23 Forum Posts by "Forgat"
Well I'm not surprised. Sadam seems like the kinda guy who would do something like that...
I say we insert a carnivourous earwig into his brain where it will eat him slowly to death from the inside out....
Yeah, I know...I got it off of family guy.
Well, as a Canadian I'd rather have America bully the world than North Korea or Lybia or any other dictator ruled country. I mean, at least in america, if the leader is doing something crazy or is semi-retarded, you have the power to impeach him....
....
wait a minute, why is bush still president then?
When did Iraq bite america? What bush did was simply taunt the Iraqi terrorists.
What the situation was before Bush attacked Iraq was that there were two dogs, one who bit America in the crotch (9-11), and the other cowering from America's last attack on it (The gulf war)
What you do is kill the dog who bit you in the crotch first then worry about the second dog...not forget bout the dog that bit you and corner the other one so that its forced to fight you.
America should focus on hunting Bin Laden down first or what we get are two dogs instead of just one trying to bite you in the crotch.
September 11 changed history forever. The twin towers were completely destroyed, killing hundreds of thousands of people, who were either in the buildings, near the buildings, or in the planes. For me, one of my greatest wishes and hopes is for this to never happen again. However, Mr. George W. doesn't seem to have the same idea of prevention. The US is now on high alert which means that there may be an increased chance of another terrorist attack...WHY THE FUCK DID BUSH SPEND ALL OF THE MONEY AND ALL OF HIS TROOPS ON IRAQ WHEN HE SHOULD BE FOCUSSING ON CAPTURING BIN LADEN AND OTHER TERRORISTS OR ENSURING THAT NORTH AMERICA IS SAFE FROM FURTHER ATTACKS! Iraq itself, after the first gulf war is already pretty beaten up. Most of the atrocities that Sadam committed were before or during Bush senior's Gulf War. Then what was the purpose that Bush had to go to war when his country needs all of the troops and all of the money that it can get and does not need to piss off any more potential terrorists. I mean...how hard is it to get this into his patheticpea sized head!!! I don't know what's smaller, his brain, or his penis. It's hard to tell since both are microscopic.
Well, personally I'm against abortion...I mean, I don't see a difference in killing babies and killing fetuses. However, I also realise that in some families, if they can't get rid of their next child, then their previous children may not survive. So the solution should be to enforce methods which decrease the chance of impregnation. Give out birth control pills, condoms, free vesectomies....whatever...the solution to the problem is preventing it from happening in the first place.
Well, the US itself is a fine country. It is a beacon for democracy, freedom of speech, and civilisation...
The only problem are the semi-retarded, hypocritical leaders who might have spent their childhood peeing on electric fences who are sometimes elected as president...Not to mention any names...*cough*
Lose the bush and the US will gain respect from other countries immediately.
Man...how did he get elected anyways?
Must've cost his daddy a lot of money to bribe a lot of people.
Ok, so Sadam has finally been caught. After nearly a year Bush finally got his man...
soo....
What now? They have Sadam, but they don't have all of the terrorists. Isn't that kinda like taunting a crocodile by pissing on it? If you're not careful, it'll give you a vesectomy. Now that sadam has been captured, the terrorists and the supporters of Sadam are really pissed and will probably work even harder to get revenge on America. Ok, even if Bush excecutes Sadam and gets to smell his balls cook...that doesn't mean that the US is any safer. In fact, that means that the US is in even more danger! Does Bush want another 9-11 only this time, the terrorists are even more pissed, even more fanatic, and even more thirsty for american blood? What does Sadam's capture actually mean? To me, all it means is that the US-led coalition army bravely captured a bearded old man who was viciously armed with a suitcase filled with $750,000.
So what you mean to say is that because smoking isn't the only thing that pollutes our air and causes cancer, smoking should be allowed. That's like saying, well there's a war going on and people are already being shot so I should have the right to bring an uzi out into public and start shooting everybody, and what you said about air filters being replaced and not smoking being banned is like saying the gunner shouldn't be stopped but everybody else putting on bullet-proof vests...
...
Common dude, if your not stupid you should realize that your support is ridiculous.
ps. I don't see how I can enjoy my shortened cancerous life while I still have any better by enhaling the fumes of a smoker.
I found this one carved into the wall of a bathroom stall.
A friend with weed is a friend indeed...
A friend without weed is a friend in need.
I was trying to imply computer or video games...but what the hell.
The higher you climb a ladder, the harder you fall.
The first bird may get the worm, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.
Eagles may soar, but weasles never get sucked into jet engines.
Never, ever...pee on an electric fence.
...anymore? Post em.
The reason why we have hair on our balls is so that a girl can scratch her nose and blow at the same time...
There's a logical explanation for everything.
Which game would you nominate to be the greatest to ever be played on the face of the Earth...one that changes gaming for centuries and awestrucks its gamers. One which even Wade Fulp would shed a tear after he finishes it...
Post your votes!
In Florida, it is illegal to release more than ten balloons at the same time per person.
...
I did not have sex with that woman...
