I am George W. Bush

[melon]

Clinton's inaction on terrorists while is office is DIRECTLY responsible for the attacks of 9/11. Again, facts are facts. Look at how many terrorist attacks there were on US interests while he was in office. What the F**K did he do? JACK SHIT!!! Honestly, you can't be so blind that you don't see this.

Oh wow. This sounds like something that Howard Dean would say, if the tables were turned.

Facts are facts. And the facts glare at the reality that Bush clearly didn't have a clue about terrorism even five months before the 9/11 attacks. Don't believe me? Then why did the Bush Administration give $43 million to the Taliban in April 2001? $43 million that could easily have funded the entire 9/11 attacks and much much more.

What the F**K did he do? JACK SHIT!!! Honestly, you can't be so blind that you don't see this.

Melon

 

[melon]

Let me clarify. I live in New York City and attend New York University. The school is about 99.9% liberal. The city is about 99.9% liberal. This has been my experience with liberals here.

(I'm quoting this from the closed thread, not to respark that debate or to infuriate moderators. I insist that my intentions here are pure. Since this thread is in a similar vein and wolfwill23 has written in here, I figured that this would be the most logical place to put this.)

This might surprise you, but what you wrote here resonates with me quite well. I go to Emerson College in Boston, which, if you're unfamiliar with the school, is probably Boston's equivalent to NYU in the media realm (I'm working towards an M.A. in Media Arts, and I'm writing / directing / producing a film that I hope to get shot in Hi-Definition Video in the summer). Like your description of NYU, Emerson College is probably 99.9% liberal too.

I don't live in Boston, technically speaking, but near Cambridge, which is most famous for being the home of Harvard University. If Massachusetts isn't considered liberal enough (over 3/4 of the state's legislature is Democratic, thus rendering the governor here a virtual figurehead whose vetos are regularly overridden), Cambridge is also unofficially called "The People's Republic of Cambridge." If I go into Harvard Square, I am bombarded with communists, Lyndon LaRouche supporters, and Howard Dean buttons.

And what have I found? I personally don't like it. I've realized that, on paper, I am far more liberal than I am in person. With that, it is my view that if the Republican Party were more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative, I would probably feel more at home there. But, with that, maybe saying that is the equivalent of wishing that the sky was green. But I digress.

If you consider yourself part of that 0.1% that isn't "liberal," then use it creatively. Assuming that you're in production, I'm sure you've seen that 99.9% of films can pretty much be stereotyped. There are the big budget films, yes, but then there is the "independent film." The fact that I can spot them a mile away is about as laughable as the "big budget" stereotype; sometimes, they try so hard to be painfully cool, and maybe that's what you get when everyone thinks alike. Rather than lamenting that everyone thinks differently from you, use the fact that you think differently from everyone to your advantage.

Anyway, I hope this is coherent. I've started to ramble on. I just thought I'd mention that, oddly enough, I've had some similar experiences regarding this, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

Melon

 

[verte76]

Damn, why'd the Administration give $$ to the Taliban? They were the most brutal, disgusting government on the planet.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Just interrupting to say: Melon, I just applied for Grad admission into Emerson's MFA program. I've taken 2 CE classes (workshops) there and have loved it.

Olive

 

[nbcrusader]

This might surprise you, but what you wrote here resonates with me quite well. I go to Emerson College in Boston, which, if you're unfamiliar with the school, is probably Boston's equivalent to NYU in the media realm (I'm working towards an M.A. in Media Arts, and I'm writing / directing / producing a film that I hope to get shot in Hi-Definition Video in the summer). Like your description of NYU, Emerson College is probably 99.9% liberal too.

I don't live in Boston, technically speaking, but near Cambridge, which is most famous for being the home of Harvard University. If Massachusetts isn't considered liberal enough (over 3/4 of the state's legislature is Democratic, thus rendering the governor here a virtual figurehead whose vetos are regularly overridden), Cambridge is also unofficially called "The People's Republic of Cambridge." If I go into Harvard Square, I am bombarded with communists, Lyndon LaRouche supporters, and Howard Dean buttons.

And what have I found? I personally don't like it. I've realized that, on paper, I am far more liberal than I am in person. With that, it is my view that if the Republican Party were more socially liberal and more fiscally conservative, I would probably feel more at home there. But, with that, maybe saying that is the equivalent of wishing that the sky was green. But I digress.

