The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

For those who are unaware, here are a few of W's latest gaffes from the G8 summit:

First, when talking to Tony Blair near an open mic, Bush says "See, the irony is what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this *stuff* and it's over." (Instead of *stuff*, he uses a word I can only type in smack)



Then he is slammed by Vladimir Putin in this exchange:

BUSH: I talked about my desire to promote institutional change in parts of the world, like Iraq, where there’s a free press and free religion. And I told him that a lot of people in our country would hope that Russia will do the same thing. I fully understand, however, that there will be a Russian-style democracy.

PUTIN: We certainly would not want to have same kind of democracy as they have in Iraq, quite honestly.

BUSH: Just wait.



Then he engages in some unwanted touching of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Click here to see the video that these stills are taken from:





And finally, there is rampant speculation that Bush was off the wagon during the summit, as evidenced by this picture, showing a Bud Light which Bush had just set down on the table, and at least two more on ice in the background.

That stuff is so sad you just have to laugh! WHAT A FREAKIN IDIOT!!!!

The guy is a total goofball. At a meeting of world leaders trying to keep the world from coming apart, he acts like a hammered frat boy who thinks he's the life of the party. Unbelievable. Now the idiot has again stopped stem cell research in its tracks, in spite of pleas from Nancy Reagan. Holy cow! He's attacked the wrong country and snatched defeat from victory, violates the Geneva Conventions, trashes the Constitution, spies on us all, loots the treasury for his friendsi. We're being mugged by a fool and we're letting him get away with it. It would be something easier to take if he were an intelligent tyrant, but to be taken over by someone with the mental ability of pond scum is a real burn.

Anyone care to comment on their "no" vote, or should you have chosen option three?

I voted freak show, The guy is messed up

You mean Americans don't like it?

I just figured you did with you voting him in to consecutive terms and all... it's not like he's ever been any different.

BossHog wrote:You mean Americans don't like it?

I just figured you did with you voting him in to consecutive terms and all... it's not like he's ever been any different.

I've never voted for that piece of crap. I despised everything there was about him when I saw him reading a book with kids while his people were jumping out of a burning building!

BossHog wrote:You mean Americans don't like it?

I just figured you did with you voting him in to consecutive terms and all... it's not like he's ever been any different.

That's if you believe that he was actually ever fairly elected. I believe that the fix was in, and we had a successful coup d'état in 2000.

That's if you believe that he was actually ever fairly elected. I believe that the fix was in, and we had a successful coup d'état in 2000.

SOOOOOOOO funny. Fortunately, we caught those Chicago scheisters trying to squash Military absentee ballots, and put a stop to it. That was despicable, wasn't it?

Sigh... EVERY, and I mean EVERY objective attempt to examine the elections had the same result. It didn't matter whether it was by a liberal Miami newspaper that had endorsed algore, a college student group doing a research project, or a conservative think tank... Bush won. Still, the whining continues.

If the Democrats want to win elections, there is really one simple formula...








Put up candidates that people will vote for.




Bush could have easily been defeated by even a marginally qualified candidate in either election. I mean, come on... Al Gore?????? John Kerry????? All the while, throwing men like Joe Leiberman under the bus.

You know it, and I know it. Unfortunately, it seems that the DNC is determined to continue to undermine itself. c'est la vie...

Countertrey wrote:Sigh... EVERY, and I mean EVERY objective attempt to examine the elections had the same result. It didn't matter whether it was by a liberal Miami newspaper that had endorsed algore, a college student group doing a research project, or a conservative think tank... Bush won.

You see that is just flat out wrong. I understand that you believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it so. "Every count done after the Supreme Court's stopping of the official recount, and instillation of Bush, showed Gore to have been the winner in Florida. Never mind that Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush committed voting fraud when they hired ChoicePoint, to systematically expunge over 90,000 blacks from voter rolls, under the auspices of a felon purge. This has never been disputed.

Countertrey wrote:If the Democrats want to win elections, there is really one simple formula...
Put up candidates that people will vote for.

