you 'll be fine.

you will be safe. have money in your pocket, and have a job.

be thankful.

cheers.

Okay, and now I will stop complaining, allright? I'm from Holland, don't have shit to do with your elections. Just a little too involved in world-politics and global issues. That's all.

I can smoke pot, be gay, pay an abortion for my girlfriend, watch boobies on TV without censoring and end my own life if I want to.

WA-HEY! :You thin:

[quote=evangelion][quote=maddlingo] Four more years of economic decline and a deficit that is rising at an exponential rate Four more years of lost jobs Four more years of terroristic threats from rogue nations Four more years of Bush

I'm not looking forward to the next four years.[/quote]

Speak for yourself. As much as you Bush bashers can't admit it not everyone shares your sentiments. Look at the polls..if Kerry was such a better option he would have...what is that word...oh yeah...WON.

Yeah..and we only have received threats from terrorist nations since Bush has been in office. :roll:

Take your blinders off.[/quote]

I know that we have terroristic threats from other coutries when we've had other presidents in office. The problem I have is that the worst terrorist attack to ever occur in the history of the United States occurred while Bush was in office. I don't like that correlation.

You would willfully pay for an abortion because your too fucking stupid to use protection, killing an innocent before their life has even begun. And yet, you would claim that killing those who have full control of their capacities and wish harm not on the few that messed things up, but on a scale even beyond genocide because its against the whole Western world, is wrong. Even when that Jihad is against you too. Thanks Yao, glad I am able to see now that your opinion really does mean absolute Jack.

[quote=Civic_Zen]You would willfully pay for an abortion because your too fucking stupid to use protection, killing an innocent before their life has even begun. And yet, you would claim that killing those who have full control of their capacities and wish harm not on the few that messed things up, but on a scale even beyond genocide because its against the whole Western world, is wrong. Even when that Jihad is against you too. Thanks Yao, glad I am able to see now that your opinion really does mean absolute Jack.[/quote]

I love that people get all worked up about abortion. "Bush has morals because he's pro-life." Gimme a break. He care's so much about an embryo, but he doesn't give a shit about a full grown person. Death penalty. Job loss. Patriot Act. Switching focus from cocaine and heroin investigation budgets (which actually do seem to cause harm in poorer neighborhoods) to marijuana. Continually decreasing welfare and other social programs. Etc. Etc.

All pro lifers will never answer one simple question: What the hell are you gonna do with all of these orphans?

They refuse to deal with that question. They'd rather just discuss it in religious terms. AN EMBRYO IS A HUMAN BEING!!! Yeah, well, a child is too. It's immoral to have thousands of kids raised in orphanages. Oh yeah, and a gay person is a human being too. Not sure if they've noticed that or not. And a pregnant teenager is too. Pro-lifers would rather that girl die on the bed of some illegal chop shop, like she will if abortion is made illegal. And somehow that's morals.

Anyone who's pro life is a total hypocrite unless they're volunteering to adopt five kids.

You don't legislate morality. You build your government to handle reality. Then you educate morality. Tell people unprotected sex is stupid. Tell people taking drugs is bad. Tell people pre-marital sex is not a good idea if you want. Then you deal with the fact that we are human beings and people make mistakes, and the government is supposed to help them through those mistakes, not act like the hand of God and punish them for their stupidity.

[quote=evangelion]When has there not been a deficit and what recession????[/quote]

clinton!

someone in europe was quoted, "do they watch a different news then us?" thought that was pretty funny.

just cross your fingers the judges he puts in the supreme court aren't as crazy right as he is.

Dammit, was a little too late to react on Civic, but you did the job very well Timkell.

There ya go Civic. As soon as you fill out the adoption forms for a few American, or maybe a few African kiddos I'll accept your view. And hey, I was talking about rights, didn't say I don't use plastic on my willy, did I?

And that I am all for the right on abortion doesn't mean I agree with people just fucking around and having abortions all over the place. Sex is fun, but think before you do it. I just can't deal with the fact that all those "pro-life" people don't even consider the raped women that are having a baby, or when your preservative didn't do it's job properly. I think most women consider a child that was conceived in a rape a monster. It's not a product of love, but of violation of her body and her human rights. Nobody should be obliged to have a child in such circumstances.

