Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Bush in a recent speech performed in cleveland:


Bush three years ago:


I know this ain't big news. I just find it amusing in that really 'annoying type' of way.

Comments?

Well, he didn't say 9/11, did he?

Yeah, I suppose it's a bit of Clinton-esque avoision.

I know what you mean about it being amusing in an annoying way, for sure.

"First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

How can anyone deny the man is stupid? I don't even bother with all the dissing, but he just makes it so easy.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I know what you mean about it being amusing in an annoying way, for sure.

"First-just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said, at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein."

How can anyone deny the man is stupid? I don't even bother with all the dissing, but he just makes it so easy.

-AC

Maybe he's just a liar.

It really doesn't matter what Bush does, you're going to be an A-hole about everything he says and does anyway, so he may as well try to cover his tracks along the way..

Though if I were president I'd be even more straightfoward and direct then Bush. "I think Saddam is a lunatic, I want his buried six feet under, I'm going to use our military and weapons to insure that happens, and if you don't like it, tough titties.."

And ofcourse, you whiney liberals would complain I'm reckless, arrogant, blahblahblah, in this for the money or some lame conspiracy you thoughtup or whatever.

And then when confronted with all this crap, I'd have to say "what partof tough titties did you not understand? Do I need to get my translator up in here?"

Yep, we deffinitely need more guys like Bush running the show, heck, maybe even more George W. like then George W. himself..

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
It really doesn't matter what Bush does, you're going to be an A-hole about everything he says and does anyway, so he may as well try to cover his tracks along the way..

Though if I were president I'd be even more straightfoward and direct then Bush. "I think Saddam is a lunatic, I want his buried six feet under, I'm going to use our military and weapons to insure that happens, and if you don't like it, tough titties.."

And ofcourse, you whiney liberals would complain I'm reckless, arrogant, blahblahblah, in this for the money or some lame conspiracy you thoughtup or whatever.

And then when confronted with all this crap, I'd have to say "what partof tough titties did you not understand? Do I need to get my translator up in here?"

Yep, we deffinitely need more guys like Bush running the show, heck, maybe even more George W. like then George W. himself..

Are you really young or just really stupid?

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Though if I were president I'd be even more straightfoward and direct then Bush. "I think Saddam is a lunatic, I want his buried six feet under, I'm going to use our military and weapons to insure that happens, and if you don't like it, tough titties.."

And ofcourse, you whiney liberals would complain I'm reckless, arrogant, blahblahblah, in this for the money or some lame conspiracy you thoughtup or whatever.

A) It's not hard to be more direct and straightforward than Bush.

B) Your role as president is to do what's best for your country, not what's best for you and to hell with everyone else if they don't like it.

Hence the problem with Bush. I don't really choose to dabble in politics and I'm most certainly for freedom of speech, but you sir are quite stupid.

-AC

Looki, lookie!

The stars have aligned and AC and I agree again.

Surley the sign of the dawning of a new age!

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
A) It's not hard to be more direct and straightforward than Bush.

B) Your role as president is to do what's best for your country, not what's best for you and to hell with everyone else if they don't like it.

Hence the problem with Bush. I don't really choose to dabble in politics and I'm most certainly for freedom of speech, but you sir are quite stupid.

-AC

Why do you go right into insulting?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you go right into insulting?

You have to admit, the statement he quoted made it pretty easy fodder for such a response.

No, he just doesnt have a problem with being a hypocrite.

After all that bitching about how the government is only in it for the money, he goes and says that people would complain about him being in it for the money.

What he says is basically invalid at this point.

Didn't actually go right into insulting, did I? It was, infact, the last thing I said.

Add to the fact that all I said was that he was quite stupid to produce such views and you have yourself (you) a drama queen.

-AC

its kinda like bush is laughing and saying "FOOLED YOU!!! LOLZ i only said al-qaeda ROFLZ!!!!11111"

reporter: mr. president, why are we going to war in iraq?

bush: see...on september 11th 2001 blah blah blah evil man blah blah evildoers terror terror terror 9/11 terror evil saddam terror.

reporter: aaah.....kthxbye

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You have to admit, the statement he quoted made it pretty easy fodder for such a response.

