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

The BBQ Pit
21

I think I’ll speak for myself if that’s okay with you, dick-cheese.

I wasn’t trying to “reverse you accuation,” mostly because I’m not even sure what that means. What I was doing was comparing Anti-Bush tactics to the Anti-Clinton tactics of a few years past.

I thought it was a pretty apparent little slice of humor that made a point, but I guess some people need things spelled out for them. And whether or not you supported the Clinton bashing isn’t the point either, so try to keep up. I didn’t group you in with shit (though at this point, I might). I was using your quote as a point of departure for the comparison I made.

On a daily basis, we would have to suffer through endless threads going on about amoral this, and lying that, and not fit to be president, blah blah blah. And I thought it was all pathetic. Much, I might add, as I thought things like attacking Bush by the actions of his teenage daughters was pathetic.

This is not a little thing. This is our president acting like John Fucking Wayne putting our men in harms way just to make his little prick feel bigger, and I don’t like that. It’s a little more of an important and indepth issue than lying about an intern slobbering your nitwit, as it were.

Ding, ding, ding … we have a winner. It’s the new Godwin criteria. Take all the umbrage you like and jam it up your tu quoque.

22

“Take all the umbrage you like and jam it up your tu quoque.”

Damn. THAT’S funny. Put that on a tee shirt with Dubya’s face on it!

23

What, you mean something like blatantly lying about why we needed to invade another country?

I’ve gone through this in at least a half-dozen threads, but a quick summary for those that missed it:

On March 17, Bush made it perfectly clear that America was endangered by the possibility that Saddam’s WMDs might fall into the hands of terrorists.

On March 19, America invaded Iraq, under a war plan where securing WMD sites along the way was purely optional and, on the whole, not bothered with.

That’s substantial. Now go back to playing with toothpaste.

24

Hmmm…let’s see.

How about the invasion of a sovereign country based on lies and deceit? How quickly some forget.

25

There are plenty of substantial things upon which to attack the man. There are any number of threads here attacking him for those substantial things. This doesn’t happen to be one of them. This thread is about his cowboy bullshit and his inviting attacks on the American troops he sent into harm’s way. If that’s not substantial enough for you, well, are you getting a sense of how broken up I am about it?

What’s next, is Bush going to announce his intention to open up a can of whup-ass?

26
27

A good blow job necessitates a good deal of slobbering. :stuck_out_tongue:

28

Right back atcha, dipshit. Cite where I said that there were WMD’s in Iraq. If you can do this, I’ll give you all the WMD’s you want.

Jack…

Translation: “Watch me completely miss SPOOFE’s point and try to weasel out of being caught in a mistake.”

Reversing, comparing, same thing. The fact remains that you responded to my post… implying that you were addressing YOUR words to ME. And I never took part in the Anti-Clinton tactics that you expressed. In other words, YOU fucked up. An apology would be appreciated.

Oh, I’m sorry, I forgot I was telepathic. Terribly sorry. It won’t happen again.

Note to Jack: The “I was joking” defense doesn’t exactly hold much water.

Oh yeah. This was SO clear in your oh-so-explanatory post. How DARE I not pick up on something that wasn’t written? Bad, bad SPOOFE! You’re supposed to automatically know PRECISELY what someone means, even when they don’t write it out!

I see nothing about this in the OP. What magical glasses are you wearing that enable you to see text that isn’t there? Did you pick them up at Lens Crafters?

Ah, I see. You were not seeking rational discourse… rather, you were seeking solely to provoke reaction. Says much about your character, don’t it, Jack?

29

Well, you asked for something substantial, then bitch that suddenly you are being called a liar when it is pointed out Bush’s Big Blunder. I’m sure your just pissed that average joe can find out Bush’s lie (which KILLED PEOPLE) for free instead of spending $25 million to investigate Clinton’s lie which turned out to be getting a blow job (which killed no one except millions of sperm)

30

Yo, Osama! Go to hell!
I swear I’m not an infidel!

No, the rhtymn is off. It’ll just leave you with the image of Bush and Co. in cheerleader outfits making a human pyramid.

31

Let’s just hope Bush remembers his spanky pants.

32

Otto, :shudder:.

