NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe Bush would have done a better job as president if he would have practiced on Nation States first.

What do you think?

Maybe Bush would have done a better job as president if he would have practiced on Nation States first.

What do you think?

no

No, many if not most of the issues in this game are not based in any type of reality.


Bush would have been a better President if he knew jack-shit about politics/leadership/war time intelligence/anything.

noQuoted for truth.

He'd be a better President if he gave a damn about his country instead of routinely acting to break its back on the altar of some cheesy philosophical propositions.

He'd be a better President if he gave a damn about his country instead of routinely acting to break its back on the altar of some cheesy philosophical propositions.

I couldn't agree with you more.

No, many if not most of the issues in this game are not based in any type of reality.


Bush would have been a better President if he knew jack-shit about politics/leadership/war time intelligence/anything.

R U SRIUZ?!?!1111

99% of people on NSG hate president bush, he's an idiot that knows nothing about anything, and playing NS probably wouldnt do much at all

I believe that will about sum up this thread

here's an idea. Bush can resign from US presidency and create his own nation on Nationstates he can screw up.

Wouldn't make a difference, to be honest...

Maybe Bush would have done a better job as president if he would have practiced on Nation States first.

What do you think?



No. NS isn't anywhere based in reality.

He would be a better pres if he remembered he had balls and used them. Oh, and remember he gave his oath to protect us. On the southern border. On Iran. On the UN. Etc.

No. NS isn't anywhere based in reality.

He would be a better pres if he remembered he had balls and used them. Oh, and remember he gave his oath to protect us. On the southern border. On Iran. On the UN. Etc.Damn. You must be pretty insecure to feel threatened by the UN.

I wanna know who the hell at harvard signed off on his MBA. probably some bastard who was on his way out the door and didnt give a damn.......

I wanna know who the hell at harvard signed off on his MBA. probably some bastard who was on his way out the door and didnt give a damn.......

Or more obviously, someone that was paid

Damn. You must be pretty insecure to feel threatened by the UN.

Now that coffee's gonna be replaced I feel somewhat safer. Little rat bastard.

It is my humble opinion that George Bush had reached his level of incompetence way before he was ever elected President in the first place. What is amazing is that We Americans encourage such incompetancy by continuing to elect and support him despite the evidence. We Americans have received our just deserts. It is a shame that 3,000 Americans have been killed in the course of this John Wayne diplomacy. Oh well ~ just my opinion.

Peace is Patriotic
Love Conquers Fear

I wanna know who the hell at harvard signed off on his MBA. probably some bastard who was on his way out the door and didnt give a damn.......


Umm, Bush fulfilled his Grad requirements?

It is my humble opinion that George Bush had reached his level of incompetence way before he was ever elected President in the first place. What is amazing is that We Americans encourage such incompetancy by continuing to elect and support him despite the evidence. We Americans have received our just deserts. It is a shame that 3,000 Americans have been killed in the course of this John Wayne diplomacy. Oh well ~ just my opinion.

Peace is Patriotic
Love Conquers Fear

So you are saying 9/11 is our just deserts?

Dude, you've hit a new low. Pathetic.

Bush isn't even a true conservative, he's a moderate. Didn't nuke afghanistan after 9/11 even though they were DIRECTLY responsible for it. Too much talk, not enough action.

And you call it John wayne....*shrug*

Maybe Bush would have done a better job as president if he would have practiced on Nation States first.

What do you think?




Who cares? :rolleyes:

So you are saying 9/11 is our just deserts?

Dude, you've hit a new low. Pathetic.

Bush isn't even a true conservative, he's a moderate. Didn't nuke afghanistan after 9/11 even though they were DIRECTLY responsible for it. Too much talk, not enough action.

And you call it John wayne....*shrug*

What amount of nuking do you think it would take to prevent another 9/11? Or maybe you are not so very interested in understanding the problem and trying to prevent another tragedy as much as you are interested in some Bronsonian revenge.

So you are saying 9/11 is our just deserts?

Dude, you've hit a new low. Pathetic.So you are saying that 9/11 happened after Bush got reelected?

Bush isn't even a true conservative, he's a moderate. Didn't nuke afghanistan after 9/11 even though they were DIRECTLY responsible for it. Too much talk, not enough action. He's not moderate. Democrats are moderate.

What amount of nuking do you think it would take to prevent another 9/11? Or maybe you are not so very interested in understanding the problem and trying to prevent another tragedy as much as you are interested in some Bronsonian revenge.

The problem is greater than any cure. MIddle eastern culture is awry.