Gore got more votes, nationally than Bush in 2000.
We were at war during 2004, but Kerry, though losing the popular vote, had his electoral victory stolen in Ohio, and possibly other states, through the use of electronic voting machines, phone jamming, under-resourcing Democratic precincts, and other vote suppression techniques.

Countertrey wrote:Bush could have easily been defeated by even a marginally qualified candidate in either election. I mean, come on... Al Gore?????? John Kerry????? All the while, throwing men like Joe Lieberman under the bus.

What was wrong with Al Gore? He was too boring? Too much of a policy wonk? Don't tell me you buy into all that liar stuff? He was "swift-boated" by Rove, just as effectively as John Kerry was. I would have gladly voted for better Democratic candidate in 2004 (I did in my primary), were one offered. But anyone was preferable to voting for the fascists who are destroying our country from the inside. As for Lieberman, I would volunteer to throw him under the bus! He is as in the pocket of the corporatocracy as the Republicans.

Benito Mussolini wrote:Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.

At least Al Gore or John Kerry didn't sit on their asses while their people were jumping out of a burning building!

Redskins Rule wrote:At least Al Gore or John Kerry didn't sit on their asses while their people were jumping out of a burning building!

This is nonsensical.


I'm assuming that you are referring to the Sept. 11th attacks? If so, what exactly are you claiming, and what is its relevance to anything?

Gore got more votes, nationally than Bush in 2000.
We were at war during 2004, but Kerry, though losing the popular vote, had his electoral victory stolen in Ohio, and possibly other states, through the use of electronic voting machines, phone jamming, under-resourcing Democratic precincts, and other vote suppression techniques.

Bush's margin in OH in 2004 was about the same as JFK's nationwide in 1960. There were lots of close states, some went Bush, others went Kerry. That's the way it goes.

As long as Dems keep making excuses, Reps will win elections.

Some of you are so predictable.

Thanks for playing.

yupchagee wrote:

Gore got more votes, nationally than Bush in 2000.
We were at war during 2004, but Kerry, though losing the popular vote, had his electoral victory stolen in Ohio, and possibly other states, through the use of electronic voting machines, phone jamming, under-resourcing Democratic precincts, and other vote suppression techniques.

Bush's margin in OH in 2004 was about the same as JFK's nationwide in 1960. There were lots of close states, some went Bush, others went Kerry. That's the way it goes.

I'm talking about election fraud, and all you have to say is, "That's the way it goes?" You should want fair elections regardless of the winner. I guess that's the difference between us. It seems like most Americans just want to be on the side they perceive as winning. Personally, I am confident enough in my own beliefs not to have to go along with the herd.

JSPB22 wrote:He was "swift-boated" by Rove

Dude! Thats a good one! I'm gonna have to start using that term from now on!

JSPB22 wrote:

yupchagee wrote:

Gore got more votes, nationally than Bush in 2000.
We were at war during 2004, but Kerry, though losing the popular vote, had his electoral victory stolen in Ohio, and possibly other states, through the use of electronic voting machines, phone jamming, under-resourcing Democratic precincts, and other vote suppression techniques.

Bush's margin in OH in 2004 was about the same as JFK's nationwide in 1960. There were lots of close states, some went Bush, others went Kerry. That's the way it goes.

I'm talking about election fraud, and all you have to say is, "That's the way it goes?" You should want fair elections regardless of the winner. I guess that's the difference between us. It seems like most Americans just want to be on the side they perceive as winning. Personally, I am confident enough in my own beliefs not to have to go along with the herd.

I'm saying that there hav e been lots of close elections. There have always been irregularities, some favoring 1 side, some the other. Some are deliberate, some aren't. Dems are experts at locking up the cemetary vote for example. The fact that you don't like the outcome doesn't proove fraud. You lost. Get over it.

I'm talking about election fraud

Pot? Meet Kettle.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Redskins Rule wrote:At least Al Gore or John Kerry didn't sit on their asses while their people were jumping out of a burning building!

This is nonsensical.


I'm assuming that you are referring to the Sept. 11th attacks? If so, what exactly are you claiming, and what is its relevance to anything?

