Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Magginkat wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
So, in your mind it's okay to preemptively attack another sovereign nation on "probability?" With people like you, it's no wonder this country is in this quagmire.

That is a different debate. You have claimed that Bush lied, I have asked for one single example, and so far you haven't provided one. I will be happy to debate other matters once we are finished debating whether Bush lied.

Bush was caught in a whopper today when he said that he had never connected Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Just about every talking head on CNN & MSNBC have pointed out this lie. Not only did he do it a number of times but the one that stands out is when he used it in his state of the union speech.

Bush can't open that ugly pie hole without lying.

Let's see if you or right or I am. Please post one single quotation by Bush in which he states that Hussein was a participant in 9/11.

Brandon, are you becoming senile? Or do you just deliberately try to put words in the mouth of anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with you?

Just in case you can't read:

I said that the talking heads quoted him as saying that bu$h connected Saddam Hussien and 9-11.

You turn that around to demand that I produce proof that bu$h said Hussien was a participant in 9-11.

There's a world of difference in what I wrote and what you tried to turn it into. What next? Will you be saying that Saddam piloted a plane that was intended to take out DC but he got away at the last minute?

Frankly, I'm surprised that bu$h hasn't used that one.

I don't know who is more delusional.... bu$h or his faithful sidekicks.

0 Replies

I think we know who the senile one is mags. You say something as outlandish as "Not only did he do it a number of times but the one that stands out is when he used it in his state of the union speech." and then start the whiningw hen called to produce proof... if you don't wish to be called on your outlandish statements, prolly best to stop making them.

0 Replies

McG.... I didn't see any sense in repeating what Cicerone & others have posted. I am sorry that you don't have the ability to absorb anything until your have it read to you ten thousand times by Faux Spews but that is your problem not mine.

As usual with a repug when you attempt to describe a liberal (me), you always....ALWAYS describe yourself.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Magginkat wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'll answer your question snoodly.

It doesn't matter what W said.

We were 12 years too late getting it done. 12 years that gave Saddam plenty of time to hide or move his WMD's and stockpile traditional weapons that are now killing our troops.

On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous."

And bu$h ain't the only one!

Arguments based on testimonials are invalid. Everyone knows that. Frankly, you argue like a child. Don't you ever just address your opponents' points with a little dignity?

You accuse me of arguing like a child in the same breath that you make your own inane declaration "Everyone knows that", which is nothing short of a testimonial of your own and it's also a lie. Everyone never knows everything and everyone most certainly doesn't know about your quack statements.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

snood wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

I'm having a problem with my memory. Would you mind pointing me, please, to the quotation in which Bush asserts that Iraq played a role in 9/11?

Most of us humans, being as high as we are in the evolutionary pecking order, have rudimentary intuitive powers. Do I understand you as saying that you believe George Bush and his seconds in no way tried to make a case that Hussein and 9/11 were connected? Aside from semantics, just tell me you really believe that no attempt was made to make that connection.

I can only go on what he said, and he never said that Iraq played a role in 9/11. If you disagree, just cite your source.

Suppose I said "Brandon was seen in the company of the robbers before the robbery, trained them to rob banks and has given bank robbers safe haven and funded their robberies". In your opinion, as long as I don't say "Brandon is an accomplice of the bank robbers", then I am not giving the impression that you are an accompliece?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
snood wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
On Thursday in Cincinnati, Ohio, Cheney described Saddam as a "man who provided safe harbor and sanctuary to terrorists for years" and who "provided safe harbor and sanctuary as well for al Qaeda."

I'm having a problem with my memory. Would you mind pointing me, please, to the quotation in which Bush asserts that Iraq played a role in 9/11?

Most of us humans, being as high as we are in the evolutionary pecking order, have rudimentary intuitive powers. Do I understand you as saying that you believe George Bush and his seconds in no way tried to make a case that Hussein and 9/11 were connected? Aside from semantics, just tell me you really believe that no attempt was made to make that connection.