Yes, but too often this kind of thread turns into a bash fest. Let's try not to do that. What do you think?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but too often this kind of thread turns into a bash fest. Let's try not to do that. What do you think?
That's almost impossible, it's about Bush, wether you like him or hate him, you can't deny there'd going to be more mudslinging then at a health spa full of children..

(shrugs)

His statement is correct,. He never made a direct connection.

Originally posted by PVS
its kinda like bush is laughing and saying "FOOLED YOU!!! LOLZ i only said al-qaeda ROFLZ!!!!11111"




Hahaha. Can you actually say that? roflez exclamation mark (x 4) one (x 5)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, but too often this kind of thread turns into a bash fest. Let's try not to do that. What do you think?

Point taken. But it truly was a stupid comment. Perhaps it would be better to say," Your views are childish and without reason and I disagree with them for the following reasons......", but I feel a debate would be lost on that member as I have read a few of his posts recenly and they have left me, at best, underwhelmed.

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
That's almost impossible, it's about Bush, wether you like him or hate him, you can't deny there'd going to be more mudslinging then at a health spa full of children..

I am interested in what people have to say about this subject, but if it turns into a mudslinging thread, I will report it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
(shrugs)

His statement is correct,. He never made a direct connection.

You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable.

I'm sure there's a speech where Bush connected Al-Queda to 9-11 and then Saddam to Al-Queda in the same paragraph. Or maybe a dozen paragraphs.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable.

That's what I was referring to with the Clinton comment.

It's a clever way of using implication without implicating yourself.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable.

Yes he did.

But that's not what he is denying, is it?

its a distraction anyway.
it was admitted by the bush administration that there were no ties between saddam and al qaeda. THAT was the third reason to go to war which was proven false, besides saddam's nuKulEr ambition and WMD's.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
You ever thought about being a lawyer Ush? You know full well that Bush and his administration wrapped up Saddam with AlQueda in order to make the war more palatable. I don't even want to talk about it...schmoll


Do I have anything more to add?............ahhh, not really.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yes he did.

But that's not what he is denying, is it?

What a wonderful world this could be without symantics and wordplay.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
What a wonderful world this could be without symantics and wordplay.

In as much that by semantics you mean what words mean, I think this is a very valid issue, yes.

If you are going to say that Bush linked Hussein with Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, then fine.

But at this point you have to bear in mind the meaning of 'direct connection'. The situation above is the very essence of indirectness.

It's a simple use of words and a bit harsh to criticise him for it.

^ what is, is.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ what is, is. Is?

Bush is splitting words because he can't tell you what is really going on.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
In as much that by semantics you mean what words mean, I think this is a very valid issue, yes.

If you are going to say that Bush linked Hussein with Al Qaeda and that Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, then fine.

But at this point you have to bear in mind the meaning of 'direct connection'. The situation above is the very essence of indirectness.

It's a simple use of words and a bit harsh to criticise him for it.

rubbish. you are being completely obtuse.
either that or you clearly did not pay attention to any of his speeches since 9/11. whenever making the case for war, he would open up with 9/11 and go on to declair hussein as the cause of the next 9/11...UNLESS WE STOP HIM!!! so it was war. the O-N-L-Y thing that drove the u.s. to war by his bidding was his constant tying together of 9/11 and hussein. to deny that is to be ridiculously deliberate.

he got everyone on a technicallity, fine whatever. but dont sit there and pretend ignorance to the fact that it was structured to be that way, and people were MEANT to see a direct connection between hussein and 9/11

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bush is splitting words because he can't tell you what is really going on. Though don't all politicians do that?

But it would indeed be unfair to make out that he ever implied Hussein was directly responsible. He never did that, and if wants to deny it, that's fine.

If you want to reply to that denial by saying "Yeah, but you said he was harbouring the people who DID plan it and that appears to have been bullshit," then that is also fine.

But his statement is fair. He never did make a direct connection and it should be fine for him to say that.

Originally posted by PVS
rubbish. you are being completely obtuse.
either that or you clearly did not pay attention to any of his speeches since 9/11. whenever making the case for war, he would open up with 9/11 and go on to declair hussein as the cause of the next 9/11...UNLESS WE STOP HIM!!! so it was war. the O-N-L-Y thing that drove the u.s. to war by his bidding was his constant tying together of 9/11 and hussein. to deny that is to be ridiculously deliberate.

Obtuse? You are the people so hopelessly biased that you are twisting what he has said.