That last sentence should read “I’ll just.” :Grumble, grumble:

33

SPOOFE:

FWIW, it was perfectly clear to me. Taking shots at the Clinton-blowjob crusade is a very standard response to all sorts of pro-Bush/anti-Clinton remarks around here. I think you over-reacted (and then Jack did the same).

:shrug:

34

Face up to it spoofe. You barrelled into this thread and dismissed it as nothing but partisan Bush bashing, and complained that Bush’s opponents don’t have anything worthwhile to criticize him about.

I raisede one VERY valid criticism of him, in addition to the Gung-Ho cowboy attitude he and his administration is currently espousing which was fucking clear to everyone in the OP, except obviously you.

do you think Bush’s attitude is correct? would his speechwriters not think of employing a bit of tact? Are they taking the American public for fools, thinking that throwaways from a Delta Force movie sound in anyway good as part of a political address?

35

Unfortunately, yes. Sad to say that there is a very large chunk of America who is all for this kind of bullshit and really do think of Bush as the next John Wayne.

Scary.

36

SPOOFE, what exactly is your fucking problem?

You make a crack – I make a crack – next thing I know you’re up to your ass in umbrage.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

Lets see if we can reconstruct the actions so far.

Thread critical of the president doing something that many people think is harmful to our country and our soldiers.

One poster (you) says “it’s nothing, stop whining.”

Another poster (me) juxtaposes that statement with a reference to the major scandal of the previous administration (one which was met with “it’s nothing, stop whining” on an hourly basis) – i.e. blow jobs.

You accuse me of accusing you of being a republican or some shit.

I call you “dickcheese”

You demand an apology.

I don’t. Eat me.

**

Who missed who’s point. I wasn’t addressing you – I was addressing anybody who felt like reading this thread. I never accused you of shit, and if you think I implied anything, that’s your fucking problem to get over, not mine.

37

Y’all have to realize…all the Bushistas have their tail feathers up in a tiff. Their fearless misleader is digging a hole he will never get out of.

It scares them.

38

Hey, it scares me, too, since we’re all stuck in this hole with him, whether we want to or not.

Give me a chance to opt-out of Bush’s hole-digging escapades, and I’ll gladly sell him all the shovels he wants.

39

Shovels aren’t much use in quicksand. Not that it matters.

40

I might—just might—have calmed down now to the point where I can post to this thread. But if this post stops abruptly, it means that I was wrong, and my head has exploded.

Background: I was born in 1947, which made me and my contemporaries prime fodder for VietNam. By a quirk of fate, I lost most of the vision in my right eye to disease when I was 8, and was therefore undraftable; but any number of my high school classmates served (some voluntarily, some otherwise). One of them was my best friend—far closer to me than my blood kin.

Okay, I’m sure you can finish the story. He didn’t come back alive. Unfortunately, that wasn’t unheard-of at the time.

But after more than thirty years, I can still see the grief on his parents’ faces at the funeral. And the realization, which was becoming widespread about then, that our involvement in VietNam was based on less-than-honest information (imminent danger to US interests, need to keep the area stable and out of enemy control—sound familiar?) made it far, far worse.

And now this—this—this pipsqueak, who hid from VietNam in a cushy assignment*, and who has put a significant number of this country’s “best and brightest” (and I mean that) in harm’s way on “evidence” that seems to make the VietNam evidence look conclusive, has the unmitigated gall to stand there and shout “Bring 'em on!” as if it were a fucking footbal game.

Only if you and your cronies are in the front lines, George. Only then.

Closing note: In The Brass Ring, Bill Mauldin described a speech given by General Lucien Truscott (who Mauldin characterized as being able to eat “a ham like Patton” for lunch) at an American cemetery in Italy shortly after VE day. When it was his turn to speak, Truscott turned away from the assembled dignitaries and addressed his remarks to the men buried there. He apologized to them for the fact that they had died, even though their deaths had seemed necessary at the time. And he promised that if he ever came across some rear-echelon type, military or civilian, spouting off about the “glory” of dying for one’s country, he would set them straight. It was, he said, the least that he could do.

Compare that with the rhetoric coming from the current Administration. And guess which I find more honorable.
*Yes, I know that GWB “served” in the Texas Air National Guard. Whether that was set up as a refuge for the sons of the rich and well-connected will probably never be resolved, but it certainly seems that it frequently served that function. In any case, this is the Pit, and IMHO, he hid. 'Kay?