And then there is the Pope saying condoms are evil and are forbidden by the church. He thinks you should not have sex untill your wedding day. Well, here's something for you: I don't even wanna get married! I don't wanna have kids! Just sex! This the modern world, there is no place for archa?c thinking man. Wake up.

No disrespect meant Civic, and I hope you feel the same way. Because when you said my opinion meant jack shit, I kinda felt a little dissapointed. Was hoping you'd respect my opinion just as I respect yours, even though we might not agree.

And I know the Jihad is also against me. But don't make the equation between abortion an the Jihad. It just doesn't fit.

:LoveYou: love ya man!

I actually agree with most everything Timkell said. And in case you didn't know Yao, abortion as far as Dubya's opinion on it goes, is completely aloud if rape or incest is involved. Also if the mother's life is in danger at all. Bush says its OK. I also think It should be aloud on a case by case basis. With too many variables to go into here. And don't even get me started on the catholics, those bastards.

I am completely undecided on abortion to be honest, so I'll admit I used poor choice in my words there. It just erks me sometimes when people become so hypocritical in the reverse fashion, talking about how a right to have an abortion is always a good thing. Most people I see around me doing it, do so because they are fixing their mistake with yet another one.

Adoption works, I know for a frickin fact it works. I have had more then one friend close to me, at which time we had very indepth philisophical discussions, who were having a baby and decided adoption was better then abortion. Planned parenthood did it all, had the parents lined up months before the delivery. And I guarentee that every one of these people I know didn't regret for a minute that they chose that over abortion. On top of that, there were parents lined up AROUND THE FRICKIN CORNER that couldn't have children, or something to that extent. Millions of babies get aborted that could have had loving homes, I know this for a fact because I was with my friends through the screening process. Thats right you even get to choose who the parents of your child will be. And can watch it grow up too, they get pictures of their kids, visit them on the holidays. The fact is that there were more parents then kids for those couples that wanted them.

The posibilities are there, ALL OVER, yet people take the easy way out because people are lazy. They don't think about how it will affect them later in life. I definetely agree with you Timkell to a certain extent, that if/when an orphanage issue arises like that, its debatable. EXCEPT, can you really make that choice for a child. Whether it lives or dies?? Think about it, I am not religious, I just imagine with my powerful imagination, what it would be like. You can not make that descision for another person, even if they are still in the womb.

I'm not talking about stem cell research here, and Dubya's view on that. I disagree with his view on that, but in some ways I agree with it. He is finding middle ground and pleasing everybody which is what a good politician does on issues like that. I'm saying that IF I HAD THE CHOICE, I would have chosen a sleazy existance floating between orphan homes then no life at all. In fact, its because I'm not religious, that I DON"T really believe god or heaven exist, that life is so precious to me. I would choose any existence over no existence, because nothing is scarier then death and oblivion if you don't believe there is an afterlife. I would have taken poverty over nothing.

PS - I didn't exactly mean that your opinion meant jack Yao, but it does erk me that a lot of Europeans jsut assume they know whats best for us. That we here in the US should adapt the same liberalism that people in Europe have. Sure you may have some choices that I don't, but overall the US is the freest nation on the planet. Period.

[quote=Civic_Zen]Yep, its a done deal. Kerry concedes, AP and NBC has confirmed.[/quote]

And to think, he won with no Osama and no "sudden" drop in gas prices, all of which Dems had said he would use to "win" the election. Gee...does this mean that the majority of Americans...gasp...wanted bush more??? No!!!

YES.

[quote=maddlingo]I know that we have terroristic threats from other coutries when we've had other presidents in office. The problem I have is that the worst terrorist attack to ever occur in the history of the United States occurred while Bush was in office. I don't like that correlation.[/quote]

Please tell me you're joking. Osama himself said he had the idea to attack the towers since 1982...just a little bit before Bush took office. He just happened to be the unlucky bastard who was in office at the time. Oh wait...do you subscribe to that moron Jun_K's arguement that Bush planned it??? I wouldn't doubt it, seeing as all Bush haters blame him for everything else.

[quote=devon][quote=evangelion]When has there not been a deficit and what recession????[/quote]

clinton!

someone in europe was quoted, "do they watch a different news then us?" thought that was pretty funny.

just cross your fingers the judges he puts in the supreme court aren't as crazy right as he is.[/quote]

Devon, you beat me too it buddy. Clinton's two terms were times of great economic growth and prosperity.