Bush NEVER made a direct connection between Hussein and the planning of 9/11. Prove he did or it is you who is being obtuse.

"Politician Speak" is nothing new though...........It's another language.

If Ush is trying to be a lawyer then somebody else is trying really hard to be a Prosecutor.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Obtuse? You are the people so hopelessly biased that you are twisting what he has said.

Bush NEVER made a direct connection between Hussein and the planning of 9/11. Prove he did or it is you who is being obtuse.

read the rest of my post mr. technicallity. i edited

It's still crap. If you are just going to ignore the meaning of direct just to suit your own purposes, you have left the realm of reasonable comment.

Direct means what it means. Don't make out that it doesn't just because you are determined to hang Bush. I have absolutely no patience for people that do that sort of thing.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
If Ush is trying to be a lawyer then somebody else is trying really hard to be a Prosecutor.
I plead the fiddy'!

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president."

What you want to infer is your business, but it is still a fact that he never made a direct link.

It might even have been a pointless and irrelevant thing for him to say. But it is TRUE.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It's still crap. If you are just going to ignore the meaning of direct just to suit your own purposes, you have left the realm of reasonable comment.

Direct means what it means. Don't make out that it doesn't just because you are determined ti hang Bush. I have absolutely no patience for people that do that sort of thing.

funny, because i have no patience for is people who are so engrained in their own politics that they will deliberately deny the routine deceit which led a country to war and support a word game which led to this mess. its one thing to acknowledge the constant play on words which never technically directly connected hussein and 9/11, but completely ridiculous to deny that the 2 have been mentioned in the same passage of every single speech he made in attempting to sell the war.

in other words, point it out if you wish, you are correct in that. but if you would go on to try to exonerate him based on that, WOW dude. WOW.

... and?

Originally posted by PVS
funny, because i have no patience for is people who are so engrained in their own politics that they will deliberately deny the routine deciet which led a country to war and support a word game which led to this mess. its one thing to acknowledge the constant play on words which never technically directly connected hussein and 9/11, but completely ridiculous to deny that the 2 have been mentioned in the same passage of every singe speech he made in attempting to sell the war.

in other words, point it out if you wish, you are correct in that. but if you would go on to try to exhonerate him based on that, WOW dude. WOW.

It's not a word game. That is a BS accusation that you guys are making up.

It is an absolute fact that he never made a direct connection. Sorry, but it IS, no matter how much you want it to be otherwise.

you're like squealer from animal farm

My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.

It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.

It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.

Ush isn't denying any of that. Merely that there wasn't an attempt to make a direct connection between Hussein and 9/11, nothing more.

No, you are misunderstanding, Kharma. That he made a link with Al Qaeda is not even vaguely in doubt.

What he never did is make a direct link between Hussein and 9/11. To do that, he would have actually had to have said:

"Saddam Hussein helped plan 9/11."

Never at any point was this done.

This is a simple matter of understanding language. If you give someone a gun and then that person shoots someone dead, the only person directly responsible for the murder is the person who pulled the trigger, even if the person who supplied the gun still has to share some of the blane. The supplier's involvement is indirect. That is the entire point of having these words in the language.

The people they directly linked were Al Qaeda, and no-one else.

what is annoying ush, is not your denial that bush directly linked the two in plain wording, because you are correct in pointing that out. what is unnerving is your denial of the constant implication of a connection made from 9/11 until we went to war. and it just seems that way, although technically off topic as it all is. 9/11 was used to make us scared of saddam.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
My main point Ush is that his administration went out of their way to link Saddam to Al Queda. He did that Immediately post 9/11. It was an obvious attempt to rally the country, and sew the seeds.

It was a deliberate smoke and mirrors act that is now being dismissed as a "misunderstanding". He may not have said that there was a direct link between the two, but he and his administration indeed fostered that misconception.

Yes I agree that is is smoke a mirrors, but not for the reasons you are claiming.

Again, you are making that up.

It was never implied that there was a direct connection. Never EVER.

His justication for war was rejecting weapon inspectors, threatening global security, and that they were helping the people that WERE directly responsible.

Never did he remove the middle man, not even by implication.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Again, you are making that up.

It was never implied that there was a direct connection. Never EVER.

His justication for war was rejecting weapon inspectors, threatening global security, and that they were helping the people that WERE directly responsible.

