
even among those who think W himself is too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot...................These guys had a hard-on for Iraq long before 9/11,
dauphinb2, I love the way you write
I think you should write for a national newspaper.
.

I love the way he writes as well. It is so much fun watching "adults" descend into adolescense by way of name calling and irrational statements.

dyslexius · 29-11-06 02:43:56

killik, the dichotomy posed by your avatar and your postings is causing me intense cognitive dissonance. Got any other images layin' around?

--dyslexius

blissed · 29-11-06 08:22:05

killik wrote:

blissed wrote:
I think applying the lessons of Northern Ireland to the middle eastern conflict is a good idea, and no one solution can solve everything, but a dynamic of different and creative ideas, one of which, is to try to stop where reasonable the reasons why people turn to violence.
.
Some people are not reasonable, or rational, or sane. Some people turn to violence simply because they can. They see that with violent methods they can often cow peaceful people into giving them what they demand. The more they can intimidate the more they will ask for. It is a classic lesson that history is rife with examples yet people continue to ignore because they fail to hold people accountable for their actions. If terrorists blow up 3,000 people out of hatred it MUST be our governments fault....if a man kills his exwife out of jealousy it MUST be her fault....if 2 students go on a killing rampage at their school out of being teased by their classmates it MUST be the classmates fault,right? Like there is no other way for people to solve their problems except through the murder of innocent people.

Yes I agree with you there has to be accountability too and thats much easier to do in a society where theres a consensus. If someone commits a crime, everyone helps the police to catch them. Where you loose that consensus and support from people things become really difficult and it's really difficult to protect innocent people from harm. I think that building that consensus and support in Iraq and the middle east is widely recognised as a priority.

What you've observed is completely valid, both in Northern Ireland and South Africa amnesties designed to keep the peace caused people a lot of pain, these amnesties illustrate unfortunately the reality of where sovereignty runs out and is passed in part to someone else. But creating peace is always a difficult balancing act.

On a personal level, I think you'd agree that where ever we go if we're going to lead, we should lead by example and treat people fairly.

Anyway, Killik, if thats you in your avatar, I think you look bloody gorgeous

.

Last edited by blissed (29-11-06 08:24:45)

1Offroad · 29-11-06 08:49:09

Interesting. People from around the world invest their time, energy and almost yearning to explicate their stand point about jumble or mishmash that family Bush represent in a "modern" world.

It's obviously that they read more historic book (written by winners) and their explanations go deeper in a subject, than a guy who thinks that without videogames the world will stop spinning and has no sense of humor.

Do you know what are the horse blinker's? And whay they have been invented?

The_Elfman · 29-11-06 13:39:42

You know I can't understand why you guys are bothering with all of this politics when there are serious issues to be discussed:

Australia win The First Test

msnevil · 29-11-06 15:36:10

Are you writing in "code" or am I just too stupid to understand what your getting at?

Edit:
Actually, After rereading the post. I wonder if "english" is your 2nd language. Perhaps writing in your own language would be better. And then we could translate it via a online "language" translator?

I can use Babel Fish to translate your language. Or I'm sure somebody else can do it for you as well?

If there is anyway, I can help. Let me know.

Éditez : En fait, après relecture du poteau. Je me demande si l'"anglais" est votre 2ème langue. Peut-être l'écriture en votre propre langue serait meilleure. Et alors nous pourrions la traduire par l'intermédiaire d'un traducteur en ligne d'"langue" ? Je peux employer des poissons de Babel pour traduire votre langue. Ou je suis sûr que quelqu'un d'autre peut la faire pour vous aussi bien ? S'il y a de toute façon, je peux aider. Faites-moi savoir.

Redigieren Sie: Wirklich nachdem der Pfosten neugelesen worden ist. Ich wundere mich, wenn "Englisch" Ihre 2. Sprache ist. Möglicherweise würde Schreiben in Ihrer eigenen Sprache besser sein. Und dann könnten wir es über einen on-line-"Sprachen" Übersetzer übersetzen? Ich kann Babel Fische benutzen, um Ihre Sprache zu übersetzen. Oder ich bin sicher, daß Jemand ander sie für Sie außerdem tun kann? Wenn es irgendwie gibt, kann ich helfen. Informieren Sie mich.

Редактируйте: Фактическ, после перечитывать столб. Я интересую если "английской языком" будет ваш 2-ой язык. Возможно сочинительство в вашем собственном языке было бы более лучшим. И после этого мы смогли перевести его через online переводчика "языка"? Я могу использовать рыб babel для того чтобы перевести ваш язык. Или я уверен somebody else может сделать его для вас также? Если так или иначе, то я могу помочь. Препятствуйте мне знать.

