1
   

Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 12:50 pm
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,480 • Replies: 94
No top replies

 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 01:23 pm
So, the only way you can obtain "proof" that Bush lied is by making it up, like Frey did, right?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 02:19 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
So, the only way you can obtain "proof" that Bush lied is by making it up, like Frey did, right?

It took 33 minutes to come up with this response. So now we can calculate the speed of dumb.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 02:22 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
So, the only way you can obtain "proof" that Bush lied is by making it up, like Frey did, right?

It took 33 minutes to come up with this response. So now we can calculate the speed of dumb.


check please. Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 02:23 pm
Cut Brandon a break, joe. Sure, he can come off as being a bit literal-minded at times, but hey, subtlety is not in everyone's repertoire...
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 02:30 pm
Wait a minute. What if it took him 30 minutes to read it and two minutes to figure out it was SATIRE.

Does that change the speed?

Joe(e pluribus unum)Nation
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 02:34 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
Wait a minute. What if it took him 30 minutes to read it and two minutes to figure out it was SATIRE.

Does that change the speed?

Joe(e pluribus unum)Nation


merely the division of the parts of the dumb that make up the whole dumb....the speed remains a constant....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 04:52 pm
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 04:55 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.


Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...

Does that make any sense, Brandon?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 04:59 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.


Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...

Does that make any sense, Brandon?

Obviously, but the fact remains that:
1. The only way the libs can ever support their oft stated idea that Bush is a liar is to make up history. They never support their assertion, and rarely even try to, that Bush lied with real events.

2. Both Frey and the post author/article author manufactured false history for some form of gain - Frey to sell a book, and the post author to make a point that they couldn't make with the bare truth.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 05:02 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.


Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...

Does that make any sense, Brandon?
Quote:
Brandon9000: Absolutely.

Oprah: Do you now wish you had added a disclaimer?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 05:03 pm
parados wrote:
D'artagnan wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.


Actually, the author created something that is known as "satire." A satire is not intended to fool the reader into thinking it really happened that way. It's intended to make a point by exaggerating a bit. What Frey did was meant to fool the reader into believing in something that never happened...

Does that make any sense, Brandon?
Quote:
Brandon9000: Absolutely.

Oprah: Do you now wish you had added a disclaimer?

Play with it all you like, the only evidence against Bush is fiction like the article which started the post.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 05:16 pm
zzzzzzzzzz....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 06:09 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
zzzzzzzzzz....

Notice how he takes my assertions and disproves them point by point! What a credit to the liberal viewpoint.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 06:18 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 06:19 pm
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 06:29 pm
Actually, Brandon, we liberals have dropped the idea that Bush lied his way into war and decided, as have the majority of all Americans, that he is a jerk who couldn't find his own ass with both hands. Looking at him the other night, for as long as I could stand it, he appeared to be the same guy who was as surprised as anyone else that he would be standing there.

Here he is, the President of the United States, and he doesn't have a clue what he should do to improve the lives of the average American so he goes on about how secure he is trying to make things while at the same time acerbating the world situation by his dim-witted, though charming, idea that democracy fixes everything. We haven't heard anything about the threat level to this country lately, not because the danger has been reduced, but because it's off the charts.

Watch him in the next few weeks, he's giving a speech, to the usual carefully controlled audiences, (god, what speaker wouldn't want that?) outlining his new energy policy (which Dick has already vetoed), his education plan (another unfunded effort that the States, this time, will refuse to pay for, and chirping that everything is going to be hunky-dory in the Middle East (If he can just figure out how to turn back time on the Iranian's Nuclear efforts and Hamas' victory in Palestine.). Don't mention North Korea. He just doesn't have enough time to do his abs work and think about that.

Joe(Okay? Not a liar. A jerk)Nation
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Feb, 2006 08:14 pm
Brandon,

Individual delusions of grandeur or the same projected onto another individual are both signs of mental/emotional problems. I urge you to seek help.

Or possibly, if you were to stop drinking the kool-aid, the problem would, in all likelihood fix itself. Smile
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 02:09 am
JTT wrote:
Brandon,

Individual delusions of grandeur or the same projected onto another individual are both signs of mental/emotional problems. I urge you to seek help.

Or possibly, if you were to stop drinking the kool-aid, the problem would, in all likelihood fix itself. Smile

Translation: I cannot attack your ideas, so I will attack you instead.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Feb, 2006 03:25 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
I logged on, read it, and responded immediately. Your idea that I read it the moment it appeared is merely stupid. However, that's all irrelevant. It's obvious that most A2K liberals operate by impeaching the source of an idea, since they can't compete with the idea itself.

The meaning of my post was:

1. The only way the libs can find Bush guilty of lying is to present things that never happened. When left with only the actual public record, they can only shriek unfounded accusations.

2. The author of the post was doing something similar to what Frey did by manufacturing false history to make a point.



The article was a satire, Brandon.

But, here's an "actual public record" from the White House:

Quote:
Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040420-2.html

Test for Brandon:

Was Bush lying to us or was he engaged in a satire of his own?

Take all the time you need to figure it out and then report back with your answer.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Oprah "Freys" President Bush: Read It Here First
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2021 at 04:42:24