Never did he remove the middle man, not even by implication.

i'm making up that bush constantly evoked 9/11 in his pre-war speeches? thats all my own fantasy? you're actually going to attempt that or am i misunderstanding you?

Yes, he never said 'Iraq did it' and detail a direct connection

the real argument here is that there was still a connection, nonetheless and indirect connection, and a misconception that the government did not even try to clear up until after the war already started.

If a direct implication wasn't intended, then why would he wait three years to put the misconception to rest? When he stood on that pile of rubble in the middle of Manhattan, he promised the country and the world that we were going to catch and punish those responsible. His administration scared teh sh*t out of everyone by saying that the disasters were going to get worse once they (the terrorists) got their hands on nuclear weapons. Then he said that Iraq was stocking "weapons of mass destruction" Well, here we are five years later and the only "ace of spades" we have in custody is Saddam. Were as much effort directed into finding bin Laden we would have been pulling him out of a hole in the ground. The only reason we haven't found him is because we aren't looking for him. And the only reason we aren't looking for him is because his family is in bed with the Saudi Royal family...and Bush's is a the third hand in that circle jerk. There's a reason his family got shuffled out of this country on 9/11 when all other flights had been grounded.

Ush is correct.

Go Dub'ya!!!

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Ush is correct.

Go Dub'ya!!!

YEAH!!! GO DUBYA!!!! **** US HARD!!!! HARDER!!!!! OH YES HARDER!!!!!!!!!

I just read this psychology book, right.

I think PVS has some 'resentment' towards Bush.

It could also be a "dangerous obsession"...

Originally posted by PVS
YEAH!!! GO DUBYA!!!! **** US HARD!!!! HARDER!!!!! OH YES HARDER!!!!!!!!!

Shut up, hippie!

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I just read this psychology book, right.

I think PVS has some 'resentment' towards Bush.

no, i love watching the country i love get fist****ed. no resentment at all.

oh and as far as the 9/11 thing, i guess bush didnt say this TODAY
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Bush-Helen.mov

again, no direct connection. pointless technicallity for the win.

and yes, WD i guess knowing that thousands of americans are dead because of his lies and many more to come is an obsession. dangerous though? where do you get off saying that?

Originally posted by PVS
no, i love watching the country i love get fist****ed. no resentment at all.

oh and as far as the 9/11 thing, i guess bush didnt say this TODAY
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Today-Bush-Helen.mov

again, no direct connection. pointless technicallity for the win.

and yes, WD i guess knowing that thousands of americans are dead because of his lies and many more to come is an obsession. dangerous though? where do you get off saying that?

What are you babbling for?

B!tching and whining won't end the war.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
What are you babbling for?

B!tching and whining won't end the war.

and what are you trolling for? care to argue any points or just label people and heckle them?

If Bush has never implied a connection between the two, then what is this:



Here's the implication for those who are having trouble grasping it:

al-Qaeda were the terrorists Bush has asserted were the purportrators of 9/11.

Is it clear now?

Oh, there is this though:



Anyone trying to argue against this being an implication must have had great difficulty in English class. Here's something else that will no doubt perplex these people:

Iago: "I am not what I am" - Othello, Scene I

Originally posted by PVS
and what are you trolling for? care to argue any points or just label people and heckle them?

You've made the point yourself--there was no direct connection.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
You've made the point yourself--there was no direct connection.

and how does this exonerate him? all reasons for going to iraq were proven not true, after he said he was CERTAIN, WITHOUT A DOUBT, "trust me" etc.... how? how is it "GO BUSH!" ??

Originally posted by PVS
and how does this exonerate him? all reasons for going to iraq were proven not true, after he said he was CERTAIN, WITHOUT A DOUBT, "trust me" etc.... how? how is it "GO BUSH!" ??

I doesn't exonerate him. He made a mistake, so he has to adjust accordingly and deal with it.

Nobody's perfect, shit happens, and when shit does happen you just gotta roll with it and play the cards you're dealt.

Go Dub'ya!!!

DiamondBullets, I'm not too sure you grasp the gravity of the situation here.

He's the President of the USA...not the manager of Walmart.

It's not like ordering too much stock by mistake or messing up the inventory. If Bush f*cks up it reflects on the entire world and people die.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
If Bush f*cks up it reflects on the entire world and people die.