There's no real way to prevent another 9/11 by using nukes until a 9/11 sized event has already occured-example being had Bush lit up Afghanistan X number of terrorists would have though "Oh damn, there go my 6 wives...".

So you are saying that 9/11 happened after Bush got reelected?

He's not moderate. Democrats are moderate.

No. There's a lot of socialists who will rap about how it's the muslim world's response to decades of "imperialism" and "capitalist exploitation" etc. I assume that's where he's coming from.

There's no set political range for democrats or republicans, you should know that. However, Democrats are generally leftists while republicans are usually conservative. However, there are exceptions-John Mccain, Arlen Spectre (R), and then my favorite Democrat of all time, Zell Miller of Georgia.

There's no set political range for democrats or republicans, you should know that. However, Democrats are generally leftists while republicans are usually conservative. However, there are exceptions-John Mccain, Arlen Spectre (R), and then my favorite Democrat of all time, Zell Miller of Georgia.Nope, Democrats are generally center right.

The problem is greater than any cure. MIddle eastern culture is awry.

There's no real way to prevent another 9/11 by using nukes until a 9/11 sized event has already occured-example being had Bush lit up Afghanistan X number of terrorists would have though "Oh damn, there go my 6 wives...".

Followed by said terrorists throwing up their hands and turning to farming the land? And what exactly are you saying because it doesn't make much sense... I read it as, "There is no way to prevent a 9/11 except after the fact" which made my brain wobble uncontrollably.

Does it worry anyone that our country is run by Dick and Bush?

He's not moderate. Democrats are moderate.
Pah. Democrats are centre right at best. Which makes the claims of "far-left wing" of the Democrats even more amusing. What would that be, a centre-left wing? :D

Pah. Democrats are centre right at best. Which makes the claims of "far-left wing" of the Democrats even more amusing. What would that be, a centre-left wing? :D
I consider the center-somethings moderate. ;)

Pah. Democrats are centre right at best. Which makes the claims of "far-left wing" of the Democrats even more amusing. What would that be, a centre-left wing? :D

I think we've begun talking about the fuselage.

I consider the center-somethings moderate. ;)
Well, I suppose you could. Depends on how much you want to encompass with your definition of moderate. I try to stick with just true centres, if only because I'm weird like that.

Nope, Democrats are generally center right.

Why insist on applying a foreign standard when the guy's talking about U.S. politics? It's a pointless debate.

Why insist on applying a foreign standard when the guy's talking about U.S. politics? It's a pointless debate.

You say tomato, we say toboggan.

Why insist on applying a foreign standard when the guy's talking about U.S. politics? It's a pointless debate.Because it's ridiculous to use an American standard. Just as ridiculous as using the Iranian standard for evaluating Iranian politics. So just stick to a global standard so you can actually compare.

No, I don't think Bush would be a better president if he played NS.

I think he would be a better president if he wasn't given everything in life, if he understood the average American, if he had served in Vietnam, if he had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity outside his own beliefs, if an MBA wasn't the extent of his education, if he didn't surround himself with fellow dialogues, if he didn't pack the EPA with former oil executives, if he governed from the center instead of turning out his base, if his policies were based upon research instead of faith, if he cared more about social welfare than giving tax breaks to his colleagues and propagating amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage. Maybe that would make him a better president.

The Democratic Party is center-right. Since the death of the Old Left the party had accepted the capitalist economy, and only provides minor checks upon it in the interest of social and environmental needs.

You say tomato, we say toboggan.

Point.

Because it's ridiculous to use an American standard. Just as ridiculous as using the Iranian standard for evaluating Iranian politics. So just stick to a global standard so you can actually compare.

It's what I do. It usually succeeds in confusing most people whom I debate with outside of this forum, often resulting in one-sided shouting matches about how idiotic I am for calling Democrats right-winged, ect ect ect. :D

Because it's ridiculous to use an American standard. Just as ridiculous as using the Iranian standard for evaluating Iranian politics. So just stick to a global standard so you can actually compare.

Why not stick to whichever standard is appropriate in the context it appears in?

It shouldn't be a problem, in a thread about U.S. politics, for someone to say, e.g., "the American left-wing often advocates "X,"" without cries of "advocating "X" in my country would make you a moderate!" I don't see the benefit. It sure doesn't advance any debate about whatever "X" happens to be. I'm not sure what global standard you want to apply, but simply averaging out "global" opinions is only going to make you wrong in all cases not occurring at the exact center of the bell curve.

Why not stick to whichever standard is appropriate in the context it appears in? Because Rafsanjani just isn't a left-winger.