Can we not discuss these tired arguments? Now that Bush has won, we should all be able to agree that Bush has screwed up a bunch of things.

The election is over. Whatever side you're on, Bush fucked up a ton. We all know the things he did well and the things he screwed up. Those of you who voted for him have a duty to the rest of us to use that support to smack some sense into him.

If you're a fiscally conservative Republican, you need to urge your fellow Republicans to force some fiscal restraint on this administration.

If you're a "defense is important" Republican, you need to urge your fellow Republicans to demand that the military gets as many soldiers as it says it needs and as much equipment as it says it needs to rebuild Iraq and get us the hell out of there ASAP.

Bush should also fire Rumsfeld now that he's re-elected. Admit things didn't go like Rumsfeld said they would and get rid of him. The guy at the top takes the fall. That's how this works.

And if you're an American, you need to urge this administration to wake up and get us back in good stead with Europe. We need those guys. This war on Terrorism ain't gonna be over for a long time, and we need their help. Bush, get on a plane and go talk to France and Germany right quick. Build those relationships back up. This animosity is short sighted and will bite us in the rear sometime down the road.

Finally, if you're an environmentalist... RUN!!!! There is no hope for you with this guy.

[quote=maddlingo]I know that we have terroristic threats from other coutries when we've had other presidents in office. The problem I have is that the worst terrorist attack to ever occur in the history of the United States occurred while Bush was in office. I don't like that correlation.[/quote]

So then blame President Clinton for not capturing or killing OBL after he bombed our carrier in Yemen, or after waging war on U.S. embassies across the globe. The facts show that 9/11 happened during President Bush's first year in office, however the planning and organizing of sleeper cells took place on Clintons watch. Blame Bush for standing up and defending our nation. :roll:

[quote=maddlingo][quote=devon][quote=evangelion]When has there not been a deficit and what recession????[/quote]

clinton!

someone in europe was quoted, "do they watch a different news then us?" thought that was pretty funny.

just cross your fingers the judges he puts in the supreme court aren't as crazy right as he is.[/quote]

Devon, you beat me too it buddy. Clinton's two terms were times of great economic growth and prosperity.[/quote]

Yeah, great point - but you might want to check out who the majority in the house and senate were during those 2 glorious terms. Hint: it starts with an R and ends with epublicans. Since the president has zero control over one dime spent or saved, as well as the fact that the tech industry was going to explode regardless of who was in office - giving Clinton the credit for that economic growth is like blaming Bush for 9/11.

[quote=Civic_Zen]Adoption works, I know for a frickin fact it works. I have had more then one friend close to me, at which time we had very indepth philisophical discussions, who were having a baby and decided adoption was better then abortion. Planned parenthood did it all, had the parents lined up months before the delivery. And I guarentee that every one of these people I know didn't regret for a minute that they chose that over abortion. On top of that, there were parents lined up AROUND THE FRICKIN CORNER that couldn't have children, or something to that extent. Millions of babies get aborted that could have had loving homes, I know this for a fact because I was with my friends through the screening process. Thats right you even get to choose who the parents of your child will be. And can watch it grow up too, they get pictures of their kids, visit them on the holidays. The fact is that there were more parents then kids for those couples that wanted them.[/quote]

Well, I'm all for adoption too man. Sometimes abortion is the only option left for someone, but if possible abortion is favourable. I've already decided for myself, that if I ever decide to have kids, I'll try and adopt a little African orphan, who would otherwise maybe have no future.

[quote=Civic_Zen]I'm not talking about stem cell research here, and Dubya's view on that. I disagree with his view on that, but in some ways I agree with it. He is finding middle ground and pleasing everybody which is what a good politician does on issues like that. I'm saying that IF I HAD THE CHOICE, I would have chosen a sleazy existance floating between orphan homes then no life at all. In fact, its because I'm not religious, that I DON"T really believe god or heaven exist, that life is so precious to me. I would choose any existence over no existence, because nothing is scarier then death and oblivion if you don't believe there is an afterlife. I would have taken poverty over nothing.[/quote]

Would you really go through that? I don't really believe that...look at all those adolescents ending up in youth-prisons, only growing up to be criminals. Not all of them end up like that, but I think more than 80% does. You need a mother and father to show you the ropes in life, and to correct you when you're going the wrong way. This is one of the few issues on which I am very conservative. (Yes, even a born liberal can be conservative... :wink: )