1Offroad wrote:

Interesting. People from around the world invest their time, energy and almost yearning to explicate their stand point about jumble or mishmash that family Bush represent in a "modern" world.
It's obviously that they read more historic book (written by winners) and their explanations go deeper in a subject, than a guy who thinks that without videogames the world will stop spinning and has no sense of humor.
Do you know what are the horse blinker's? And whay they have been invented?

Last edited by msnevil (29-11-06 16:23:15)

msnevil · 29-11-06 15:55:25

Go Colts, Whats Cricket?

Now back to the thread.

Lets "Trash talk Tony Blair".

The_Elfman wrote:

You know I can't understand why you guys are bothering with all of this politics when there are serious issues to be discussed:
Australia win The First Test

nihpuad · 29-11-06 18:29:39

killik wrote:

Hmmm....seems like your reasoning is faulty.

It's always possible that my reasoning is faulty: I'm not quite as arrogant as our national leadership, which seems incapable of considering it possible their approach to things is flawed. But then, your critique doesn't really address my actual reasoning, does it?

killik wrote:

Hmmm.....that makes sense. In fact it can be applied to all forms of conflict
If we are nice to criminals then they won't commit any more crimes.....err....okay that doesn't work
If we were nicer to Hitler then he wouldn't have slaughtered jews....um....okay maybe that didn't work either.
Well it must have worked for Israel since they gave Yasser Arafat everything he wanted to stop the terrorist attacks.....oops....okay that was a failure as well.

Re-read the whole post: I never said being nice would stop crime, or stop a megalomaniacal leader from dreaming of world domination, or stop minority factions who (rightly or wrongly) feel oppressed from carrying out guerilla wars of liberation. Howevermuch tactics might overlap, those three examples are not logically similar to foreigners who have no natural dispute with the U.S. (remember, the precursors to al Quaida were our allies in Afghanistan against the Russians) picking us, out of all the other modern, mostly secular, Western democracies, for an attack like 9/11.

But I didn't even say being nice would end all of that sort of behavior. I only said that, insofar as it's possible without compromising our national interest or other basic principles, it's wiser for us to behave in ways that don't piss the rest of the world off. We'll have fewer enemies (to attack us) that way, and more friends (to help us defend ourselves), and less to be ashamed of (and if you don't think we have anything to be ashamed of, I just don't know what to say to you).

killik wrote:

Anymore bright ideas?

Yeah, I've got a few, but this is a family forum....

nihpuad · 29-11-06 18:53:43

killik wrote:

I love the way he writes as well. It is so much fun watching "adults" descend into adolescense by way of name calling and irrational statements.

Hmmm... Blissed excerpts a couple of my most colorful expressions, and you use them to characterize my whole long post. Do you really think the overall impact of what I wrote was "adolescent namecalling," or do you just enjoy using "evidence" taken out of context to pick fights?

FWIW, the phrase "too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot" is an old Texas expression, exactly the sort of thing Bush himself might say in a private moment, or that his homespun critics (e.g., Molly Ivins) might use; I chose that phrase carefully because it was appropriate to the context. But you'll also note (if you bother to look at it) that the actual point of that part of my post was to say he's not dumb... specifically, that he's not the "total moron" somebody else had called him. So how is it I'm the one doing the namecalling?

As for "hard-on for Iraq," I think it perfectly evokes the kind of irrational, thinking-with-something-other-than-the-brain desire that characterizes the administration's fixation on Iraq. I don't pretend to know why this was true, but it was clear to me immediately after the inauguration (i.e., Jan 2001, long before 9/11) that Bush and his inner circle wanted to attack Iraq, and were just waiting for a credible excuse. Subsequent evidence and reporting has, I think, pretty much borne that out.

You know, conservative pundits in the U.S. are quick to right off opposition as "Bush hating," but it really doesn't have anything to do with personal hatred. I don't hate the president; by all accounts (including those of some of his harshest critics), he'd be a fun guy to hang out with. But I do disagree with many of the policies he's implemented and those he advocates for the future, and I think he's personally ill-suited to the job he holds. Disagree with me if you will, but surely you agree those are fair judgment for a citizen of a democracy to be making?

