Our President
POSTED BY: howdyrockerbaby1
UPDATED: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 16:36
VIEWED: 49385
PAGE 15 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary.
Liar.
You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that? We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to stop CENSORING THAT VERY INFORMATION! Then Connerflynn states he's very close to these victems because he is in New York. Well, if he's so close why did he say this?
Wild guess - He's not in New York. He's not close to anyone related to the 9/11 Attacks. He is a liar.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by FlyinFree:
I am posting this but did not write it or research it, take it as you will...
George W. Bush - Resume
Where did you get it?
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by maugwai:
Where did you get it?
Chain email.
"...we're still flyin'."
"That's not much."
"It's enough." Malcolm Reynolds and Simon Tam - Serenity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
POLITICAL DEBATE IN AMERICA
aka The Puppet Show
Two puppets enter the "Punch and Judy"-style puppet stage from either wing, and face the audience
puppet1) "The candidate you like is a poopy-head!"
puppet2) "The candidate you like is a doody-head!"
puppet1) "Oh, so original"
puppet2) "Well, nyuh to you!"
puppet1) "It's pronounced 'nee-ah', moron"
puppet2) "Only by backwoods rednecks like you, jackass!. The original French pronunciation is used in sophisticated circles."
puppet1) "French pronunciation, eh? You saying you don't like how we do things here in AMERICA?!"
puppet2) "Stop twisting my words! I said nothing of the sort!"
puppet1) "You said you use French in your conversations. I'll bet you drive a German car too!"
puppet2) "I'm not going to dignify that with a response...LA LA LA LA..."
puppet1) "Guess that means I win"
puppet2) "What? Can't HEAR you...LA LA LA LA"
puppet1) "Like I thought, no answers to the tough questions"
puppet2) "Maybe if you'd ASK some questions instead of making sweeping statements...."
puppet1) "I asked you a question not two minutes ago, and you refused to answer it. Your side just avoids the subjects you can't answer."
puppet2) "Instead of asking about the economy, or the war, or health care, or taxes, you asked a rhetorical question about my views on American speech, right?"
puppet1) "Right. See, right there, I answered your question. Why won't you answer mine?"
..and so on and so forth, ad nauseum....
And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........
MAL "You only gotta scare him."
JAYNE "Pain is scary..."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
OMG, the contrails are killing us!
Story:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id
=16528
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Ghoulman:Quote:
Originally posted by Connorflynn:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Hey spelling Nazi... when you call people names why don't YOU look up the meaning?
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELITIST - e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
2.
1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I love how you basically rationalized yourself into labeling me an embittered Socialist. You're a real nut.
Still - your kind can only attack people by calling them names while the rest of us post actual facts, opinions, and knowledge.
It seems that I have struck a nerve by posting actual facts, opinion and well rounded knowledge. I also believe that you did indeed act and post in an embittered elitist fashion, while speciously misusing AND mispelling words outside your vocabulary. Quote:
Liar.
You didn't post one little fact. I made a FRICKIN' LIST. What's your problem?
Awful defensive aren't ya? ;) As for your list of "FACTS" There is a difference between "Opinion" and "Fact". Everything you have posted up to now has been pure conjecture and 100% poorly worded opinion with zero fact.
I posted a number of facts, along with the sources.Quote:
I'll tell ya. You are a liar! If someone says GWB is bad, you will disagree without hesitation. Does that sound rational? No, but it does sound familiar.
I don't believe I've really disagreed with anyone who has posted a rational (emphasis on rational) thought on this topic. I may correct or add my own 2 cents, but not disagree. Everyone is entitled. If you'll notice, I haven't attacked any politician or nationality or political affiliation (Except for Islamafascism, which I find abhorrent). I don't mock our leaders, even if I find them amusing.Quote:
I didn't call anyone names but you jumped right up and called me an ELITIST. Dead giveaway as using that word in this context is only found comming from the mouth of GWB and other White House language police. Oh, and elitist doesn't mean that as I've already demonstrated above... which you still ignored just like everything else everyone else posted.
I'm not sure I follow you on this one? Too much rambling. This is actually entertaining. As for the Elitist part..I still believe it fits the bill. The republican administration doesn't have the corner on the market for the use of that word. It has been around for ages.Quote:
Rush Limbaugh called and he wants his rhetoric back!
Hehe..good one. What rhetoric did I steal from him again? Since I don't listen to him. Maybe I should start listening to him. Quote:
And I noticed Connerflynn is far more fast and loose with facts than anyone here and he refuses to offer any facts that he can stand behind. Worse, he childishly side steps issues as if that's an Ok thing to do in a debate. Well, it isn't.
One minute I don't use facts, next minute they are loose? LOL. What issue(s) have I sidestepped? Again, I have offerred a multitude of facts and their sources.
