Shit, did I miss the "Bring 'em on" thread?

“Bring 'em on”?

Bring 'em on"?!?

What the fuck? Beyond the absurdity of apparently deriving foreign policy from cheerleader movies, in what universe does one invite people to commit attacks on one’s citizens? Isn’t this whole shitstorm in Iraq supposed to be about preventing attacks on Americans? And now Bush pops off with “bring 'em on”?!?

Does Karl Rove have pictures of every journalist and every Democrat in the country fucking sheep? If Bill Clinton had said anything remotely like this, every Republican and every newspaper in the country would be howling for his head on a plate.

Can we please send this dumb fuck back to Texas next year and have some adult time again?

It’s just Bush’s master plan to have sex with Jesse Bradford now that he legally can in his own state!

Hyperbole aside … I agree. I think the man is unhinged.

“Bring 'em on” … fist pumping … $25 million and $15 million bounties … “you’re either with us or against us” … jump suits … “I flew a plane on the way to the aircraft carrier” … etc.

I think he thinks he’s John Wayne and life is a movie.

Bleat. Bleatbleatbleat. BlEEEEEEEEt.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=195100

For the kind of Money we’re spending Bush had better hope his troops can kill a lot more terrorists.
-Meanwhile, the remains of American credibility washes up on a foreign shore.

I don’t know what a dead 15 foot octopus has to do with American credibility (maybe I’m missing an analogy), but … damn!

That’s pretty cool!

What appears to be a dead octopus is actually Saddam Hussein in a very clever disguise.

Know what’s really pathetic? Klinton-the-Anti-Christ was a centrist who dared to piss off most of the Dem hardliners. The battle cry from the Pubbies’ was, “He’s stealing our ideas!” Same w/ Reagan The Icon who specialized in bluster but was much tamer in reality. So much for responsible governance.

I’d just be pathetically grateful for any pol who could shed the cant and serious-money obligations and lead for a change.

Yeah, right.

Sigh.

Veb

NOOOOOO!!! :eek:
This is a Dallas Doper opinion, and does not represent the mindset of all Texans. No offense is intended against GWB, other than…he can’t open his mouth without making a stupid comment!! Stick to the script, George.

I wonder when the Anti-Bushies are gonna get tired of desperately trying to find something substantial to attack the man with.

Yeah, like maybe he’ll get a blow job or something. Then we’ll really nail him to the wall.

Here’s what I don’t get. Anyone with one whiff of common sense would do this after fighting a massively-questioned, not-exactly-widely-supported military campaign: convince people it was the right thing to do. You know, focus on things like “we DID remove an evil regime, we’re doing this this and this to help the citizens, and you know what, we’ll get to the bottom of this WMD thing even if we screwed up ourselves.”

NOT go out and say shiat like this. Christ, cue Travis farking Bickle.

“You talkin’ to ME?”

And can we please stop pretending people who can’t stand everyting Bush does (with or without evidence or logic) are a new breed? Like we didn’t have any of that during the Clinton administration.

Typical tu quoque debating fallacy. Pitiful.

Next time, try using it against someone that actually gave a damn about that issue, and you might not look like a slobbering nitwit.

This is The Pit. It’s okay to engage in illogical flaming here.

“Bring 'em on” will make a nice tagline for T-shirts sporting images of the president. -I suppose some folks would consider that tacky, but it’s not like he’s dancing on them or anything !

I think that the tu quoque fallacy is when someone is accused of doing something wrong and the only response is well you did something wrong too.
I’m not sure that Jack Batty was saying it was okay for Willie to get his West Wing wanker waxing because GWB says less than tactful things.

Jack was trying to reverse my accusation of the Anti-Bush side of the argument back on me, by bringing up Anti-Clinton tactics of a few years back.

The problem with his tactic is that I never espoused a belief of nailing Clinton to the wall because of an errant dicksuck.

In short, he’s grouped me in with the “Typical Republican”, generalizing my viewpoints and arguments with a group which I only partially side with. I take umbrage with that… it means he’s not listening to what I say. And if you’re not gonna listen to what another poster says, why even bother posting?

I’ve no affection for being pigeonholed myself.

Go fuck yourself Spoofe. Where’s the WMD?