-AC
Sense when did the presidents **** ups effect the entire world? Bush is the president, not WORLD leader..

Everybody president throughout HISTORY has made mistakes, yet you're holding Bush to some new set of standards, this is what pisses me off most about liberals, you makeup rules as you go along, screw that, if you can't apply your rules to everyone, and change them whenever it's convient or you just don't like the guy, then you have no buisness making or enforcing any..

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
you makeup rules as you go along, screw that, if you can't apply your rules to everyone, and change them whenever it's convient or you just don't like the guy, then you have no buisness making or enforcing any..

It's ironic that all of this garbage could be applied to Bush, and factually supported.

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
It's ironic that all of this garbage could be applied to Bush, and factually supported.
But it's ok when Bush does it, you're not cool like Bush, so there.

spelljammin?

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Sense when did the presidents **** ups effect the entire world? Bush is the president, not WORLD leader..

Everybody president throughout HISTORY has made mistakes, yet you're holding Bush to some new set of standards, this is what pisses me off most about liberals, you makeup rules as you go along, screw that, if you can't apply your rules to everyone, and change them whenever it's convient or you just don't like the guy, then you have no buisness making or enforcing any..

If you're the President of the most powerful and politically influential nation on the entire planet, then yes, it has a tendancy to affect the world. Especially England, which is where I live.

The most disgusting thing about people like you and DiamondBullets is that you're not even supporting Bush with actual serious evidence. You're talking about him being "cool" and saying things like "Go Dubya". If you're going to support Bush, at least have a clue what you are going on about, but acting like the man is the fonz and a pillar of good in a war against evil just makes you look like a complete and utter fool with no grasp on any kind of reality.

I'm not one of those who will go around calling the man Satan or the next Hitler, but to call him good things is almost as bad by way of being an opposite extreme.

-AC

I always like his scenarios.........

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The most disgusting thing about people like you and DiamondBullets is that you're not even supporting Bush with actual serious evidence. You're talking about him being "cool" and saying things like "Go Dubya". If you're going to support Bush, at least have a clue what you are going on about, but acting like the man is the fonz just makes you look like a complete and utter fool with no grasp on any kind of reality.

-AC
...YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN! (The fact that you are English just happens to be convient.. )

lol, besides, I wouldn't waste my time, there is many arguments I could post to defend Bush, good ones, but why bother? you're not going to listen, and it's just so much more fun to support Bush like a football team then to get all tense and try to defend his reputation by posting links to valid points of view and giving a big wordy opinion on the matter.

If there was actually someone here worth talking to on that level, I'd bother to..

is anyone going to report the sock troll?

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
...YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN! (The fact that you are English just happens to be convient.. )

lol, besides, I wouldn't waste my time, there is many arguments I could post to defend Bush, good ones, but why bother? you're not going to listen, and it's just so much more fun to support Bush like a football team then to get all tense and try to defend his reputation by posting links to valid points of view and giving a big wordy opinion on the matter.

If there was actually someone here worth talking to on that level, I'd bother to..

Hint: Don't give an apathetic reason as to why you can't be "bothered" (aka, just plain can't) to defend Bush intelligently, then act as if there's nobody here on your "level".

That's probably true, not in the way you meant it though.

You can't expect to be taken seriously if you won't post seriously, that's what you get.

-AC

*sigh!* You just don't get it do you Alpha? Who cares?!

Oh no, I got my feelings hurt cause I'm not taken seriously.

You know, cause I really care what some guy with a clown avatar talking about some outdated D&D campaign says..

Or for that matter what "krunk" (which sounds like what you'd call semen when it crystalizes on the face) thinks..

You gotta' learn how to relax and just go with the flow Alpha my man! Bush gets it, when you do, the power will manifest inside you, and you'll be one of us..

If you don't care, don't expect to be taken seriously, is all I'm saying.

As an aside: Should you be making fun of people's avatars when you have one that contains a Dragonball Z character?

-AC

he's pretending to not know what a sock troll is....how original.
still, notice he didnt ask...

Didn't ask what?

What does PVS stand for? What? Are you a dyslexic woman on PMS?

How can PVS stand for PMS? Not thought that one through have you? Moreover, why would dyslexia even be relevant to the one letter?

Think about the dynamics.

