Heads UP No Limit - Saddam Hussein vs. George Bush |
|
Posted Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:48 am GMT by General Sal
So, who would play better and why? 
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:51 am GMT by Carson Cashman
I'd say Bush, simply because hes a Texan.
Posted Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:29 am GMT by Adam Marshall
I think Saddam, because he is crafty. Bush would just bet and bet and bet, but Saddam would be deceptive and confuse Bush. Then Bush would go on tilt and go all-in with 27 off. Saddam wouldn't do such a thing because he is no stranger to folding and regrouping with a smaller stack. Bush might have a better time in a limit game. God bless America! :D
Posted Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:10 pm GMT by General Sal
I'd have to go with Saddam... all the bluffing and deception. But, then again Texans were the first hold 'em players... lol
Posted Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:34 pm GMT by Geno
Has to be Saddam cos Bush probably doesn't know what a pack of cards is, let alone learn a game.... Christ, the book he is quoted as saying is his favourite children's book was not written until he was in college!!!
Posted Sat Jul 05, 2003 3:16 pm GMT by Da_Funkyb
Saddam would win... it's simple, in poker your father tell you what to do.
Jo
Posted Fri Aug 08, 2003 10:49 pm GMT by graniteguy
Bush would say that saddam had a pair of aces. Saddam would say he didn't. Bush would raise. Saddam does have the pair of aces, but he folds so that Bush can't prove that Saddam had the pair of Aces.
Bush wins the hand.
Posted Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:37 am GMT by Leo McDermott
I like Adam Marshall's response. I think he's right on the money.
Posted Sun Sep 28, 2003 4:36 pm GMT by John MacEnroe
Bush would win
No one gives him credit for anything because he has a learning disability.
He has all the qualities of a good player -
1.Balls
2.Brains (despite popular belief)
3.The most important one - he knows what he's doing, he goes for the money at all costs.
He'd take him down at a poker table without blinking - his brother is also governor of Texas if my American politics is not too rusty.
They call it Texas Hold 'em for a reason - they breed the masters.
Posted Sun Sep 28, 2003 4:42 pm GMT by Geno
| John MacEnroe wrote: | Bush would win
No one gives him credit for anything because he has a learning disability.
He has all the qualities of a good player -
1.Balls
2.Brains (despite popular belief)
3.The most important one - he knows what he's doing, he goes for the money at all costs.
He'd take him down at a poker table without blinking - his brother is also governor of Texas if my American politics is not too rusty.
They call it Texas Hold 'em for a reason - they breed the masters. |
I believe they take this piss cos he is a moron through and through. At least other presidents did wot the puppeteers behind the scenes said convincingly, Bush couldn't convince himself that the Earth is round let alone others......
Posted Sun Sep 28, 2003 8:02 pm GMT by ballbp
I'm sorry you feel that way Andy, but I guess everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Poker's poker and politics are politics. I guess we can't agree on everything.
Posted Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:56 pm GMT by Leo McDermott
Sorry to hear that, man! I thinkBush is a GREAT Pres!
Posted Tue Sep 30, 2003 2:59 pm GMT by Poker_Vendetta
Bush is an ok president, he is not the worst or the best. He was a great leader/motivator during the Sept 11 attacks but the War on Iraq, was kinda BS. They have found no nuclear weapons, BUT attacked Iraq when they THOUGHT they had some whereas, they did NOT attack North Korea when they have already MADE SOME DAMNIT! (Excuse the Capitals, but I must put the emphasis on those words, because it's a pretty big deal) And really, it seems like the war is for the oil. They send Navy Seals to get the oil and 18 year old kids to get Saddam, when Iraq hasn't even been found with a nuclear weapon yet and opposed to the terrorist connections (I can't find or remember them seriously though), Iraq has not seriously done ANYTHING to the Americans. Am I saying Saddam Hussein is innocent? No, he has murdered his own people, but neither is the U.S. government. This war is not just to save those innocent Iraqis.
Posted Sat Oct 04, 2003 5:41 am GMT by Leo McDermott
This is all i'm going to say about Iraq- after all, this isn't a political forum...
Weapons of mass destruction includes nuclear weapons. The media, in their bias, seems to want the public to think that WMD refers to ONLY nuclear weapons. It's a well known and documented fact that Saddam gased his own people.
If you're going to sit back and say that the war in Iraq was unjustified, why not also say that WWII was unjustified when it came to Germany as Hitler didn't have any nuclear weapons.
I wholeheartedly believe that the war in Iraq was justified because we removed a terrible dictator from power who could have risen to the level of Hitler (Which he could already be compared to) and eventually developed a nuclear weapon.
Had bush NOT invaded when he did, and Saddam eventually developed a nuclear device, (Which he was working on) the media would have complained that he didn't act in time and he merely looked the other way instead of acting before hand.
Referring back to my Hitler analogy, had we attacked Germany sooner, we may have prevented the deaths of 6 million jews.
'nuff said!
Posted Sat Oct 04, 2003 12:26 pm GMT by Poker_Vendetta
Ahh nevermind, I hate getting in these battles where people yell at your over shit you can never fix.
Posted Sat Oct 04, 2003 1:26 pm GMT by Leo McDermott
I wasn't yelling, merely clearing up a misconception.
Posted Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:20 pm GMT by TheMrLegendary
Vendetta, thank you sir. This post is ridiculous, honestly, who cares whether bush could take down sadam or not. I am still hoping the fool is 6 feet under. If there are americans here, thinking that sadam would win, i suppose that is their american given right, but its not very american not to support your leader over some fanatic who has killed thousands, with brutal execution squads. I digress, poker is fun and if its fun to argue if Tony Blair could take down Sheraq(however you spell this frenchies name). Id much rather be playing with doyle brunson, stu ungar or johnny moss right now, not scratching my head over this arguement.
Posted Sat Oct 04, 2003 3:21 pm GMT by Geno
I think we'll call it a day here on this thread for every1's sake 
LOCKED
|
|
