that was cold.
Because no idea is ever likely to penetrate such an admirably thick, sloping, heavy-browed skull, which is why you kicked off your OP by repeating the words of others.
Check.
Yep. Pretty much.
What “charges” are you referring to? What is a “moonbat?” Most of the arguably impeachable offenses which have been committed by Bush are not in any factual dispute, so no, there is no chances that the “charges are false.” Many of the most damging accusations have come from Republicans, by the way.
I don’t know what the fuck a “moonbat” is, but the Democrats in Congress are far more closely aligned with Bush than with any fringe groups on the left. The American Democratic party is a party of moderate conservatives.
I am not rabidly pro-Bush. I am a registered Republican but I feel president Bush has gone too far to the left. His leftist ideals sort of make me feel ill. I am a Constitutionalist, if there is room to say such a thing.
I own almost every Freak Brothers comic ever printed. I can recite them all. They are funny.
No more so than the Republicans, who are effectively doing the same thing.
Okay,then where’s the WMDs, smart guy?
Funny, I’ve not seen About.com, Wikipedia, Senators John D. Rockerfeller, Olympia Snowe, and Chuck Hagel, and The Atlantic Monthly (to name but a few) carrying puppets in a parade.
Because every politico knows on which side their bread is buttered. Bush doesn’t have to worry about being re-elected.
Dio, we can’t stop here! This is moonbat country!
And with the way DevNull is going, I expect he thinks moonbats are actually bats of some type.
I’m afraid to ask, Wile E., but in what ways is Bush a “leftist”?
You write your words as President GW Bush has been convicted. If they are impeachable offenses as you say they are, then they are legally crimes and in this country we are all innocent until proven guilty.
I find your zealousness to paint president GW Bush guilty before a trial disgusting and very anti-American. The founders of our country made rules to stop such mentality from causing damage, thank God.
(Forget I used the word “Moonbat”. It was rude of me and I have been told to “knock-off” such behaviour)
I suspect his position on immigration would be one sore point.
Are the rumors true that you also find Harriet Miers to be too sexy, Tony Snow to be too plain-spoken, Donald Rumsfeld to be too hands-off, and Dick Cheney to be too effeminate?
No, dumbass, impeachable offenses do not have to be crimes, and I have not alleged that Bush is guilty of any specific crime. I haven’t even said he should be impeached. I only said that the things that some people argue that he should be impeached for are not in any factual dispute.
You are an imbecile. An impeachment is not a legal trial, and FYI, “innocent until proven guilty” is a presumption which only applies to the state (i.e. the state cannot impose criminal penalties until after a legal conviction). Contrary to popular belief, the public is allowed to think whatever it wants.
No, what Giraffe warned you about was presenting a quotation in your OP without revealing the source (and in the hopes of misleading readers into thinking it was said by someone else). We had a poster in the past who specialized in that tactic and was eventually banned. While your own OP did not go a far as he did (he would actually falsely attribute things. You did not explicitly do that), that kind of coyness and gamesmanship is still against board rules.
Your warning had noting to do with the “moonbat” thing. You can call people names all you want in the Pit. Douchebag.
In my best Wile E. voice (No one really liked when he talked, but the specific voice they had him use adds to your caricature of me) :
President Bush, and most of the GOP nowadays is capitulating to the rabid left and even coming up with some leftist policies of its’ own.
- Farm subsidies
- Medicare prescriptions
- Recognizing illegal aliens as having Constitutional rights
- Campaign finance reform bill
- Willingness to capitulate to the enemy rather than annihilate the enemy
- Environment over economic greatness
- federalization of airport security
- Americorps funding
- education reform
The most disturbingly leftist act of the Bush administration is what they ignore, rather than what they push for. Make a laundry list of the founders intents and let me know how president Bush’s administration is honoring ANY of them. His administration has gone leftist.
Lie by lie:
Very TRUE.
Not true. He could only threaten the peace of the region provided he was not contained in the manner that he was being contained by active patrols of U.S. and U.K. forces and provided he was not allowed to write off his debt to the other nations of the region so as to buy arms–which was not happening. The countires of the Gulf region to whom he owed immense debts for his build-up prior to the First Gulf War were holding him to those obligations and he was not getting sufficient funds to rebuild his military.