If you consider yourself part of that 0.1% that isn't "liberal," then use it creatively. Assuming that you're in production, I'm sure you've seen that 99.9% of films can pretty much be stereotyped. There are the big budget films, yes, but then there is the "independent film." The fact that I can spot them a mile away is about as laughable as the "big budget" stereotype; sometimes, they try so hard to be painfully cool, and maybe that's what you get when everyone thinks alike. Rather than lamenting that everyone thinks differently from you, use the fact that you think differently from everyone to your advantage.

Anyway, I hope this is coherent. I've started to ramble on. I just thought I'd mention that, oddly enough, I've had some similar experiences regarding this, even if we don't see eye-to-eye on everything.

Melon

this is one of the most thoughtful replies I've read around here in a while. Thank you Melon.

 

[ouizy]

Did Bush really take a full month vacation?

Yes. Although we know that the POTUS is always "working" he took an official vacation for the entire month of August. Now, looking at the aggregious behavior he has displayed in the past, I simply think the idea of this man taking a month off while the number of hard working Americans that can take a month off is close to nil, is dispicable.

This has got to be wrong. I haven't seen those lines at gas stations like I see in films from the '70s.

I think this was talking about the blackout of last year and how he and his energy guys presided over it. By the way there are many interesting theories out there concerning the blackout and computer viruses.

"I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Saddam Hussein to justice." Really?

The first version of this "resume' was actually written before the 2000 election when most of the country was doing their best not to get this man elected. I think this line was added in the past year, but obviously before the capture of that wiley coyote.

I'd love to see one of these threads about Bill Clinton.

One possible line could read, 'Was president over the US from 1992-2000. During that time, there were FIVE TERRORIST ATTACKS on US interests and the 9/11 attacks were safely planned in Afganistan. After each attack, he pledged 'to bring these killers to justice.'

IMO, this OUTWEIGHS EVERY item on Bush's list. If it weren't for Clinton being limp in the wrong department, there'd be 7,000+ innocent Americans alive today. Put that in your peace pipe (or cigar) and smoke it! Pun intended.

Although Clinton's weakness can be direclty linked to the terrorism that happened after he was in office, I think his accomplishments can outweigh those of GWB by the weight of the planet earth. If it is possible to put aside Clinton's sexual misdeavors (I know they were serious, but come on) and focus on his politics, I do not think you could come up with a list as lengthy as this, nor could you included the catagtories described on this list. As a side note, could you clarify who the 7000+ Americans are who have lost their lives due to Clinton's actions? Remember folks the Congress was Republican as a majority while he was in office...

Well, weez, looks like you've been debunked a bit.

You know, I really posted this as a joke (as I am sure most of you had seen this already anyway), but I am just getting interested in politics as my tolerance for Bush has finally waned...

But, hey, welcome back! Haven't seen you here in a while.

Thanks, hi

and finally,

I thought we were gonna get Ouizy 2.0

I pondered a full overhaul of my interest in Interference as well as a late night posting in every thread in every forum, but alas, I got lazy again and am considering slowly re-entering this place. I figured this may be the forum to do it in...

I am sure I will be around more in the near future...

 

[joyfulgirl]

I go to Emerson College in Boston

Ploughshares

 

[Dreadsox]

This might surprise you, but what you wrote here resonates with me quite well. I go to Emerson College in Boston, Melon

Still waiting for that cup of coffee!!!!

 

[RockNRollDawgie]

Hmm.....I seem to remember Clinton asking Congress for funds
to fight terrorism, and more specifically to get Bin Laden.
But, the Republicans refused and played party politics as usual; as they were more interested in what Clinton did with Monica in the Oval Office.
Oh goody.....we got something on Clinton now! Terrorists?
Bin Laden? Who cares, let's nail his ( Clinton ) butt now!
Am I forgiving Clinton? No way! What he did was morally
and ethicially wrong.
Let's take a look at what's happened on Bush's watch as prez: Record deficits, a war based on lies and faulty intelligence. Oil and gas prices through the roof, record unemployment, civil liberites dissapearing all under the guise of "homeland security,"
etc.