Nonsensical!?!??!!? What the heck is sensical? And what the heck happened to your name? I thought you were FFA not Irn-Bru..........

I'm so confused right now...........

Countertrey wrote:

I'm talking about election fraud

Pot? Meet Kettle.

I'm guessing by that comment, you are saying that the Dems also engage in voter fraud. Oh touche! You got me there! Yes, there have been ballot stuffing instances in the past, but it is much harder to vote extra times these days. Please don't talk about going into homeless shelters to get the homeless to vote, unless you are saying that the homeless don't have that right. The way I see it, Democratic voter "fraud" is about getting as many people to vote as possible. Republican voter fraud is all about vote suppression. That being said, I don't condone any voting fraud. I think elections are the backbone of a democracy, and should be as transparent and as fair as possible.

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

I'm talking about election fraud

Pot? Meet Kettle.

I'm guessing by that comment, you are saying that the Dems also engage in voter fraud. Oh touche! You got me there! Yes, there have been ballot stuffing instances in the past, but it is much harder to vote extra times these days. Please don't talk about going into homeless shelters to get the homeless to vote, unless you are saying that the homeless don't have that right. The way I see it, Democratic voter "fraud" is about getting as many people to vote as possible. Republican voter fraud is all about vote suppression. That being said, I don't condone any voting fraud. I think elections are the backbone of a democracy, and should be as transparent and as fair as possible.

Dem voter fraud is about ineligible people voting. Convicted felons (overwhelmingly Dem), nursing home residents voting in incredibly high numbers despite the fact that many are unable to follow the news & couldn't even name a candidate. Bribing the homeless to vote their way.

On the subject of supressing the vote, Dems sabotaged cars reps used to get out the vote, & remember the Dem effort to supress votes by members of the armed forces?

Anyway, to return to the topic of the thread. Oh, never mind.

Actually, I think I might start a thread about Tony Blair, just to find out whether you guys can talk about anything else but an election that is now in the history books.

yupchagee wrote:

JSPB22 wrote:

Countertrey wrote:

I'm talking about election fraud

Pot? Meet Kettle.

I'm guessing by that comment, you are saying that the Dems also engage in voter fraud. Oh touche! You got me there! Yes, there have been ballot stuffing instances in the past, but it is much harder to vote extra times these days. Please don't talk about going into homeless shelters to get the homeless to vote, unless you are saying that the homeless don't have that right. The way I see it, Democratic voter "fraud" is about getting as many people to vote as possible. Republican voter fraud is all about vote suppression. That being said, I don't condone any voting fraud. I think elections are the backbone of a democracy, and should be as transparent and as fair as possible.

Dem voter fraud is about ineligible people voting. Convicted felons (overwhelmingly Dem), nursing home residents voting in incredibly high numbers despite the fact that many are unable to follow the news & couldn't even name a candidate. Bribing the homeless to vote their way.

If a voter is ineligable, he should not be allowed to vote. But you seem to be saying that convicted felons (in states where they are allowed to vote), the elderly, and the homeless should not have the right to vote. How can you bribe someone to vote one way or another? How can you be sure they won't take your bribe, and then vote however they choose? You're grasping on that one!

yupchagee wrote:On the subject of supressing the vote, Dems sabotaged cars reps used to get out the vote, & remember the Dem effort to supress votes by members of the armed forces?

The car charge is laughable, and no, I don't think Democrats ever tried to suppress the military vote. I think that is more Republican talking points.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Anyway, to return to the topic of the thread. Oh, never mind.

Actually, I think I might start a thread about Tony Blair, just to find out whether you guys can talk about anything else but an election that is now in the history books.

Thank you, I would welcome a thread of the same nature regarding Tony Blair. As for this thread's topic, what do you think?

no, I don't think Democrats ever tried to suppress the military vote.

Ahh... you have a selective memory, I see. A major issue of the Fla debacle in 2000 was about the efforts of Dems to toss and cherry pick Absentee ballots... overwhelmingly Military, btw. Also of interest, John Daly, the son of the most successful election fixer in American history, was leading the Democrat effort to, ah... massage the election. Nah... nothing suspicious about that, in the least.