I can only go on what he said, and he never said that Iraq played a role in 9/11. If you disagree, just cite your source.

Suppose I said "Brandon was seen in the company of the robbers before the robbery, trained them to rob banks and has given bank robbers safe haven and funded their robberies". In your opinion, as long as I don't say "Brandon is an accomplice of the bank robbers", then I am not giving the impression that you are an accompliece?

The problem is this Snood.
What you say is so far over their heads that they will never understand. Actually, come to think of it, even bu$h speaks over their heads!

Now that's really sad but that's how he keeps them humping for his "official" version of the story.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

McG.... I didn't see any sense in repeating what Cicerone & others have posted. I am sorry that you don't have the ability to absorb anything until your have it read to you ten thousand times by Faux Spews but that is your problem not mine.

As usual with a repug when you attempt to describe a liberal (me), you always....ALWAYS describe yourself.

The biggest problem with this response of yours is that neither c.i. nor others on your behalf have been able to provide any evidence to support your statement that McG repeated above ("Not only did he do it a number of times but the one that stands out is when he used it in his state of the union speech."). I asked you specifically to support your claim that Bush claimed a direct connection between Saddam and 9/11 in his SOU speech, since that is what he disclaimed yesterday in his speech in Ohio, and what you characterized as his being "caught in a whopper." Now you seem to be blaming what you said on "talking heads," distancing yourself from the errors in your post.

If you are counting on Cicerone Imposter to come to your defense, you really are in trouble. The quote c.i. provided says, "Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president," which is wholly consistent with what Bush said in Ohio. C.i. certainly didn't enlighten us with how Bush made a direct connection between Saddam and 9/11 in his state of the union speech," which is what you said yesterday.

We just caught you libbies earlier in this thread lying about Bush calling the Iraq threat "imminent" in his SOU speech, and you can't make it through the day without spewing another misrepresentation about Bush. Pathetic. Like McG said, if you don't want to be called on your ridiculous statements, you probably should stop making them.

0 Replies

Here's your problem Tico.........

Created on the principle that "you are with us or against us," Bush's administration is all of one mind. They are all neocons. There are no real conservatives or traditional Republicans in the Bush administration. This is the first administration in my lifetime in which there is no debate. The absence of debate means there is no check on reckless and ill-advised policies and corrupt schemes.

Neocons don't believe in debate. They specialize in slandering critics and stamping out debate. Dissent is not possible within the Bush administration, because dissent is equated with treason and anti-Americanism. "You are with us or against us." Increasingly, Republicans demonize their critics as "abettors of terrorism." The Republicans' intolerance for debate makes many Americans uneasy about the real purpose of the $385 million detention camp that Halliburton is building in the U.S. for the Bush administration.

Neocons rely on disinformation and deceit to impose their agenda.
Neocons do not believe in the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, the separation of powers, or the Geneva Conventions. According to published reports, President Bush described the Constitution as "a scrap of paper." Bush's attorney general, vice president, and secretary of defense have openly defended the Bush administration's practice of torture, violations of habeas corpus, and illegal spying. These high officials, in violation of their oath of office, have openly declared that Bush, as commander in chief, is above the law.
What American ever expected to see the safeguards against tyranny put in place by the Founding Fathers removed in the name of providing security against terrorists by a president who purports to believe in original intent?
Neocons are Jacobins. They are a foreign import and do not share our American values. Neocons are a grave danger to the United States and to the world. Neocons have led America into two gratuitous ongoing wars that cannot be won, and they are determined to lead us into more wars. It is our duty to defend our country and to oppose these evil people.
On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous." But what else to expect from a neocon administration that declares that it creates its own reality and mocks its critics for being "reality-based"? Neocons insanely believe that American power can be used to recreate the world in America's image. Neocons are dangerous because they really believe that the U.S. can invade the Middle East, deracinate Islam, and install puppet governments.
These disconnected neocons are not shaken by facts or by results. Their evil eye falls on U.S. field commanders and CIA analysts who declare that the U.S. military is creating insurgents faster than it can kill them.
..................................