(Thanks ever so much for teeing me up like this, Blissed! )

blissed · 29-11-06 20:07:06

Thats OK I think us girls should cool it really because the conclusion of this debate I think is That killik had a valid point that if we consider the reasons for people to turn to violence that we don't forget that people also have to be held accountable for their actions too. So I think we should all now kiss each other on the lips (no tongues , I don't really like that unless I'm in the mood for it ) and make up

10ffroad, your post has to be read a few times to understand it but your a lot better at writing English than I am at writing or talking any foriegn language, so thanks for making the effort. If you want to let us know what your 1st language is, I think it could be useful, but I don't mind if you don't want to do that. Anyway, welcome to the forum

.

Last edited by blissed (29-11-06 20:23:49)

killik · 29-11-06 20:21:03

dauphinb2 wrote:

killik wrote:
I love the way he writes as well. It is so much fun watching "adults" descend into adolescense by way of name calling and irrational statements.
Hmmm... Blissed excerpts a couple of my most colorful expressions, and you use them to characterize my whole long post. Do you really think the overall impact of what I wrote was "adolescent namecalling," or do you just enjoy using "evidence" taken out of context to pick fights?
FWIW, the phrase "too dumb to pour p!ss out of a boot" is an old Texas expression, exactly the sort of thing Bush himself might say in a private moment, or that his homespun critics (e.g., Molly Ivins) might use; I chose that phrase carefully because it was appropriate to the context. But you'll also note (if you bother to look at it) that the actual point of that part of my post was to say he's not dumb... specifically, that he's not the "total moron" somebody else had called him. So how is it I'm the one doing the namecalling?
As for "hard-on for Iraq," I think it perfectly evokes the kind of irrational, thinking-with-something-other-than-the-brain desire that characterizes the administration's fixation on Iraq. I don't pretend to know why this was true, but it was clear to me immediately after the inauguration (i.e., Jan 2001, long before 9/11) that Bush and his inner circle wanted to attack Iraq, and were just waiting for a credible excuse. Subsequent evidence and reporting has, I think, pretty much borne that out.
You know, conservative pundits in the U.S. are quick to right off opposition as "Bush hating," but it really doesn't have anything to do with personal hatred. I don't hate the president; by all accounts (including those of some of his harshest critics), he'd be a fun guy to hang out with. But I do disagree with many of the policies he's implemented and those he advocates for the future, and I think he's personally ill-suited to the job he holds. Disagree with me if you will, but surely you agree those are fair judgment for a citizen of a democracy to be making?
(Thanks ever so much for teeing me up like this, Blissed! )

Whether President Bush would use that phrase or not is irrelevant. If he had a habit of saying "shit" in every sentence he made, would you then do it as well? Have a little courage to think and act for yourself. Even if it was only part of your entire post it is still bad form to make childish statements concerning someone who has opposing views even if the other person would do it. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior.

blissed · 29-11-06 20:55:30

killik, I just pulled out a few phrases because they were colourful and made me laugh. It was just a joke. The debate we've been having hasn't been about party politics it's been about whether we empathise with other people who don't share our culture and live out of site and out of mind around he other side of the world. It's been a debate about human relations.

But right now it's descended into personal bickering which just sours the atmosphere, theres no public showdown because your both anonymous and it spoils other peoples enjoyment of the forum and puts people off posting and having interesting conversations that others want to read. So dauphinb2 and killik, is it possible if you could both take this particular argument off the forum and onto personally communicated emails, or you could just drop it.

.

Last edited by blissed (29-11-06 20:56:26)

#26 27-11-06 14:07:40

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#27 27-11-06 14:22:52

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#28 27-11-06 20:13:14

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#29 27-11-06 22:45:27

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#30 28-11-06 05:13:58

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#31 28-11-06 08:24:41

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#32 28-11-06 15:42:15

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#33 28-11-06 17:22:21

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#34 28-11-06 21:01:02

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#35 28-11-06 23:08:04

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#36 29-11-06 00:11:37

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#37 29-11-06 00:19:44

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#38 29-11-06 01:07:10

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#39 29-11-06 01:12:30

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#40 29-11-06 02:43:56

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#41 29-11-06 08:22:05

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#42 29-11-06 08:49:09

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#43 29-11-06 13:39:42

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#44 29-11-06 15:36:10

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#45 29-11-06 15:55:25

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#46 29-11-06 18:29:39

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#47 29-11-06 18:53:43

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#48 29-11-06 20:07:06

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#49 29-11-06 20:21:03

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

#50 29-11-06 20:55:30

Re: Bush State Of The Union mashup

Board footer