-AC

He's liberal, sense when did logic apply?

Says the guy with all the logical abilities of a cinder block.

-AC

Hey Hack, I want you to define liberalism. both in the american sense, classical liberalism, the international relations theory of liberalism, and neoliberalism.

come, humor us before you saying anything else.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey Hack, I want you to define liberalism. both in the american sense, classical liberalism, the international relations theory of liberalism, and neoliberalism.

come, humor us before you saying anything else.

here comes the interestiong parallels between politics and dragonball z, and the argument that liberals are sub-creature who have been the root of all evil since the dawn of man. all over again

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey Hack, I want you to define liberalism. both in the american sense, classical liberalism, the international relations theory of liberalism, and neoliberalism.

come, humor us before you saying anything else.
No, I don't mind helping out kids with thier homework, when they're cool..
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/CarlitoPortrait2.jpg/230px-CarlitoPortrait2.jpg
I spit on the face of anybody who isn't cool..

no, i meant the actual definition of every kind of liberalism as defined by a rational political scientist, not something from anne coulter's carefully edited versions of Mein Kampf and the Protocols of the Elders of zion

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Or for that matter what "krunk" (which sounds like what you'd call semen when it crystalizes on the face) thinks.

Are you saying I'm orgasmic? Thanks. I'm like a diamond? Oh, you praise too much!

Hack, you're a hick. Achoo...I just hocked you up.

i've tried that krunk stuff that lil' john's been putting out as promotion for krunk music. It tastes like carbonated pomegranite juice.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
i've tried that krunk stuff that lil' john's been putting out as promotion for krunk music. It tastes like carbonated pomegranite juice.
THAT's who I wanted to think of earlier today! But I couldn't remember! Thankyou! (Guess liberals do have a purpose afterall, and it involves hippity hoppity music..)

I always confuse lil john for r kelly..

you didn't answer me. If you can't define what liberalism is and argue for or against it, then your arguements can't be taken seriously and should be taken as blunt hate or as a metaphor for some other group of people you hate. The same way that "east coast liberal" is a nice way of saying k!ke

...What are you yammering about now? And I've already explained why I refuse to answer your inane question, I refuse to waste my time when you know as well as I do what the differance is between libertarians, socialists, and neo-liberals.. And kike isn't even a word..

it's a derogatory term for my people-those of a hebraic persuasion. and your inability to define liberalism in any capacity other than meaningless scapegoat simply renders you an idiot without the ability to make a reasoned argument.
Stick to the comicbook forums or discussing if Kirk could whip Picard's ass.

Only a liberal would say Picard!

only a fool misses the point.

Just read this; Heres the answer to your question: Bush said that Saddam Hussein aided Al-Queda, which he did. That was his first quote three years ago. In the more recent one he says "Saddam Hueissen was not likely not directly associated with 9/11"; also a true statement because Saddam Hussein AIDEDand HARBORED AL-Queda, he wasnt a member or ranking official in it. While he may have known of the plan, Saddam was not an active participant in 9/11. Some people like to twist other people's words (Bush's for one) and this is just another example. I think whoever started this clearly misunderstood his words because they are pretty basic if you just stop and think.

evidence has shown that Hussein actually persecuted and deported members of al qaida, who happened to swoop right in as soon as the country became a destabalize warzone.
here's your arguement:
Saddam Hussein hates america
Al Qaida Hates America
Saddam Hussein is a Muslim
Al Qaida is a Muslim
so Saddam Hussein must be Al Qaida.
The problem here is logic
Why would Saddam Hussein-a secular autocrat sticking to the stalinist autocrat model of governing-civillian terror and a personality cult side with religous fanatics who would threaten his rule by nullifying his cult with sharia?

Well then in all honusty it's better we attacked Saddam then Al-Quedia anyway.

Securalists suck, securalism leads to liberalism and liberalism leads to suffering..

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
Well then in all honusty it's better we attacked Saddam then Al-Quedia anyway.

Securalists suck, securalism leads to liberalism and liberalism leads to suffering..

Do you actually believe the diahrrea that you spew?

it's better not to encourage him with logical arguments arach. that's why my response is gonna be absurdist

from reliable sources, and not including the oppotunists that ran right in after we destabalized the place.