I think the possibility of making smoking completely illegal in North America has the same chance of working as Bush and Saddam going to a beach in Florida to get Brazilian Bikina Waxes. This is because so many people have already fallen into the addiction and the cigarrette companies have taken a major foothold in society. Frankly I couldn't care less if someone else that pollutes his or her body with all that shit they put into a cigarrette. However, I do not want to be the one who has to inhale the second hand shit which just came out of the possibly cancerous lungs of a smoker in order to breathe. Some smokers say that if nonsmokers don't want to breathe in second hand smoke, they shouldn't be around smokers. That's kinda like saying "Ok, half the people in this city are going to strap explosives onto themselves and are going to walk around in public places. They may push the detonating button whenever they want. No, we're not going to do anything about it because it's their right as individuals to strap explosives onto themselves and blow themselves up. If you don't want to get blown up stay away from them or run away if they sit next to you." I don't know about you but I think that I have a right to breathe and I also have a right be in a public place where I don't have to move away from a smoker in order to not get any shit in my lungs. I forget where, but in a small town in North America, the municiple government proposed a law banning all smoking in restaurants. The percentage of heart attacks dropped by 80% in one year. After 3 years, the restaurant managers complained that the law was hurting their business and so the law was taken out. In another year, the rate of people getting heart attacks increased back to 100%. I don't know about you, but that information can't just be pure coencidence. Like I said before, I don't expect smoking to be made completely illegal because that is pretty much impossible, but I would like to see some more effort being made by the government so that I won't die sucking in the shit that someone else just exhaled.
Post any political joke here, I'll start out with one.
Bush goes to visit the Queen of England. As he is having tea with her Majesty Bush asks, "How do you tell if someone is intelligient or not?" The Queen replied, "Well I have one way," and promptly picked up the phone and called Tony Blair. "Now Mr. Blair, this is your queen and I have a question for you. Your mother has a child, your father has a child, this child is not your sister nor your brother, who is this child?" Tony Blair promptly responded, "Why, that's me of course." Queen Elizabeth then said, "Thank you Mr. Blair," and returned back to Bush. "You see, Mr. Blair is a very intelligient man. The next day, George W. flew back to the white house and wanted to test the Queen's theory out. He summoned Dick Cheney to his office and asked his the question. Dick thought and thought but couldn't get the answer and so asked Bush if he could have some time. Bush said ok and so Dick rushed out of the room and hired a team of scientists to do intensive research on the subject spending 2 million dollars and 3 and a half months but he still did not get the answer. Faced with no other choice, Dick went to ask Al Gore. Now Al Gore, being the democrat that he is, does not trust Republicans, but after hearing that this would be for the good of the country, agrees to help Dick. After Dick mumbled out the question, Al Gore immediately said, "Why, it's me of course." Jumping with excitement Dick Cheney rushed back to the White House shouting "I got it! I got it Mr. President!" Being a bit impatient now, Bush asked "Ok, who is it?" "It's AL GORE!!! It's AL GORE!!!" screamed Dick. "NO, You Idiot!" Responded Bush, "It's TONY BLAIR!"
I forget where or the exact date which Bush said it, but during one of his pro-war speeches, he tried to phrase the idiom, "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me." However, what came out was "Fool me once...uuhh...shame on me...fool me twice...ok, you can't get fooled twice!"
I still remember seeing Bush's happy little face as he congradulates the soldiers on a job well done. It was on an aircraft carrier, I forgot its name, where Bush exclaimed that The US and all of her allies are victorious over the evil Saddam Hussein. Personally, I would be one of the first people to take a gun and shoot Saddam in the head...I would do the same for Bin Laden, Hitler and all of the other ruthless killing dictators in our history. But, is one "powerless" dictator worth all of the innocent lives lost? After the first Gulf War led by Bush (senior), Iraq's military was beaten pretty bad and Saddam did not really have much more strength left in his striking arm. Then came Clinton and the thingy with Iraq cooled down a little. But once Bush (junior) comes into office, he orders an attack on Iraq because he says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Anyways, I'm not going to go into any more details abpit that and I'll get right to the "victory" part. Bush says that Saddam's reign of terror is put to an end and on a superficial level, he is correct. However, the casualties of the rebuilding of Iraq is greater than the casualties of the attack on Iraq. Now what does this mean? It means that even though Saddam no longer controls Iraq, there are a lot of very pissed off Iraqis who want revenge. Now why does Bush keep his very brave, but very tired soldiers in Iraq? To rebuild, of course, but is that it? Surely there must be some other driving force which keeps Bush's focus on Iraq up...Oil? Did someone say Oil? I'll leave it at that...
You know, I have no problem with anyone who's gay, I mean, I respect his lifestyle, just as long as it doesn't affect me. If gay people want to marry each other I don't really see much of a problem just so long as that my own rights to be not gay are not hindered.
Personally, out of all of the gaming systems that I've tried, I would probabaly say that I enjoyed Super Nintendo the most. I know Playstation, game cube and hundreds of other systems have better graphics, better sound and better games, but still, I think that Super NES has that something that others don't have...call me crazy, call me old school...but I'm sticking to my super nintendo.