[quote=Civic_Zen]PS - I didn't exactly mean that your opinion meant jack Yao, but it does erk me that a lot of Europeans just assume they know whats best for us. That we here in the US should adapt the same liberalism that people in Europe have. Sure you may have some choices that I don't, but overall the US is the freest nation on the planet. Period.[/quote]

Well, I think that goes both ways mate. Europeans tend to think of the US as being a lot less liberal and free than Europe, and you think it's the other way round. So be it. Politically Europeans tend to be a bit more liberal, and they get irritated because they feel the US thinks it knows whats best for us :wink:

But hey, no hard feelings. Good discussions are good food for the mind.

:Cheerz:

[quote=evangelion][quote=maddlingo] Four more years of economic decline and a deficit that is rising at an exponential rate Four more years of lost jobs Four more years of terroristic threats from rogue nations Four more years of Bush

I'm not looking forward to the next four years.[/quote]

Speak for yourself. As much as you Bush bashers can't admit it not everyone shares your sentiments. Look at the polls..if Kerry was such a better option he would have...what is that word...oh yeah...WON.

Yeah..and we only have received threats from terrorist nations since Bush has been in office. :roll:

Take your blinders off.[/quote]

you voted for a man who once said "they misunderstimated me". ignoring his politics, what he has done right and what he has screwed up...how could you vote for a man THAT dumb?? it boggles the mind.

[quote=day_for_night]you voted for a man who once said "they misunderstimated me". ignoring his politics, what he has done right and what he has screwed up...how could you vote for a man THAT dumb?? it boggles the mind.[/quote]

No dipshit, what boggles the mind is that you can't accept that I have a different opinion on this subject than you. I'm supposed to not vote for a person who fucked up a word??? What a narrow, one-sided view.

You've obviously never been to Texas either (I lived there for 3.5 years) cause those people murder the English language. Either way, if that is the best you can come up with then leave it alone.

It doesn't matter anyway...he won. Talk all the shit you want...you all just keep looking more and more like little sore loser kids, thinking that telling someone how stupid, wrong or [color=#ff00ff][i]mind boggling[/i][/color] their decision is that it will change something. Now go cry to your Kerry poster with your stinkin' Liberal buddies and come back with a better candidate next time.

[quote=BSully828]

Yeah, great point - but you might want to check out who the majority in the house and senate were during those 2 glorious terms. Hint: it starts with an R and ends with epublicans. Since the president has zero control over one dime spent or saved, as well as the fact that the tech industry was going to explode regardless of who was in office - giving Clinton the credit for that economic growth is like blaming Bush for 9/11.[/quote]

Really good point here. :roll: The republicans held control of the senate and the house while Bush was president, but for some reason the US didn't see the same economic growth as we did under Clinton. Your explanation just shows that Clinton was a great leader and could manipulate a senate and house that was primarily republican.

[quote=evangelion][quote=day_for_night]you voted for a man who once said "they misunderstimated me". ignoring his politics, what he has done right and what he has screwed up...how could you vote for a man THAT dumb?? it boggles the mind.[/quote]

No dipshit, what boggles the mind is that you can't accept that I have a different opinion on this subject than you. I'm supposed to not vote for a person who fucked up a word??? What a narrow, one-sided view.

You've obviously never been to Texas either (I lived there for 3.5 years) cause those people murder the English language. Either way, if that is the best you can come up with then leave it alone. [/quote]

simmer down now champ...the example i used was just that, an example. he has hundreds and hundreds more. the man is stupid...he got a C average in high school and only got into an ivy league school cause his daddy was the embassador to china (or the govenor, i dont know the timeline).
you have a fool running your country, and since the US is our biggest trading partner, and right below us, IT AFFECTS US TOO. it affects most the rest of the world as well, especially when he goes starting wars to get back at people that threatened his daddy a decade ago. so i'll bitch all i feel like when the only reason that shmuck got in was cause all the evangellical christians got riled up by the scare tactics the republicans used.

and ps. i'm right wing. i just hate that tard.

[quote=maddlingo]clinton!