Well if they ARENT a reliable source then who is? Saddam?

you gave me a rumsfeld quote, an editorial from an expert on china, and an AP article which in no way invalidates my argument.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
If a direct implication wasn't intended, then why would he wait three years to put the misconception to rest?

The following quote is from a speech at the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel in Columbus, Ohio on March 20th 2006:



The following quote is from a letter to Congress on March 21st 2006:

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Didn't actually go right into insulting, did I? It was, infact, the last thing I said.

Add to the fact that all I said was that he was quite stupid to produce such views and you have yourself (you) a drama queen.

-AC I'm pretty sure all you said was "You sir are quite stupid".

Originally posted by Adam_PoE We


There in lies the problem

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The following quote is from a speech at the Renaissance Cleveland Hotel in Columbus, Ohio on March 20th 2006:




Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The following quote is from a letter to Congress on March 21st 2006:


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
We

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic


Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic


There in lies the problem

Originally posted by Hack Benjamin
...YOU ARE UN-AMERICAN! (The fact that you are English just happens to be convient.. )




AC, yes I grasp the gravity of the situation. I also realize that he is human, and like other humans he makes mistakes. Just like when Clinton made a "mistake" when he got his dick sucked by someone other than his wife.

btw: Why do YOU care about Bush? He's not your country's leader. You don't see me dissing Tony Blair, do you?

Because unless you've noticed, Blair "runs" my country.

Blair is also Bush's lapdog. Add one to one.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Because unless you've noticed, Blair "runs" my country.

Blair is also Bush's lapdog. Add one to one.

-AC

Why doesn't Blair be a man and take care of his own business?

one reason people care about and are pissed at Bush is becaiuse desicions made by him and his "buddies" effects the rest of the world


why doesnt Bush keep his business within the US?

Originally posted by finti
one reason people care about and are pissed at Bush is becaiuse desicions made by him and his "buddies" effects the rest of the world


why doesnt Bush keep his business within the US?

Ever since Woodrow Wilson pulled the US out of isolationism for entry into WWI, the US has always been takin' care of bizznazz around the world.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Why doesn't Blair be a man and take care of his own business?

Hold on, I'll just ask him...

-AC

should the rest of the world accept their butting in wherever they feel like because of that ?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Hold on, I'll just ask him...

-AC

Ok.

Originally posted by finti
should the rest of the world accept their butting in wherever they feel like because of that ?

Yes.

why?, what gives US the right to police the world

Originally posted by finti
why?, what gives US the right to police the world

Cuz that's just the way it is.

Police work is a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.

cuz thats just the way it is? and is that the answer you think would be proper to use for 9/11.

who said the world need policing

Originally posted by finti
cuz thats just the way it is? and is that the answer you think would be proper to use for 9/11.

who said the world need policing

We say that the world needs policing, and just like a junkee who's slangin' on a street corner, the rest of the world denies it.

The US is to the world, as a cop is to a bad neighborhood.

Who else is gonna do it.......Swaziland?

who are we? I know my country follow US like a puppet on a string still dont make it right for "us" to tell others how to act

no US is to the world like a bad cop who picks the things that suits and gain him, a freelancing cop

why not, they might be more just for the task

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
I grasp the gravity of the situation. I also realize that he is human, and like other humans he makes mistakes. Just like when Clinton made a "mistake" when he got his dick sucked by someone other than his wife.

I'll make this simple so it will reflect your state of being:

Clinton's mistake = a blow job and a 'lie'.

Bush's mistake = a 'lie', wars, tens of thousands dead.

Can you see a difference, little man? Let's see if you can use one of your precious bullets to hit the balls-eye? Or will there simply be more bull-shit?

Clinton's mistake was to do with his private life (which even President's are entitled to) and his marriage, not anyone else in the world. It was no different than when tabloids report on celeb marriages breaking up.

Bush's mistakes have cost thousands of lives.

-AC

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
We say that the world needs policing, and just like a junkee who's slangin' on a street corner, the rest of the world denies it.

The US is to the world, as a cop is to a bad neighborhood.

Who else is gonna do it.......Swaziland?

The UN (united nations) should police... Not 1 country looking out for its own interests and no others....

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
The UN (united nations) should police... Not 1 country looking out for its own interests and no others....


I agree and the USA also shouldn't need to contribute the largest sum of money of the countries involved and use more of its military then the other countries as well.

