I’m with DiosaBellissima; a Presidential speech trumps anything else on television. Considering that most programming was delayed, I really think that this rant is a bit lame.
I do expect that speech to have significance, however, rather than being offered in an attempt to bolster failing popularity. And I also agree with those that say that this is the same old shit in a different bag.
The thing that gets me is that this speech was scheduled, and presumably edited and rewritten. Bush can’t ordinarily put two coherent sentences together when speaking extemporaneously, but I expect more when he is reading from a teleprompter. Look at this paragraph:
If this were presented as an argument in Great Debates, it would be torn to shreds. What is the central point? It is six sentences in a vague search for a common theme. What sort of speech writers put this patchwork quilt together? This is throwing shit at the wall, and hoping something sticks.
My point in this thread has been not that Democrats are a bunch of losers, but that many Democrats are still unable to accept that they lost and react accordingly. When you lose the proper thing to do is accept the loss, examine why, and then adjust your strategy so that it doesn’t happen again. I see no evidence that many Democrats are even willing to accept that they lost, see Bob’s post as a perfect example. In my lifetime, the Democratic party has been a dismal failure on the presidential level, electing only one candiate with a majority. It might be nice to see this change.
You may note that I’m not the one that called somebody a pussy. I really don’t have a “side”, having voted for more demmies than pubbies for president in my long and colorful past.
It’s just that the “Bush eats shit” threads so popular with the BoBB’s[sup]TM[/sup] (Brotherhood of Bush Bashers) on this board are quite tiresome.
That would be UAT; University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Other than that, Weirddave did the heavy lifting for me.
When you state that those whiners lose and move on, you make it clear that you aren’t familiar with them.
Well said. Some of us centrists and lefties DID do sports. Tough, manly sports. I guess it’s the old “football builds character” argument.
Some of us “lefties” went for sports where it’s all on the individual (mine was tae kwon do) and the other guy fights back. I wasn’t too good, but after getting whupped up on real good (no linemen to protect me) I figured that was hardcore enough. So Hentor, why don’t we ask Mr Tough Guy over there how many bruised, cracked and broken bones he got in HIS chosen sport? Any concussions? How about just someone’s big toe right in the eyeball? Let’s ask how many matches HE stayed in after he knew the damage had been done, or is he one of those pansies who get carted of the field for every little booboo. Let’s also ask Toughie about other “sports”. How about motorcycle street racing for money and pink slips? Ever been on a bike and not just pegged the speedometer, but kept it there? One of those mid to late '70’s 4 cylinder superbikes? Gee. Make a mistake, you could die. No replacement gets sent in. Coach doesn’t send you to the showers.
But, yeah, only hard righters have any guts :rolleyes:
No you can’t. I can thoroughly debunk any “proof” you offer of that. The statistics that show the difference between exit polls and final vote counts are valid.
Unless you can debunk them, in some other way than comparing it to a piece of bullshit with which it has nothing in common.
It’s a bullshit argument to begin with. We could compare war wounds - talking about what it’s like to get your hand caught between two helmets, get hit by a cutback block by the receiver when you are a linebacker trying to fight your way past some bigass pulling guards to get to the running back, and on the other hand to have someone tell you you hit so hard it makes one’s balls hurt.
We could talk about the relative participation in sports, and particularly manly sports in red versus blue states.
It’s all nonsense of course, but what needs to be kicked in the nuts is this attempt to paint Democrats and liberals as all wimpy and soft. Fuck that.
Exactly. It was the same shit he has fed us for years. Nothing but lies that fly in the face of fact and evidence. I could absorb more knowledge watching “Street Smarts”.
It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. We already know this is not true. He insults our intelligence. We know the damning evidence was not only false, but was planted. CIA/Duelfer, Downing Street, Wilson, all of it proves this.
It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. All the above answers, plus Hans Blix and a total failure to find anything - according to the Colonel who was sent to find them. No weapons, no program, nada.
It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Because that is what the U.S. and Britain told them. But somehow, more countries didn’t buy it, starting with Germany and Framce.
But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. Well no shit. Maybe because it was all fake. But, the intel wasn’t wrong, it was just “edited” after the White House got it. All the provisos and disclaimers magically disappeared. I believe a group of Senators, even now are investigating what was real in the reports vs what they were being told. Feinstein is heading it, I believe.
As your President, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. And we now have you (Bush) on record as saying the WMD would have been irrelevant anyway - the Brit Hume interview.
Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Because of why? Give us a fucking reason that isn’t a bald faced lie.
As far as I can tell, the only place in this thread where there is an “attempt to paint Democrats and liberals as all wimpy and soft” is in your fevered imagination. John Carter made an analogy to sports as a good training ground for learning how to deal with winning and losing in life, and out of the blue you started beating your chest and screaming “Are you saying I’m weak, motherfucker? Are you? Are you?”. Jesus man, are you that insecure?
[quote=bup=No you can’t. I can thoroughly debunk any “proof” you offer of that. The statistics that show the difference between exit polls and final vote counts are valid.
Unless you can debunk them, in some other way than comparing it to a piece of bullshit with which it has nothing in common.[/quote]
Exit polls have no scientific validity. Neither does the so-called Bible code. So yes, I’d say the comparison is a fairly good one.
You stated (paraphrasing here because you don’t really merit an actual quote) that the Dems are a bunch of pussies who were too much of pussying pussies to play team sports.
As a bunch of pussarific pussies they can’t accept that they lost an election. Something that would have been prevented if they weren’t such a pusstastic bunch of pussies and had just played some team sports.
Then you point out a TEAM involved in a SPORT that can’t accept their losses.
So, apparently, being involved in a TEAM SPORT doesn’t prevent you from being a motherpussying pussy.
In your desire to take a shot at both pussy left-puss-tarrians(y) and some random TEAM SPORTS sports team you managed to contradict yourself.
Dumbass. Do you really need to mischaracterize the exchange so poorly in order to make a point? What he said was
Now, this can only be a swipe at the “weakness” of the left. Otherwise, you would have to believe that the only place to learn how to deal with adversity in life is in competitive sports. Clearly this is not true. What other reason could there be for bringing it up?
As an aside, it is of course, nonsense that competitive sports participants are paragons of positive response to adversity. Ever heard of bitter rivals? Ever heard of a coach complaining about calls? Ever heard about a coach throwing a chair, a base, a punch at a player? Ever heard of anyone charging the mound or getting ejected from a football game before the kickoff? Ever heard of a player beating another with a bat after a game, or attacking the umpire in the parking lot?
To hell they don’t. They’re used in other countries as a means to discover fraud. You probably believe they don’t, because some “expert” from the right said they don’t, but you’ve been lied to.
Before last year’s election, anybody from either side would have agreed they’re valid. But then suddenly, exit polls were off like they were for last year’s presidential election. So what does the right do? Changes the belief to fit the conclusion.