Simple bullshit. He did not have the resources to threaten Iran a second time, much less “the world.”
True.
True–too bad Bush was not willing to expend time and effort, looking for an easy military victory, instead.
Absolute lie. The administration never made any effort to engage Iraqi opposition forces and, instead, attempted to bring in a known thief and liar to be the new regime puppet–a thief and liar that we later discovered was already a puppet of the Iranian theocracy.
True.
True.
True. Of course, by trying to do the whole thing on the cheap and not providing the resources sought by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, having chosen to go in with too few troops, (and stupidly disbanding the Iraqi military to take their arms and go home to their own neighborhoods to join the insurgency that was sure to arise when we failed to secure the infrastructure), the actual numbers of unintended Iraqi casualties has been orders of magnitude higher than anything that Hussein, himself, was inflicting on the country subsequent to the First Gulf War.
Piffle.
A handful of platitudes, supporting several serious lies, underscored by gross incompetence. The only “check” has been to peace in the region and the only “mate” has been the mating of power to idiocy.
Has anyone else seen that movie that comes on TV sometimes that has some geeky kid with glasses who falls in love with some creepy chick all to the Motown hit “My Girl”? Have we not learned our lesson? Just imagine DevNull as the bee hive and common sense/intelligence/decency/whatever that is pure and good and without sin being the kid with the glasses. We all are the kid with the glasses. Now, do you really want to fuck with the beehive? Do you really want to poke DevNull with a stick?
(And I was aware of the source of the quotations, but the nonsense “TRUE” responses needed to be addressed. Note that several of the items were or could have been true in the context of the time they were spoken, but that they also required an effective and intelligent response rather than the idiocy that this administration perpetrated on the world.)
This mostly a list of mainstream, centrist positions with the exception of number 5 which is a position held by nobody on the left or the right and is certainly not held by Bush.
Also, number 6 is false. Bush (unfortunately) does NOT place environmental concerns over corporate interests.
As to number 8. I spent two years in AmeriCorps. It was incredibly UNDER funded.
This is an absolute lie. Hurling the occasional SAM into the air (and getting one’s RADAR stations leveled for one’s efforts) is not “boucing back” under any definition. The Iraqi military was less well organized, less well trained, more poorly equipped, much more restricted in where it could operate, and suffering much worse morale throughout the entire 1991 - 2002 period than they had ever been, previously.
No. Neither is posting a speech of George Bush.
Okay, but this really isn’t helping your case. If your grasp of analogics is this weak, then in all likelihood your grasp of more general logics is no better. Let’s look at the provocation:
You wrote:
[“And] while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.” - TRUEYou were quoting Bush, but beyond that, you were declaring his assertion to be true. That made it your own assertion — that is, you assertion became “It is true that while our strikes are focused on Iraq’s military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.” Once you tacked on your “TRUE”, we were no longer dealing with Bush’s assertion, but with yours.
With me so far?
Now, it so happens that your assertion is in effect a tautology. In other words, focusing strikes against the military actually means that civilian casualties are unintended. Otherwise, you’d be focusing your strikes against civilians. Every tautology is obvious because, well, that is the nature of tautologies. Like this:
**While Johnny is not yet married, he remains a bachelor.**Still there?
Okay, so now let’s assume that, instead of a speech, you had analyzed a mass murderer’s manifesto. That has nothing to do with Bush. It has to do with you and your analysis. We could also say that you’re analyzing a pork bellies report. Or a restaurant menu.
And suppose the manifesto said this:
**If I kill people, they will be dead.**The mass murderer is stating the obvious because he is stating a tautology. We would then be as impressive as you if we punctuated the mass murderers assertion with a resounding TRUE!. Yes, by God! If he kills people, they will indeed die. What a wise albeit tragic man.
That the level of vitriol allowed in GD doesn’t get you to cum anymore, and you find it necessary to move on to the harder stuff?