Devon, you beat me too it buddy. Clinton's two terms were times of great economic growth and prosperity.[/quote]

of which he takes undue credit for. the tech boom an dot com frenzy drove the economy under the clinton administration, which was set in motion before he even took office. i'll give clinton some credit, but never for the economy he resided over. in fact, clinton had the same unemployment rate 5.4% in 1996 as bush does now in 2004. the difference now is is the market isn't over valued like it was in the 90s...much more realistic.

[quote=maddlingo] Really good point here. :roll: The republicans held control of the senate and the house while Bush was president, but for some reason the US didn't see the same economic growth as we did under Clinton. Your explanation just shows that Clinton was a great leader and could manipulate a senate and house that was primarily republican.[/quote]

1 - 9/11 2 - Impending recession 3 - Having to bail out numerous companies in response to #1 4 - Having to fund an international war effort in response to #1

I'd like to see [i]any[/i] president/congress deal with those four issues and walk away in the black.

I don't know about Clinton being a great leader but he was a very smart politician. He knew he was outnumbered and tried to work with what he had. What exactly (as far as economics) did he lead during his two terms? He pretty much sat back and let growing industry proceed unabated - which was the smart thing to do. He didn't manipulate shit, he took a step back and allowed conservative republicans to work out the deficit they inherited. Just because he was in office during that time doesn't automatically earn him credit for what happened - should I take credit when the Pats win just because I was in the stands?

He had the benefit of being in office during one of the most prosperous and peaceful times in American history, you could argue that even Perot would have enjoyed the same success.

He was a good liar. That is all he gets credit for. O, and getting head in the Oval. :RockOn:

Oh, you're going to flame me for this one:

He was the best President you ever had. Diplomat to the bone, he actually almost had a peace deal between Isael and Palestina done. He was smart as hell. I think he didn't do better than any of the other presidents domestically, but internationally speaking he was, and still is a fucking grade A politician. I'd really like to see him replacing Kofi Annan, but with Bush still in that's not gonna happen I'm afraid.

He let himself be sucked off by some broad: that shows he still knows what's good for a man :Naughty:

Now I'm gonna get it... :Tomato t:

Your entiteled to your opinion, but your very very wrong. 9/11 happened because Clinton did nothing the first time around. He even had Osama Bin Laden turned over to him for it in 1993 and decided there wasn't enough evidence against him. It was his fault Bush is having to do so much now to curb terrorism.

That true about Osama? Gonna look that one up...nevertheless he has done more good internationally than many other politicians I know. Carter tries, but I think overall Clinton is more down-to-earth.

yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.

as for him being a great politician. indeed he was. best president we've ever had? not a chance.

#1 Harry Truman, the last great democrat.

Yes it is true. Look up the first bombing of the world trade center in 1993. I forget which government it was, pretty sure it was one of the middle eastern governments who were then going to hand Osama over to us for his perpetration in that act, which Clinton declined. Instead Osama was deported from that country. Was it Saudi Arabia? I know he was deported and banned from Saudi but I can't remember if this was for the same actions. I'd look it up but I'm too lazy right now.

You might also want to look at his actions in Africa, namely Somalia. If he would have followed through with the things we were trying to do over there, then at least the soldiers that died for that cause would not have died in vain. We lost a lot of good men, and for nothing really. Clinton kept running and never finished anything he started. Thus, 9/11, and thus the war on Terror abroad. Keep in mind I'm not blaming it ALL on him, but definetely a lot of it was him.

I will also add that yes Clinton was a great President despite this. Namely the Internet Privacy Act of 1992 or 1993 (I forget which). Which was very important for the Internet to take off the way it did. He also did many other good things.

[quote=Jenks]#1 Harry Truman, the last great democrat.[/quote]

Seen my quote lately Jenks. Thats what made Truman such a great man, he knew what his job was as a President, and didn't let it go to his head. :wink:

Heheh, good signature Civic.

I know about the Mogadishu debacle, in fact, that's the reason the US refused to act when the genocide took place in Rwanda: the US didn't want to have anything to do with Africa anymore, and it has been like that untill today: they did not respond to Liberia's cry for help last year either. It wouldn't be fair to say this makes the US a bad country: they lost their soldiers (in Somalia) while the UN sat there doing nothing. Also in the Rwandan case, the UN is to blame, prolly even more than the US. I've studied that case quite thoroughly, and it has shocked me how guilty the international community factually was in that horrible slaughter.