Oh wait but we do so look who's interests get protected first.

Originally posted by soleran30
I agree and the USA also shouldn't need to contribute the largest sum of money of the countries involved and use more of its military then the other countries as well.

Oh wait but we do so look who's interests get protected first.

I think you should go check some of the names you have given money too...

and concidering your so quick to prevent others having any nuclear weapons or development your quick to stockpile your own... (and your the only country to ever use them...)

Perhaps you should concider why these people are soo against the USA, if all there claiming is to help....

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
I think you should go check some of the names you have given money too...

and concidering your so quick to prevent others having any nuclear weapons or development your quick to stockpile your own... (and your the only country to ever use them...)

Perhaps you should concider why these people are soo against the USA, if all there claiming is to help....


Everyone has dirty laundry everyone just wants to dig through the USA's first because our hamper is the largest. USA contributes a larger sum of money then MOST members to the UN. So much in fact we want to curtail some of our payment and the UN is afraid it will fall under budget should this be the case maybe the UK should tax more and contribute the difference

Also I am not a politician so I have never made any nuclear weapons nor used any. Stopping others from making them well you be the judge of that cuz some countries that are developing them are scary.

I also never said the USA helps everyone, people are scaried of the USA which is why they are against us, big kids on the block always garner more attention.

soleran30> Which is the only countrys administration EVER to have used nuclear weapons? Who supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran/iraqi-war? Who supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and armed the Mujahedin?
Baaaad policing there!
I'm not scared of the USA, I have friends over there. But, man, am I scared of its administration. And that some of that countries people, like you, are so brainwashed you don't mind if your government lies to you is even scarier.

It seems quite a trivial difference.

Originally posted by The Omega
soleran30> Which is the only countrys administration EVER to have used nuclear weapons? Who supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran/iraqi-war? Who supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and armed the Mujahedin?
Baaaad policing there!
I'm not scared of the USA, I have friends over there. But, man, am I scared of its administration. And that some of that countries people, like you, are so brainwashed you don't mind if your government lies to you is even scarier.


The big brainwashing comes from people that dive into media far to often to come up with information, call me a svnic and you would be correct. So now brainwashing aside what would be a goal to achieve with the middle east since we are married to it due to WWII. Sit back and let bygones be bygones? No agendas change, goals change and when people fail to adjust to that does it become very scary.

Denmark isn't a world power and has minimal influence in International affairs, its easy to be small and have little impact on others it allows you to be critical of those that can and do sadly enough

No gooback jokes Okay?

USA is a large country but if you look into donation per capita US is far from the biggest doner

I think the point is still valid. Technically saying something is one thing. However, when you know full well that an entire nation (and planet beyond that) is operating under the assumption of the implication, why wait three years to call that assumption into question? Bush and company knew full well what they were doing and implying. The only reason they are denying it now is for political reasons. Political reasons that shouldn't be slightly considered when one takes into account the lives of both American and non-American soldiers that have died in this political/economic cluster-fu*k.

Originally posted by finti
USA is a large country but if you look into donation per capita US is far from the biggest doner

Perhaps but at the end of the day that doesn't matter to me, I do realize if the US lowers its total amount the UN will have budgetary problems.
Just sounds to me if they don't like what the biggest spender has to say they should downsize or find income from other participants.


And you are right Capt, I am not a rah rah rah Bush kinda guy however I can only hope (since I cannot read minds) that one of the major intentions was to take the war to someone elses backyard and not to keep it in the USA. LOL now try selling that to John Q Public in the USA

Originally posted by soleran30
Perhaps but at the end of the day that doesn't matter to me, I do realize if the US lowers its total amount the UN will have budgetary problems.
Just sounds to me if they don't like what the biggest spender has to say they should downsize or find income from other participants.


And you are right Capt, I am not a rah rah rah Bush kinda guy however I can only hope (since I cannot read minds) that one of the major intentions was to take the war to someone elses backyard and not to keep it in the USA. LOL now try selling that to John Q Public in the USA

So what? If Japan would lower their amo9unt the UN would have problems as well. Same for Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain. I really don't know what financing the UN has to do with anything.

yeah off course you just keep baking your own cake bollocks to all teh rest

Originally posted by finti
yeah off course you just keep baking your own cake bollocks to all teh rest


yeah that must be a European thing