PDA

View Full Version : Bush Lied



joen00b
5th August 04, 11:30 AM
In an effort to stay partisan with Bukow's thread:

Bush lied (http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project)!!

Honesty, this election is the worst slander campaign from the Conservatives I have seen in ages. Keep on foaming at the mouth, you republicans, you're going to lose and the man you hate the most, John Kerry, will be our president.

Ya'll are going to be hating life.

Just remember, the biggest difference between Demos and Repubs is what they hold most dear in life.

Demos like geting blowjobs while at work, and Repubs like to start wars for no reason except to one up their daddy's.

Bukow
5th August 04, 11:47 AM
In an effort to stay partisan with Bukow's thread:

Bush lied (http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/project.jsp?project=911_project)!!


It wasn't my thread.

deadcat
5th August 04, 12:00 PM
Cut your hair hippie.

joen00b
5th August 04, 12:36 PM
My mistake, Bukow, it's still an effort to be partisan:)

And I ain't never cutting my hair, and I'm nt a hippy! I bathe regularly, I don't do drugs and I don't listen to the Grateful Dead.

HA!

joen00b
5th August 04, 01:34 PM
A vote for GW in 2004 is a vote for Hillary Clinton on 2008!!

Thespis
5th August 04, 02:18 PM
It is a tad early to declare winners. I'm not a Democrat or Republican. They're both prone to screw ups. News flash, they're human. It is basically a choice of which you identify with the most. Despite technicalities of our politics not being a 2 party system, for all intents and purposes, it basically is. There may be candidates we'd support more, but for whatever reason they are not realistically going to win. So we then have to choose who we want the most that we think actually has a shot at winning. Part of me would love to get in politics to "see if I could do any better" (doubtful) and part of me couldn't be paid enough to "deal with the headache". However, I'll still keep exercising my right to vote. If I don't participate at all, I have less legitimate cause to complain about the outcome.

Merauk
5th August 04, 04:26 PM
Bush is actually very truthful and made a bold admission about his Administrations strategy when signing a new $418B defense appropriation.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." the president said. (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=157558FB-2562-47C6-A2C2E4C8A59C29D9)

Mesmer
5th August 04, 04:41 PM
Bush is actually very truthful and made a bold admission about his Administrations strategy when signing a new $418B defense appropriation.

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." the president said. (http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=157558FB-2562-47C6-A2C2E4C8A59C29D9)

I have been advocating for the use of GWB's own words against him in campaign commercials for quite some time. Like the words in my quote.

Bukow
5th August 04, 06:09 PM
I have been advocating for the use of GWB's own words against him in campaign commercials for quite some time. Like the words in my quote.

I always find that a rather curious pair of quotes. Are you implying that priorities cannot change? Or that there aren't immediate priorities that arise and take precedence over old ones? It seems like you are saying "Gotcha!" when there's no "gotcha" there at all.

Kiko
5th August 04, 06:34 PM
A vote for GW in 2004 is a vote for Hillary Clinton on 2008!!

No matter WHO wins, Hillary will be there in 2008 to tell us how they screwed up and why SHE should be allowed to FIX it and our healthcare along with whatever ELSE she thinks should be socialized.

Rudy, take CARE of yourself so you can come save us then!!

eFFIX
5th August 04, 07:55 PM
I'll vote for Hilary just to see Bill become "First Husband" and get BJ's in the white house again ;)

Merauk
5th August 04, 08:54 PM
Are you implying that priorities cannot change?

Are you implying that you don't feel that capturing the individual responsible for the most devastating attack on US soil since the war of 1812 shouldn't be the # 1 priority of this government?

Yiktin Voxbane
5th August 04, 10:19 PM
Rudy > *

Bukow
5th August 04, 11:21 PM
Are you implying that you don't feel that capturing the individual responsible for the most devastating attack on US soil since the war of 1812 shouldn't be the # 1 priority of this government?

No, I don't, when weighed against 1) preventing future attacks, and/or 2) more immediate threats to national security. If I see a bomb coming into New York City on a boat, and Osama sailing out on another, which one do I intercept?

The fact is, priorities are entirely context-dependent. You're the guy talking about the oversimplified, black and white view of things -- and then you go ahead and drop the temporal context and chose to look at this as a contradiction instead of a reordering of priorities.

These quotes are akin to a 7 year old saying, in 2003, "I'm seven years old;" then, in 2004, the same kid says, "I'm 8 years old." If Bush did that, Mesmer might decide the two statements are worthy of a signature line.

Merauk
6th August 04, 07:59 AM
No, I don't, when weighed against 1) preventing future attacks, and/or 2) more immediate threats to national security. If I see a bomb coming into New York City on a boat, and Osama sailing out on another, which one do I intercept?

If preventing future attacks was the #1 priority of this Administration we would be beefing up homeland security instead of flushing billions of dollars down the toilet in Iraq. We have two of the most porous borders in the world largely unguarded (evidenced by the thousands that walk across them everyday). Our Coast Guard responsible for patrolling our coastlines consists of less people then the NYC Police department using decades old equipment. If you follow the money trail it isn’t going to any of the places that security experts on either the right or the left think it should be going.

I really am not clear on what the Administrations #1 priority is but I think if you polled Americans most of them would put finding Osama and sticking his genitalia in a sack filled with wild beavers very high on the list. Bush’s comments don’t even place him in the top ten (when taken in context of his original statement or out of it as Mesmer has). If I really wanted to be obtuse I could just take his original comment that Osama is our #1 priority and ask if you think we should have put capturing him as our #1 priority on 13SEP instead of ensuring there were no further attacks on the US. Using your statement above obviously it shouldn’t have been. Either way you and this Administration lose.

Mesmer
6th August 04, 06:42 PM
I always find that a rather curious pair of quotes. Are you implying that priorities cannot change? Or that there aren't immediate priorities that arise and take precedence over old ones? It seems like you are saying "Gotcha!" when there's no "gotcha" there at all.

Its not "Gotcha!" so much as, "What the fuck is wrong with you, Mr. President?"

It is slightly amusing that when John Kerry reorganizes his priorities, he is labeled a flip flopper. Yet when Mr. Bush decides that Osama is no longer a major priority less than 1 year after the most devastating attack on US soil in the modern era, he is merely attending to more immediate priorities - like invading Iraq.

And yes I did take those quotes out of context, but don't fret. I don't mind. It would be much too cumbersome to include the entire content of his speeches in my sig. And after all, he did say these things.

Similar to when John Kerry said "I voted for it before I voted against it."