Saying Bill Clinton sucks, or George W. Bush is ignorant are opinions not facts(though in some cases I suppose a good argument could be made, with the use of various evidence)Quote:
For example - When Connerflynn states that 9/11 has been investigated in detail, why would anyone believe that?
WOW..
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html
And that's just one source. How many ya want?Quote:
We all recently know that the families of the 9/11 Attacks are trying desperately to get the White House to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Darkjester:
And as a final note, I learned a LOT about politics in the Bush-Gore election of 2000. Gore's camp insisting that certain areas of Florida be recounted, Bush's camp insisting that the votes had been "counted, re-counted, and counted again" I believe the phrase was. But I then realized that, had the count gone the other way and put Gore on top, he would have been using the EXACT SAME ARGUEMENTS to stop any further re-counting, and Bush would have been shouting JUST AS LOUDLY that the re-counts were essential to the democratic process.
Robert A. Heinlein wrote that politics are only slightly less important to a human being than breathing. I just wish that politics didn't leave such an ugly, noxious taste in the back of my mouth........
Sadly, I agree with you. Unfortunately the 2000 elections set an ugly precedent. I have heard rumors that both sides are building warchests for Recounts during the next election.
Yes, Bush lost the popular vote. He did win the electoral vote. Which is how our current elections are won and lost.
Heinlein quote..very nice =)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hey connorflynn,
I don't really see any substantive difference between the short quotation ("they don't got any") and the long quotation ("we really looked hard and a lot of folks said they might have something, there's still a lot of places that they might hide stuff, but as far as we know, they don't got any"). And what I mean by "substantive" is anything that would take use from "don't and might" to "they do."
And there's still a big difference between 45 minutes and 2 years.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
I'm not sure what you mean by difference between 45 minutes and 2 years? Please clarify.
As for the report,
To me there is a difference between "not having for sure", and "They had them, we just can't seem to find any at the moment..because they aren't exactly facilitating the search" hehe. I guess that was why I posted the unedited paragraphs. Take it as you like. there are many reports. All of which are interesting in their own right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whether the site presents itself as nonpartisan or not is not the point.
It doesn't change that it shows up the hypocrisy and spin that is going on.
It still is amusing and alarming to use the database and search out claims the govt officials have made that are apparently completely false, contradictory or deliberately misleading.
I didn't edit anything, that's the way it is presented in the database.
Think of it as a guide. There are sources quoted there, just click on the reference link below the entry. There is nothing stopping you from verifying the facts in question yourself with your own research.
About nuclear/biological weapon proliferation:
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 5/14/2003
Quote/Claim:
"I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."
Fact:
"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/16/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 9/26/2002
Quote/Claim:
“The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons…And according to the British government, the Iraqi regime could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes.”
Fact:
“Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled chemical weapons program after 1991… Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.” - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, 10/2/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Rumsfeld, Donald - Secretary of Defense
Date: 3/25/2004
Quote/Claim:
"Indeed, I have no reason to believe that the intelligence that the United States government had and that Secretary Powell presented to the United Nations is anything but accurate.”
Fact:
"Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong." - Bush Administration Weapons Inspector David Kay, testimony before Armed Services Committee, 1/28/04 Sec. of State Colin Powell conceded Thursday that despite his assertions to the United Nations last year, he had no 'smoking gun' proof of a link between the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and terrorists of al-Qaeda.'I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection,' Powell said. - NY Times, 1/9/04
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 1/28/2003
Quote/Claim:
“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Fact:
On 7/8/03, the Washington Post reported the Administration admitted the Iraq-Nuclear allegation was false. “Revelations by officials at the CIA, the State Department, the UN, in Congress and elsewhere” made clear that the White House knew the claim was false before making the allegation (7/20/03). In fact, “CIA Director George Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have the reference” removed from a Bush speech in Oct. of 2002. - Washington Post, 7/13/03
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 2/8/2004
Quote/Claim:
"I expected to find the weapons [because] I based my decision on the best intelligence possible...The evidence I had was the best possible evidence that he had a weapon."
Fact:
The White House was repeatedly warned by the intelligence community about the imprecision of intelligence on WMD's. The day before the President appeared on Meet The Press, The Washington Post reported, "President Bush and his top advisers ignored many of the caveats and qualifiers included in the classified report on Saddam Hussein's weapons." Specifically, the President made unequivocal statements that Iraq "has got chemical weapons" two months after the DIA concluded that there was "no reliable inform
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And for Connorflynn 
Topic: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Speaker: Bush, George - President
Date: 10/7/2002
Quote/Claim:
"If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today — and we do — does it make any sense for the world to wait?"
Fact:
Bush didn't care whether or not Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. When Diane Sawyer tried to make a distinction between stating as a "hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons," Bush snapped back "so what's the difference?" - ABC, 12/16/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME