Who Would Vote For bush Again?

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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.

In my example, the word "threat" is used correctly, without any implication whatever that the event in question is just about to occur.

Brandon9000 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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.

In my example, the word "threat" is used correctly, without any implication whatever that the event in question is just about to occur.

wrong. read the definitions again brando..

and if the event "is not about to occur", then there is (and was not) a "unique urgency".

There was absolutely a connection between Hussein and 9/11, whether Bush & Co. tried to sell it or not.

To think otherwise is to put your naiveity on display for all.

Cheney attempting to link Hussein with Al Qaeda and consequently 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Either provide a quotation (with link) of a high ranking administration source stating that Iraq participated in 9/11, or have the decency to stop claiming it. You're in the absurd position of making an accusation that someone said something without a shred of evidence that it's so. Why other people believe something is a subject for interesting speculation, but certainly not proof that someone in the administration said it. Just give us the quote or go away.

Anybody watching Jon Stewart on The Daily Show? He's just having a field day with the administration's antics and most of the time he can do it with an expression. They manage to open their mouths almost on a daily basis and make fools out of themselves. It's The Greatest Show on Earth and some of us, thank gawd a minority, are the suckers.

Bill Maher ditto. Can't wait for Friday's show after Bush's press conferance today that he stuttered through with the same broken record speechifying. He really answered no questions, he just diverted them.

Even with the obvious evidence that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time, diehard Bush supporters will continue to play word games until their favorite messiah is hung up to dry.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

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.

In my example, the word "threat" is used correctly, without any implication whatever that the event in question is just about to occur.

wrong. read the definitions again brando..

and if the event "is not about to occur", then there is (and was not) a "unique urgency".

I'm not discussing "unique urgency" right now, only "threat." I find that the arguments are clearer if I discuss one thing at a time. Do you believe that my sentence, "He had made some nasty threats about what was going to happen when his jail sentence ended," which clearly allows the possibility of a long sentence, is an incorrect use of the word threat?

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

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Now, what the purpose of that was, what transpired between them, we simply don't know at this point. But that's clearly an avenue that we want to pursue.

No fewer than five high-ranking Czech officials have publicly confirmed that Mohammed Atta, the lead September 11 hijacker, met with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, an Iraqi intelligence officer working at the Iraqi embassy, in Prague five months before the hijacking. Media leaks here and in the Czech Republic have called into question whether Atta was in Prague on the key dates--between April 4 and April 11, 2001. And several high-ranking administration officials are "agnostic" as to whether the meeting took place. Still, the public position of the Czech government to this day is that it did.

Lightwizard wrote:

Cheney attempting to link Hussein with Al Qaeda and consequently 9/11.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Surely it is obvious that Hussein might have had links to Al Qaeda without being a participant in each and every Al Qaeda mission. Why do I even need to point out something so elementary? If I say that someone has links to organized crime, am I thereby accusing him of having participated in every single mob crime?