He probably is Gus, and designing some sort of punishment for me that plays to my greatest fear and horror which btw, is being forced to lie on a waterbed in a Hilton while a constant parade of large breasted women of every color and nationality force me to service them with only occasional breaks for red meat and tequila shots.
Man....I've said too much.
That diabolical genius, he wormed my worst fear out of me.
That's why I never mention the sheep.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Set, kjvtrue, McGentrix and his like DO believe that a blow job is worse than a carpet bombing, so what are you going to do?
There's no foundation for debate with these types.
AMEN!
It is lots of fun to try, though -- and some of the stuff these two guys come up with really can be enjoyed.
If you don't get a laugh out of it, something is wrong.
I know I do.
I enjoy reading the great kjvtrue/ McGentrix vs Frank debates. It really is high entertainment.
Frank, you're a rational man sailing in the Sea of Insanity when you take on those two -- don't tip the boat.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Set, kjvtrue, McGentrix and his like DO believe that a blow job is worse than a carpet bombing, so what are you going to do?
There's no foundation for debate with these types.
It's not the blow job. I am glad to know that the president can get some head while in office. It's the lies after being caught.
Bill Clinton disgraced our entire country in front of the world. "I did not have relations with that woman..."
THAT's the moral outrage with Bill Clinton. He was impeached as a result of his lie. How many other presidents have been impeached? He was disbared as a result of his lies.
I fail to see how you can not see the difference. Your right though, there's no foundation for debate with these types.
So rather than acknowledge that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, you've contended that he made a mistake:
McGentrix wrote:There is proof of mistakes being made and Intelligence being mishandled.
Hoist on your own petard, buddy. If this were simply a case of "mistakes being made and Intelligence being mishandled," then the idiot is not competent to be responsible for so many lives. And a great many lives have been lost by a rush to war which you have characterized as arising from such causes.
By the way, intelligence, as a substantive in English, is not capitalized. Seems we have the tendancy among more members of the site than simply kjvtrue.
McGentrix wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Set, kjvtrue, McGentrix and his like DO believe that a blow job is worse than a carpet bombing, so what are you going to do?
There's no foundation for debate with these types.
It's not the blow job. I am glad to know that the president can get some head while in office. It's the lies after being caught.
Bill Clinton disgraced our entire country in front of the world. "I did not have relations with that woman..."
THAT's the moral outrage with Bill Clinton. He was impeached as a result
of his lie. How many other presidents have been impeached? He was disbared as a result of his lies.
I fail to see how you can not see the difference. Your right though, there's no foundation for debate with these types.
If the United States was diminished by this incident in any way it was because the rest of the world viewed us as a laughing stock for making a 40 million dollar mountain out of a ten minute molehill.
The rest of the world has better things to worry about than a middle aged man trying to deny that he was getting his knob polished right up til the last minute, and stands frozen in amused disbelief to this day that it was made such an issue of.
Bill Clinton was elected to represent the people. Lying and denying about marital infidelity is a 100% accurate representation of 99.9% of the cheating population, including born again decent christians. (Jim Baker...Jimmy Swaggart come to mind) :wink:
I turn my head for one minute to post and suddenly I smell a petard. Damn!!!! Somebody light a match.
Faith based intelligence is an oxymoron not unlike President Bush. (but then I am very biased and most likely an anarchist as well)
Setanta wrote:So rather than acknowledge that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war, you've contended that he made a mistake:
McGentrix wrote:There is proof of mistakes being made and Intelligence being mishandled.
Hoist on your own petard, buddy. If this were simply a case of "mistakes being made and Intelligence being mishandled," then the idiot is not competent to be responsible for so many lives. And a great many lives have been lost by a rush to war which you have characterized as arising from such causes.
By the way, intelligence, as a substantive in English, is not capitalized. Seems we have the tendancy among more members of the site than simply kjvtrue.
Do you read what you write? Show me where Bush has lied. Explain to me how the "idiot is not competent to be responsible for so many lives" could have convinced Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac, Tony Blair, the US Congress, and numerous other people to believe that Iraq had WMD's?
Seems that you are confused, not that I am surprised by that, you claim that Bush is an idiot, yet will also claim that he planned a world wide conspiracy to gain control of oil in Iraq.
No No, Bush Inc. planned a world wide conspiracy....bush on his own probably can't plan dinner.
No, McG, you are the one confused: for the sake of argument only, i posited that Bush had not lied, and then i quoted you on the subject of mistakes and mishandling intelligence. Do you read what you write? Because Bush did not have world-wide support, i have not claimed he was behind any conspiracy, i've not posited that he convinced anyone of anything. He sent his boy Powell to the UN, and contending that he convinced Kofi Annan, or Jacques Chirac of anything is simply ludicrous. As for Tony Blair, he is hip deep in the same morass as Bush--had Hutton not come out with that whitewash, it seems unlikely that he would still be in office. As for the U.S. Congress, anyone who doesn't understand how the Shrub shamelessly played the 9/11 card has little business in debate on the issue. Get a clue, McG, he's picking your pocket as much as any of us, but you still leave and breathe your Bush is a great leader mantra. People as purblind as you are scarey, because they allow you to vote.
