Conquer Club

JJM wrote:

neanderpaul 14 wrote:

joe cool frog wrote:

JJM wrote:

Frigidus wrote:
Has he already stolen something? This is what happens when we let a black man into the White House. <runs for cover>

You all know that hes a crook. We all know what he did to that lady in Illinois. He is a crook.

Yes but why is it illegal in North Dakota to sleep in a public place without your shoes on

I didn't know it was illegal but considering they only have 3 1/2 weeks of non-winter it's definitely ill advised.

North Dakota is not as cold as you think it is. As of right now it is about 60 " (sorry the keyboard does not have a degrees sign). And it does not snow as much as you think it does. Northern North Dakota gits more snow than Southern North Dakota although they both git a lot. I live about 86 miles from the Canadian border. In the recorded history of Grand Forks their has been a year in witch it has snowed in June and there has been a year in witch has snowed in aguest but never once in July. usually it snows from October or November to April or May. And as for your question CS let me explain. In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons. He took away the voters right to choose.

Florida.

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

JJM wrote: In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons.

He took away the voters right to choose.

please explain
in American English

Haha, right? Incersov...I can figure out git, but I have no friggin idea what the hell that is.

My head hurts.............

THE ARMY wrote:People who say any democrat is good can suck my wang-chuck, are you serious...a democrat????!!!!??? All they do is get our country in debt and blame it on Republicans

I am also a republican but I do admit that there is no way to deny that Harry Truman did a good job although T.R. is still my favorite. Almost every president that came to office with intention to do good did good with some exceptions. It is true that Bill Clinton did take credit for what Bush (the 1st) did but that was just one person.

JJM wrote: In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons.

He took away the voters right to choose.

JJM, JIM, Jimbo please explain in American English - what is incersov ?

JJM wrote: I am also a republican but I do admit that there is no way to deny that Harry Truman did a good job although T.R. is still my favorite. Almost every president that came to office with intention to do good did good with some exceptions. It is true that Bill Clinton did take credit for what Bush (the 1st) did but that was just one person.

I was under the impression you thought Bush was your favourite?

notyou2 wrote:My head hurts.............

Frigidus wrote:

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

JJM wrote: In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons.

He took away the voters right to choose.

please explain
in American English

Haha, right? Incersov...I can figure out git, but I have no friggin idea what the hell that is.

I have a feeling incersov means registered...it took some digging, and all i have is the context from this:

Also, im not sure Obama challenged presidential signatures...I believe it was the chicago senate ones he challenged...and McCain did the same thing in his campaign, which allowed him to run unopposed in his senate election:




SUMMARY: In a special report on Sen. Barack Obama, referring to Obama's challenges to signatures on his opponents' nominating petitions during his 1996 run for the Illinois state Senate, CNN's Suzanne Malveaux described Obama as "an avid student of Chicago-style politics" and aired remarks by a Chicago reporter calling the practice "cutthroat." But CNN's special on Sen. John McCain made no mention of McCain's reported petition challenges in at least two U.S. Senate races, aired no one labeling McCain "cutthroat" for those challenges, or at any point pronounced McCain an avid student of Arizona-style politics for those challenges.

53 Comments

During CNN's August 20 election special report Obama Revealed, host Suzanne Malveaux said of Barack Obama's 1996 run for the Illinois state Senate: "Successfully challenging her signatures, Obama knocked Alice Palmer, a revered political figure, off the ballot, as well as all three other candidates. While Obama's campaign today promotes him as a different kind of politician, back then he was an avid student of Chicago-style politics." The program included remarks from Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendell, author of Obama: From Promise to Power (Amistad, 2007), who said, "In the end, what happened is we saw the first real example of Barack Obama's cutthroat nature when it came to advancing his own career in politics." But challenging a potential opponent's eligibility is not just "Chicago-style" politics; it is everywhere-style politics -- including Arizona. And yet, while in its back-to-back specials on the parties' presumptive presidential nominees, CNN highlighted allegations by Mendell and others that Obama engaged in "cutthroat" politics, which Malveux suggested were endemic to Chicago, CNN made no mention of Sen. John McCain's reported petition challenges in at least two U.S. Senate races, aired no one labeling McCain "cutthroat" for those challenges, or at any point pronounced McCain an avid student of Arizona-style politics for those challenges -- even though host John King, like Malveaux with Obama, reported on McCain's prior races.

Recounting McCain's 1992 re-election to the U.S. Senate, King reported that McCain "saw his re-election as vindication and believed the dark days of the Keating Five scandal were over," and asserted, "McCain wanted a fresh start." But unlike CNN's discussion of Obama's state Senate race, King did not point out that, after former Arizona Gov. Evan Mecham filed a petition with 16,085 signatures to appear on the Arizona ballot, according to a September 1992 Los Angeles Times article, "McCain filed a challenge to the petitions." In addition, a July 20, 1998, Roll Call article (accessed through the Nexis news database) reported, "McCain will run unopposed in his Sept. 8 primary following the capitulation of his lone GOP opponent, Phoenix businessman Bert Tollefson," and that "McCain's campaign checked Tollefson's signatures and found 1,453 that came from Democrats, members of other parties or people who were not registered to vote."

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

JJM wrote: In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons.

He took away the voters right to choose.

JJM, JIM, Jimbo please explain in American English - what is incersov ?

