There was solid proof of Clinton’s cheating. But the funny thing is that there is no proof of Bush’s ever having lied to to the American people. And yet the libs run around squawking “Bush lied” like a bunch of parrots on crank.
You want to zing him for screwups, I’ll join you. He sure as hell needs to lead the charge on securing the borders, scrapping the income tax and privatizing Social Security. Apart from a few gestures at SS, he’s been sadly lacking in all of that. I used to rate him at a B to B minus, but until he pulls his thumb out of his ass on those topics, he’s dropped down to a C, pushing a C minus, in my book.
But the bad reputation he has comes from the libs bitching because he had the audacity to win the 2000 elections. It started then and hasn’t stopped.
Yeah, I think you’d have to actually see the president making those statements to make the call. Still, the bragging vs non-bragging is open to interpretation. I find the president’s use of “THE” war president a little disturbing, but that could just be Bush being Bush.
Great Og Almighty. Some people didn’t just drink the Kool-Aid, they mainlined it.
Oddly enough, I though it was because of his war, his failure to fight terrorism, and his disastrous handling of the economy, for starters. Thanks for clarifying the *real * reason. :wally
Nope, but I said it so clumsily I wouldn’t blame you a bit for taking offense. Sorry: I do not think there’s anything inherently wrong with Texas or Texans.
Yes, the same statment can be interpretted differenly depending on the intonation. But someone making an assertion is the one with the burden of proof, and making that assertion without clear, incontrovertable evidence is silly. Especially in a thread that is as much of a trainwreck as this one is. Kinda like a person who keeps digging even those he’s already deep in a hole…
I got distracted. To address your question, in his interview with Tim Russert, Busy repeatedly refered to himself as the war president. Once is informative. Twice is redundant. On and on is bragging.
Incidentally, I’m not obligated to respond to your questions; therefore, the assumption you made is a logical fallacy.
No, it’s boring. There’s a difference, but it wouldn’t surprise me if you didn’t know that.
You are obliged to back up your assertions with cites, and since most of my questions were nothing more than a request for cites, I think we can safely assume that you were talking out of your ass; trying to fling more shit against the wall since the batch you flung in the OP didn’t stick.
I know boring. You, for example, are boring. A man with the ability to annihilate the known world, and who brays endlessly that he’s the War President, is a braggart, a blowhard, and sick fucking puppy.
This ain’t Great Debates, Kimosabe. Your assumptions are to reason and common sense as a dice roller is to a game of craps.
You mean to tell us that you inflct those repetitive hijacks on us on knowingly? :eek:
Of course it’s not GD. That’s why people come here to talk out of their asses. But whether you tell a lie here or tell one in GD, it’s still a lie, Tanto.
No, the problem was all the ballots that hadn’t been counted in the first place. Finishing the job =/= doing it over.
Lib, yes, you routinely hijack threads, this is just the latest example, and it takes neutron-star density on your part not to see that the problem just might be you.
Well, yes, but those ballots had been excluded in the original count because they didn’t (or may not have) met the neccesary standards for valid ballots. The problem was determining which ballots weren’t counted were actually valid ballots that should have been counted. So what was stopped was a manual recount of all the ballots, including those marginal, possibly valid ballots.