Geez, Set, speaking of pureblind...glass houses and all that.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:McGentrix wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Set, kjvtrue, McGentrix and his like DO believe that a blow job is worse than a carpet bombing, so what are you going to do?
There's no foundation for debate with these types.
It's not the blow job. I am glad to know that the president can get some head while in office. It's the lies after being caught.
Bill Clinton disgraced our entire country in front of the world. "I did not have relations with that woman..."
THAT's the moral outrage with Bill Clinton. He was impeached as a result
of his lie. How many other presidents have been impeached? He was disbared as a result of his lies.
I fail to see how you can not see the difference. Your right though, there's no foundation for debate with these types.
If the United States was diminished by this incident in any way it was because the rest of the world viewed us as a laughing stock for making a 40 million dollar mountain out of a ten minute molehill.
The rest of the world has better things to worry about than a middle aged man trying to deny that he was getting his knob polished right up til the last minute, and stands frozen in amused disbelief to this day that it was made such an issue of.
Bill Clinton was elected to represent the people. Lying and denying about marital infidelity is a 100% accurate representation of 99.9% of the cheating population, including born again decent christians. (Jim Baker...Jimmy Swaggart come to mind) :wink:
I suspect there is no way McG will ever be able to see this.
I suspect there is no way McG will ever acknowledge that "the rest of the world" laughed at us not because of what Bill Clinton did (or had done) but with the reaction of the idiots on the right.
Hey...it is still fun to try to get through!
theollady wrote:
Where WERE you, cjhsa- when the repub candidate, Bush, was "appointed"? You did not see it in the media, and hear it on this and every forum? Why do you comment as though it were something that someone just thinks[/u]?
You are part of the lunatic fringe. Gore was the one who tried to steal the election. Get your facts straight and understand the constitution before you post.
cjhsa wrote:theollady wrote:
Where WERE you, cjhsa- when the repub candidate, Bush, was "appointed"? You did not see it in the media, and hear it on this and every forum? Why do you comment as though it were something that someone just thinks[/u]?
You are part of the lunatic fringe. Gore was the one who tried to steal the election. Get your facts straight and understand the constitution before you post.
Hmmm...I must have missed this...
A quick read of the constitution will clear up the "popular vote" matter:
http://freedom.house.gov/electoral/constitution.asp
The popular vote doesn't elect the president: the Electoral College does.
Incidentally, George W. Bush received more popular votes than did his father in 1992 and Bill Clinton in both his elections. In fact, you have to go back to Ronald Reagan's landslide in 1984 to find a candidate with more popular votes. (
http://www.presidentelect.org/http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/members.pdf)
The ruling that ended the recounts in Florida was a 7-to-2 vote. Even if President Bush's two appointees had voted in favor the Florida Supreme Court, the vote would have still been 5-to-4. (
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html)
To counter the critics' claim that the US Supreme Court's decision was "bought", there is a 65-page opinion (and dissent) which enumerates the precedents that the Supreme Court used in making their ruling: (
http://wire.ap.org/APpackages/election2000/scotusruling.pdf)
McGentrix wrote:Incidentally, George W. Bush received more popular votes than did his father in 1992 and Bill Clinton in both his elections. In fact, you have to go back to Ronald Reagan's landslide in 1984 to find a candidate with more popular votes.
No you don't. You just have to go back to the 2000 presidential election to find a candidate who received more popular votes than Bush.
I'm from the middle on this, I voted for Gore even though I thought he did a miserable job of running for President (blew the debates, looked like he was dressing for his first day at Bible School, and was nearly incoherent on real issues ie:Social Security lockbox[??wha?]), but felt, no, knew, that George W. Bush would make a lousy leader, at least of a free country and that he would try the same "cut taxes but not spending" weirdness that was Reaganomics. Poor George Bush the First had to try and fix that mess by raising taxes when it became clear that the country was headed for a crash with Clinton having to up the ante again later (without any Republican votes -still in denial mode) resulting in an economic turnaround that the GOP still claims was just a lucky break, meanwhile, back at the election in question, one of my heros, Ralph Nader**, turned out to be a megalomaniac in immense proportions and drained away enough votes in enough States to let the little.... well, allow GW Bush to become the leader of the world's only superpower.
He has since lived up to my worst imaginings, cutting taxes at the highest levels seems his or his cadre's only mantra with the rest of us waiting (after spending our 600 dollars) for the rest of the trickle to trickle down upon us. His focus on the War on Terror has been myopic with him seeing Iraq, of all the dangerous places in the world, as the most dangerous, but, true to what he seemed to be in election debates - a man ignorant of world affairs and relations, he has squandered what good will there was around the world after 9/11 in pursuit of what now looks like a wild weapons of mass destruction goose chase. Meanwhile, I wish Carl Rove had told him to remain as focused on finding Osama as he did when he advised Bush on staying the course on cutting taxes.
He did get more votes than his dad, but not more votes than Al Gore.
He then proceeded to act as if he had won in a landslide. He still seems to think if he shores up his base he will be okay forgetting that his base, by any measure not made by Fox News, is still less than half of the voters.
So we will see.
Joe
** I'm still ticked at Ralph. I think this is the first time since the election that I have spoken his name.