JJM wrote: I am also a republican but I do admit that there is no way to deny that Harry Truman did a good job although T.R. is still my favorite. Almost every president that came to office with intention to do good did good with some exceptions. It is true that Bill Clinton did take credit for what Bush (the 1st) did but that was just one person.

I was under the impression you thought Bush was your favourite?

notyou2 wrote:My head hurts.............

Haven't you heared of incersov hand writting. And no Bush is not my favorite but both Bush's did a good job.

I think he means "in cursive"

maasman wrote:I think he means "in cursive"

Seriously... funny, funny sh*t

maasman wrote:I think he means "in cursive"

Yes.

JJM, I think you should make your own dictionary

Woodruff wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

JJM wrote:

maasman wrote:I think he means "in cursive"

Yes.

Maasman you get the Sherlock award of the week.
I would never have got that.

JJM wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

And by the way Bush isn't the one to blame for all our debt ethier. It is fact that every president since F.D.R. not counting F.D.R. himself has added to the national debt.

I figured it out....he's George W....those words are "Bushisms".........
Welcome to CC Dubya

notyou2 wrote:I figured it out....he's George W....those words are "Bushisms".........
Welcome to CC Dubya

What is it that you people hate so much about Bush.

JJM wrote:

notyou2 wrote:I figured it out....he's George W....those words are "Bushisms".........
Welcome to CC Dubya

What is it that you people hate so much about Bush.

Where to start..........well lets see:
- he attacked a sovereign nation (Iraq) for reasons that have yet to be divulged (my guess is for control of the oil)
- he single-handedly (well with the help of his cronies, or should I say puppeteers) turned the majority of the remaining friendly nations against America
- he allowed the US financial institutions to help start a world recession (this was building for a long time, but the Bush government did nothing to remedy the situation

On a good note, he added multiple words to the English language

JJM wrote:

Captain_Scarlet wrote:

JJM wrote: In an election a candidate must git a certain amount of signatures from voters in order to git there name on the ballot. Obama challenged his opponents signatures by coming up with reasons why he did not think they were valid such as some they can't be incersov or they can only be incersov I can't remember witch one and other reasons.

He took away the voters right to choose.

JJM, JIM, Jimbo please explain in American English - what is incersov ?

JJM wrote: I am also a republican but I do admit that there is no way to deny that Harry Truman did a good job although T.R. is still my favorite. Almost every president that came to office with intention to do good did good with some exceptions. It is true that Bill Clinton did take credit for what Bush (the 1st) did but that was just one person.

I was under the impression you thought Bush was your favourite?

notyou2 wrote:My head hurts.............

Haven't you heared of incersov hand writting. And no Bush is not my favorite but both Bush's did a good job.

OMFG I think I just heard your brain stop.

not you2 wrote:

JJM wrote:

not you2 wrote:I figured it out....he's George W....those words are "Bushisms".........
Welcome to CC Dubya

What is it that you people hate so much about Bush.

Where to start..........well lets see:
- he attacked a sovereign nation (Iraq) for reasons that have yet to be divulged (my guess is for control of the oil)
- he single-handedly (well with the help of his cronies, or should I say puppeteers) turned the majority of the remaining friendly nations against America
- he allowed the US financial institutions to help start a world recession (this was building for a long time, but the Bush government did nothing to remedy the situation

On a good note, he added multiple words to the English language

-He brought troops into Iraq to free its people from a harsh dictator.
-Try giving some examples.
-The troubled economy was partly because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which were for a far more important cause.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

OMFG I think I just heard your brain stop.

Its true. Almost every president that had intentions to do good did good. There are some exeptions such as Herbert Hoover and John Tyler.

Shit … this thread is still going? Jim's still arguing for Bush?

I remember that first night … paul, sultan, stazn, lmao

.44

the.killing.44 wrote:Shit … this thread is still going? Jim's still arguing for Bush?

I remember that first night … paul, sultan, stazn, lmao

.44

The thread is still going I'm just pointing out the fact that JJM is in fact George W. Bush, he can't write or spell, and now he has taken to just making up words. It has to be him.

the.killing.44 wrote:Shit … this thread is still going? Jim's still arguing for Bush?

I remember that first night … paul, sultan, stazn, lmao

.44

You seriously thought I would change my mind about Bush.

neanderpaul14 wrote:

the.killing.44 wrote:Shit … this thread is still going? Jim's still arguing for Bush?

I remember that first night … paul, sultan, stazn, lmao

.44

The thread is still going I'm just pointing out the fact that JJM is in fact George W. Bush, he can't write or spell, and now he has taken to just making up words. It has to be him.

JJM wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

THE ARMY wrote:George W. Bush is up there (I'm NOT joking)

You are clearly a dangerous lunatic.

Bush did absolutely wonderful. He freed five million people from terrorism. He had to face some of the same problems as Lincoln. Both had to deal with two wars. Bush had to deal with the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan. Lincoln had to deal with the Civil War and the Dakota Indian War (If you are not familiar with the Dakota Indian War it was a war fought against the Sioux Indian tribe which used to be know as the Dakota Indian tribe.) And both had to deal with a troubled economy. (Which often is the result of war.) Although the Civil war was much more important than the two wars going on right now the economy was much worse than it is right now. It was worse than the Great Depression. The Civil war was fought mostly in the South but the Dakota Indian war was fought in the North in the state of Minnesota but little did the people complain about the economy. I think people need to quit being so selfish. They are too concerned about money. There where millions of people being terrorized and beaten by a very harsh dictator but people where more concerned about their money.

Read this then tell me what you think about G.W.Bush.