Jake Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 Woman PM? I don't think we're likely to make that mistake again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jspec Germany Posted February 10, 2007 Share Posted February 10, 2007 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted February 11, 2007 Author Share Posted February 11, 2007 Unfortunately yes ! CJ it will always be, as long as we beat the English we don't care. Sadly the Scots never but I will be supporting the Welsh when the time comes. If only football was like like Rugby in the sportmanship, and not end up in a fight if you say the wrong thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jspec Germany Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 One more reason I prefer Rugby over all other sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Woman PM? I don't think we're likely to make that mistake again. Amen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I reckon Hilary Clinton will get in. I was over there the first time Bill Clinton won, all my mates were voting for Ross Perot lol.. I was so pleased when Clinton got in.... The world was pretty peaceful when he was around:rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The world was pretty peaceful when he was around:rolleyes: I'm not sure about the world but Monica seemed fairly occupied when he was in office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbeh Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 He was spreading love, not war... but also some say he let Al Queda happen.. which he denies of course and I believe he put in a great deal of effort to do something in a less obvious way than Bush has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlotte Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 He was spreading love, not war... but also some say he let Al Queda happen.. which he denies of course and I believe he put in a great deal of effort to do something in a less obvious way than Bush has. Yep. Although connections with al queda and iraq by Bush senior were still in place at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jspec Germany Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Clinton $ucked. We're still paying for his decisions. He was a liar and a showman, nothing more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Clinton $ucked. We're still paying for his decisions. He was a liar and a showman, nothing more. Yeah but Clinton never lost an erection!!!!! I think its bit odd, coz whoever becomes the president of the U.S. has an affect on the rest of the world and our future...i really think they should have two presidents, one for world affairs and one for internal issues, as someone might be good for the economy and for the U.S. but really screw things up for the rest of us! So i think the whole world should be allowed to vote on the who the President of U.S. world affairs is...because it DOES concern us...people die, people live, people starve, and the planet gets warmer....it concerns everyone...and in that respect most people in Europe would of preffered if Bush hadn't got in!!! This is not my opinion, i keep my opinion to myself..just stating the general feeling on the street over here! Sorry i edited:p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Green Peace Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I'm not sure about the world but Monica seemed fairly occupied when he was in office. pmsl:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jspec Germany Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I think its bit odd, coz whoever becomes the president of the U.S. has an affect on the rest of the world and our future... who's fault is that? i really think they should have two presidents, one for world affairs and one for internal issues, as someone might be good for the economy and for the U.S. but really screw things up for the rest of us! Wouldn't work with two, that's not what the country was founded upon. Your point about internal/world affairs is the struggle for everyone each time we vote and you're right. That's why you have to look at the Pres/V.P. package and hope you choose someone who will do good things and represent you the way you wish to be represented. Really and honestly, the President is merely a puppet. If you want to dislike someone, dislike the Congress. They're the one's who really have all the power and are supposed to be the voice of the people. So i think the whole world should be allowed to vote on who the President of U.S. world affairs is...because it DOES concern us...people die, people live, people starve, and the planet gets warmer... Dude, you can't have my right to vote, because I earn that right every day I put the uniform on for people back home who could care less. If the job title was President of the World, then everyone would get to vote. Re: the last line above, that's going to happen no matter who the U.S. President is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.