Paul Craig Roberts is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former contributing editor for National Review, and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Here's your problem Tico..........

For a second I thought you were going to address the point I raised. But, alas, you only regurgitated more propaganda you found out on the Net. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Magginkat wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
cjhsa wrote:
I'll answer your question snoodly.

It doesn't matter what W said.

We were 12 years too late getting it done. 12 years that gave Saddam plenty of time to hide or move his WMD's and stockpile traditional weapons that are now killing our troops.

On March 17, William Rivers Pitt declared Bush to be "deranged, disconnected, and dangerous."

And bu$h ain't the only one!

Arguments based on testimonials are invalid. Everyone knows that. Frankly, you argue like a child. Don't you ever just address your opponents' points with a little dignity?

You accuse me of arguing like a child in the same breath that you make your own inane declaration "Everyone knows that", which is nothing short of a testimonial of your own and it's also a lie. Everyone never knows everything

No, "everyone knows that" is not a testimonial of my own, nor is it a lie, it's hyperbole. A testimonial is using the stated opinions of others to lend credibility to one's own position. It's trivially obvious that I meant that most knowledgeable people know it.

Magginkat wrote:

...and everyone most certainly doesn't know about your quack statements.[/b]

Do you mean my "quack" statement that arguments based on testimonials are invalid? Since you are calling my statement invalid, then presumably you do think that it is valid to support an assertion by listing or quoting "smart people" who support it. Is that your opinion?

0 Replies

well my question has been answered anyway... and I got an I'd vote for him again from the razor thin line of die hards I expected. That slim positive response for bushco should tell you something.... but it doesnt tell his core group a damn thing.

0 Replies

Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.

0 Replies

C'mon, Brandon.
Look at this statement:
"Brandon was seen in the company of the robbers before the robbery, trained them to rob banks and has given the bank robbers safe haven and funded their robberies".

And then tell me,
Is it equivalent to this statement:
"Brandon is an accomplice of the bank robbers", or not?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.

quite the opposite spin boy....

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Indeed. It should tell you that A2K has a small group of conservative posters compared to the overwhelming majority of nattering nabobs.

quite the opposite spin boy....

Huh?

0 Replies

i meant there's a small minority of nattering nabob consevatives..... not very well put I realize....

0 Replies

actually there are more so-called liberals on a2k than conservatives. The conservative wingnuts, however, are 97% of the conservatives while so-called liberal wingnuts equal only 61% of the total number of liberals. I make up all my presented stats.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

actually there are more so-called liberals on a2k than conservatives. The conservative wingnuts, however, are 97% of the conservatives while so-called liberal wingnuts equal only 61% of the total number of liberals. I make up all my presented stats.

they should be perfectly acceptable to the rightwingnuts since they're accustomed to and seem to prefer made up stats.....

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
actually there are more so-called liberals on a2k than conservatives. The conservative wingnuts, however, are 97% of the conservatives while so-called liberal wingnuts equal only 61% of the total number of liberals. I make up all my presented stats.

they should be perfectly acceptable to the rightwingnuts since they're accustomed to and seem to prefer made up stats.....

Yes ... conservatives have grown accustomed to liberals making stuff up.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Quote:
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
- President Bush, 10/2/02

threat
A noun
1 threat
declaration of an intention or a determination to inflict harm on another; "his threat to kill me was quite explicit"

2 threat
a warning that something unpleasant is imminent; "they were under threat of arrest"

On the contrary, something can be a threat in the making. The word does not contain the idea of imminence. "He had made some nasty threats about what was going to happen when his jail sentence ended."

so now the dictionary is wrong ??

jeez louise, brandon, even your example uses the concept of imminence.

what do think "in the making" says ? it says "it will be here".

that is imminence.

the eventual, but certain, ending of a jail sentence is an imminent release.

dude, you're just playing the word game,

whether a person says "the house is burning to the ground" or "the house is on fire", the meaning is still the same.

0 Replies

Who Would Vote For bush Again?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know