First of all Bush isn’t a liar. He hasn’t lied about anything.
However even if he was a liar, you seriously think that listening to his speeches doesn’t make one more politically aware? Really? Clinton was clearly a liar. He lied under oath. Should we ignore him also?
If I were to stick my fingers in my ears and yell “Liar, Liar, pants on fire!” every time the POTUS spoke for the last 13 years, would that make me more or less politically aware?
This is just idiotic.
It was a political speech about the war. So basically you’re saying that you ignore everything GWB says because you believe him to be a liar. And this makes you more politically aware…how again?
You mean like we don’t torture, Saddam has WMDs, and so on ? He seldom if ever tells the truth on any subject.
Clinton lied in a situation where the truth was no one’s business ( except his wife ); not about something that killed people. Second, Clinton is out of office, stop whining about him; it’s not his fault Bush makes Clinton look like a genius. Third, I never cared what he said either; only what he did- and he outshines Bush there too.
It doesn’t; I’m saying that the speeches of a liar have nothing to offer.
To Debaser and Ashtar…
Did you bother to read my comments on the falsehoods in the speech? Each and every major talking point was not only a lie, but has been shown - proven - to be a lie by recent history. So, if some of us consider his word to be absolutely worthless, why should we give him any “benefit of the doubt”?
Note: I have not yet gone ballistic at his poorly hidden “white flag war hurting troop underminimg” phrase, which was covered by his new code word “defeatist”. However, we already heard that before, during his Veterans Day debacle. He wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped up and bit his ass.
Don’t fall for this one, it’s tu quoque bullshit and is irrelevant. Ignore it for the crap it is.
I think that the overall message here is that this speech was clearly a case of putting a spin on things that have been hashed over rather thoroughly throughout the whole week. This has been a terribly predictable pattern with this administration.
While I will be the first to admit that there are far too many posts and far too many posters that criticize Bush with very little real substance, I am taking the focus of this particular rant to be a little different. Specifically, I see in it a hunger for something new from the administration. We all have “Stay the course! 911! 911! Terrorists! Dissent helps the enemy! Wolf! Wolf!” memorized at this point.
So, in the absence of any real substance, yes I would in fact rather watch Family Guy. This doesn’t mean that I wont read up on the speech later, or listen to the commentary from both sides, it just means that I would like Bush to stop disrupting my routine until he actually has something to add to the discussion.
Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi et al are trying their best.
This is where you may fall into the Argument By Attrition crap. The demands for cites will arrive soon. What will you do, hoss?
-Joe
I just think that Der Trihs is being dumb by ignoring everything GWB says. I mean, who knows? You might get more ammo for the next “Bush is teh 3/1L!!!111” thread that comes along.
Why? Isn’t it pretty much true? Is it not the case that the party currently in the majority (i.e. the Republicans) are, as a group, more concerned with maintaining power than they are with what is going to be good for the country?
No problem. I will truthfully state that the news has been reported for the past several years by more than one outlet (to cover the “substantiation” argument), and that the cites are already all over the SDMB. All it takes is a search on key words and phrases, and the SDMB will cough them all up. I will then offer the suggestion that maybe for a change, we want cites proving that Bush is telling the truth.
Regardless of whether he’s a liar or not, surely whatever information is in the speech will be online a few minutes later to read at one’s convenience, or in the paper the next day. No reason to interrupt anything, whether it be a game or cartoon or infomercial. Unless it’s something big like a new war or whatever, of course.
And if the speech gives no new information, as is my understanding of this one, then why even waste Bush’s time having him read it, let alone ours? Doesn’t he have better things to do, like run a war?
Translation: If we lose, it’s because the Democrats stabbed us in the back.
How touching.
To be fair, though, one of the big criticisms of Bush has been that he has not really been forthcoming with information. Keep in mind that (as is evident in earlier posts) I basically agree with you but I can also see that Bush is in a terrible situation. On the one hand, he seems to be pretty much a colossal fuck-up and at the end of the day has nothing of real substance to say, on the other hand support really seems to be eroding here and he has a duty to try to shore things up and spin them as much as he can so that the Republicans don’t suffer fallout in the 06 elections or the upcoming 08 presidential campaign.
That last point, more than any, is probably why he has been willing to talk about these things at all.
I’m confused. Was the football game interrupted or not? Did all the networks delay their regularly scheduled programming for the President’s address, or just FOX? And if it was just FOX, does that show right-wing bias on their part, or left wing bias on the part of everybody else?
Second, is “winner takes all” a good way to govern a republic? Should our elected officials represent all of us, or just the people who voted for them? And whether you’re part of the 51% majority of the 49% minority, does it make sense to antagonize the other side? Won’t that make winning the next election harder?
Oh contraire, I am quite willing to accept that there is a good possibility that Reagan actually beat Mondale.
Not quite the same. The Bible Code has been pretty well debunked by showing that any piece of literature, when analyzed in a similar manner, will come up with the same kinds of predictions about JFK, etc. What hasn’t been debunked is that disinfranchisement in Ohio did indeed occur.
What is the innocent explanation for the quote below?
85% of the precincts that lost voting machines from 2000 to 2004 were in Democratic precincts. If you believe that is just chance, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I would like to sell to you.
[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
That said: he is the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. No matter what dribble he is spewing, it will ALWAYS be more important than Family Guy. He could get up and sing “I’m A Little Teapot” for two hours and it will make more of a difference in our world than Family Guy will.
QUOTE]
I would shell out for cable tv JUST to see that.
Are you sure you accept that vote count in Ohio? 
Seems to me the folks in this thread have more of a beef with the TV stations than with Bush. They can decide to not show the speech if they want. Bush, as president, should give speeches from time to time, and he’s going to interrupt **something **whenever he does. If you don’t want to watch his speeches, write to your local TV station and urge them not to carry the event. If you don’t get your way, then eat shit. Majority rules.
Think it through, John.
For a long time they didn’t bother broadcasting his speeches during primetime. This one, however, they do.
Do you think it was because of a fundamental shift in the way the world of broadcast TV works, or because they were told that they’d be broadcasting A Very Special Episode of “Days of our Dubyas”?
Either way, I’m annoyed I missed the first 5 minutes of Family Guy, but that’s mroe due to a general loathing of The Chimp than it being his (or Fox’s) fault.
-Joe, thought Stewie-In-A-Bubble should have worked in a Death Star joke