About Osama: if he was deported, it may have had less to do with the American efforts (or the lack of that) to get their hands on them, but maybe more with a political gesture to the other Arabian countries. Think of how the Islamic world would've reacted if an Arabian/Muslim would be handed over to the US...I think we need to search this one out before blaming it on Billy.

BTW: gonna post the link to my first mix on [ms].

[quote=Jenks]yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.[/quote]

Yep...and that's a fact. So now Bush is cleaning up the mess he should have handled while he was busy getting head from a fat skank. But Bush is the bad guy. :roll:

[quote=evangelion][quote=Jenks]yes, it's true about Clinton. He did nothing.[/quote]

Yep...and that's a fact. So now Bush is cleaning up the mess he should have handled while he was busy getting head from a fat skank. But Bush is the bad guy. :roll:[/quote]

Give me a fucking break. Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a bomb. He did the most he could at the time. The country was in no mood to start a war with terrorists until after 9/11. That's true of both administrations.

The Bush administration reduced efforts against terrorism before 9/11. I'm not blaming them for that. There was no appetite within the American electorate for war. Before 9/11, Ashcroft, in fact, told members of the FBI he no longer wanted to hear about Al Qaeda. I'm not blaming him for that either.

To try to blame that on Clinton is ridiculous. Bush had almost a year before 9/11 and efforts were reduced, not increased. The evidence is clear on that, and I don't blame him for it at all. It was a different time, and both parties had no idea how grave the threat was. Shame on both of them.

Why does everyone on here have to take one side or the other? Every leader has had plusses and minuses. Admit to them both.

[quote=Jenks][quote=maddlingo]clinton! Devon, you beat me too it buddy. Clinton's two terms were times of great economic growth and prosperity.[/quote]

of which he takes undue credit for. the tech boom an dot com frenzy drove the economy under the clinton administration, which was set in motion before he even took office. i'll give clinton some credit, but never for the economy he resided over. in fact, clinton had the same unemployment rate 5.4% in 1996 as bush does now in 2004. the difference now is is the market isn't over valued like it was in the 90s...much more realistic.[/quote]

Let me guess, Reagan's genius was the driver behind the economic boom of the 80s, too, but somehow, Clinton just got lucky.

Clinton was the first president with the balls to give us a surplus and start paying down the debt since before FDR, I believe. He could have used all the cash to spread pork left and right, like most politiians do. Don't give me that crap about "it was the Republican majority in Congress." In one of the most economically successful decades this country has ever known, he kept taxes at the same rate, and eliminated many deductions, something Republicans most certainly did not want. His political might got that done. After getting rid of the deductions, he slammed all that extra money into paying off the debt. The debt reduction helped continue to fuel the surge in the economy, and it would have been a great thing for our future if it continued.

Unfortunately, under Bush, the national debt has risen 40%. In times of war, you need to spend, but I contend it was economic negligence to ram through a tax cut when we were about to go to war. All citizens would have undersood that we needed to bear the burden of the war. Instead, our grandkids will have to.

If Bush can turn Iraq into a free nation, I'll be the first to jump up and say "holy shit. dman good job, Bush." I criticize him now because it doesn't seem like it's going to happen anytime soon, and he missed by a wide mark in estimating the ease of the task. But if he gets it done, it will surely be one of the greatest accomplishments of any president in recent memory.

Either way, you don't call any President "lucky", especially a two term president. Whatever happens on his watch, you give him credit for, good or bad. Reagan gets credit for ending the Cold War, while some dumb liberals like to say the USSR was collapsing anyway.

Calling Clinton lucky for the boom of the 90s is just as ridiculous.

he was lucky. :P

:lol:

[quote=Jenks]he was lucky. :P[/quote]

No, if he was so lucky, he wouldn't have gotten caught with his favorite cigar in that sow's coochie. :twisted:

It would have been somebody attractive. :wink:

[quote=krelm][quote=Jenks]he was lucky. :P[/quote]

No, if he was so lucky, he wouldn't have gotten caught with his favorite cigar in that sow's coochie. :twisted:

It would have been somebody attractive. :wink:[/quote]

You gotta think, for every girl where something was made public, Slicky Willy must have had at least four others in his stable.

He really tried his best to enjoy his time in the oval office, that's for sure. :wink: