President Bush: Is He a Liar?

This reminds me of Watergate, when the vast majority of the rightists backed Nixon almost to the bitter end. This was despite a ton of evidence of Nixon crookedness, the likes of which was never seen before.

0 Replies

Even West Point graduates are speaking out against Bush:

"We are West Point graduates, trained to honor the truth, and abjure falsehood," he said. "And we are opposed to the Bush administration's policies in Iraq. These policies, founded on falsehood, have the power to do much more damage to the world, and to the reputation of the United States. Falsehood and misstatement have been the raison d'etre of the Bush administration. The American people who bankrolled our education at West Point deserve to know how we feel. And West Point officers in the field deserve to have a voice beyond just the West Point alumni magazine or the quasi-official alumni chat-groups. So we provide try to provide such a voice."

0 Replies

This has got to be the funniest thread running right now.... Rolling Eyes

Brandon, you have yet to address the "16 words" controversy; your silence on this speaks volumes.

Typically, however, you ignore anything which you cannot address, and choose instead to focus myopically on language interpretation....

0 Replies

Yeah, it is kind of funny Laughing

0 Replies

BTW, here's the link for the above post:

http://www.rawstory.com/admin/dbscripts/printstory.php?story=2161

0 Replies

West Point Graduates? Who are they compared to William Jefferson Clinton who said:"As long as Saddam remains in power, he will threaten the security of the world"

__________________________________________________________

You see, Brandon, they are thoroughly frightened by Clinton's speech and cannot deal with it. They have lost the argument.

___________________________________________________________

I looked on the web and could find no comments from West Point Graduates of the type mentioned by Mr. Imposter>

The reason I was looking for it was that I wanted to find out some critical information which Mr. Imposter does not give.

Which West Point Graduates? When did they graduate? How many of them are there that subscribed exactly to that quote? What are their names?

____________________________________________________________

Please, Mr. Imposter, may I respectfully suggest that you give all pertinent information? When you do not do so, it would almost appear( which I do not for a moment suggest) that you are holding important information back for some reason.

0 Replies

This is like watching Tyson fight a cheerleader.

0 Replies

From the same article:

"We will protect our Constitutional right to speak out as what we are, proud graduates of West Point, and we will defend that right to the end, as should the authorities at West Point," said Ryan. "The name 'West Point' is our indelible, moral birthright, as it is for all members of the Long Gray Line. The authorities at the academy should reread General MacArthur's 1962 speech if there is any difficulty understanding what I just said. No one, and no institution, can deny us what we have earned and what we cherish. And we care not a whit for pizza games."

BD et al continues to play pizza games as if what they say has any meaning.
They continue to talk about Clinton as if he has anything to do with the actions of Bushco.

0 Replies

Thank You, Mr.Imposter. I posted before you gave the link.

I will help you out:

0 Replies

Bernard, You're a loser of the worst sort; asking inane questions. The real point of that article is that West Point graduates are speaking out against Bush. If you're interested in the detail of who or when, go chase that info all by yourself. Your query belongs in the funny books.

0 Replies

I posted the source you gave, Mr. Imposter. Why didn't you post it? Because it was not as positive a view as you would wish?

Again, you appear to be hiding, Mr. Imposter, You have not responded to the views made by President Clinton in 1998 which have been posted several times>

What are you afraid of? Tell us whether Clinton was wrong or lying.

If you don't, his quotes stand and your argument is lost.

Note, that I respond to your queries but you do not respond to mine.

I fear it is because you cannot handle the Clinton quotes.

0 Replies

Montana wrote:

0 Replies

Mr. Drew Dad-- You may be correct about this thread being "funny."

I think it is "funny" too, but I am afraid that my view of its risibility does not match yours.

I think it is funny because, despite all of the claims made, no one has yet addressed the Clinton quotes of 1998 with regard to Iraq's possession of WMD's or with regard to Clinton's view that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the entire world.

My questions are straighforward:

Was Clinton correct?

Was Clinton lying?

Was Clinton mistaken?

Those questions are easily answered, but perhaps some find that answering them would destroy most of their arguments>

0 Replies

I told you, it doesn't matter what Clinton said; it only matters what Bush has done. Bush is the puppet of Rove and Cheney, not Clinton.

0 Replies

I'll agree with CI on this one. Anything Clinton says, or does not say, does not in any way affect whether Mr. Bush is a liar.

Carry on, funny little man.

0 Replies

Here, BD, picture worth a thousand words.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v97/imposter222/bush_nostradamus.jpg

0 Replies

I'll answer your questions, Bernard.

BernardR wrote:

Was Clinton correct?

Who gives a f*ck?

BernardR wrote:

Was Clinton lying?

Who gives a f*ck?

BernardR wrote:

Was Clinton mistaken?

Who gives a f*ck?

There, now your questions are answered.

Satisfied?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

So what aspect of "gentleman" do you not understand?

Gentleman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For the Reggae musician, see Gentleman (musician).

The term gentleman (from Latin gentilis, belonging to a race or "gens", and "man", cognate with the French word gentilhomme, the Spanish gentilhombre, and the Italian gentil uomo or gentiluomo), in its original and strict signification, denoted a man of good family, the Latin generosus (its invariable translation in English-Latin documents). In this sense the word equates with the French gentilhomme (nobleman), which latter term was in Great Britain long confined to the peerage. The term "gentry" (from the Old French genterise for gentelise) has much of the social class significance of the French noblesse or of the German Adel, but without the strict technical requirements of those traditions (such as quarters of nobility). This was what the rebels under John Ball in the 14th century meant when they repeated:

When Adam delved and Eve span,
Who was then the Gentleman? [1]

John Selden in Titles of Honour, (1614), discussing the title "gentleman", speaks of "our English use of it" as "convertible with nobilis" (an ambiguous word, like 'noble' meaning elevated either by rank or by personal qualities) and describes in connection with it the forms of ennobling in various European countries.

To a degree, "gentleman" signified a man who did not need to work, and the term was particularly used of those of them who could not claim nobility or even the rank of esquire. It was at times applied genuinely or ironically to all men who did not work, leading to the phrase "gentleman of leisure" to mean "unemployed". Widening further, it became a politeness for all men, as in the phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen,..." and this was then used (often with the abbreviation Gents) to indicate where men could find a water closet, toilet, lavatory, bathroom, or restroom without the need to indicate precisely what was being described.

Your post is completely irrelevant. I used the word perfectly correctly according to standard English. Your normal method of argument is to insult your opponent instead of simply arguing the topic with some dignity. An occasional side insult is perhaps alright, but you characteristically make impeaching your debating opponent a central feature of your argument. It's unworthy and it's ungentlemanly.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Advocate, WELCOME to A2K. Glad to see you on board. It's pretty clear the Bush apologists will never admit they made a mistake by backing this liar and killer of humans. They're about as low as they come; they continue to make excuses for our bad excuse for a president that doesn't know the difference between defense and aggression.

Bush didn't lie, at least not appreciably.

All wars have killed innocent people accidentally since war began in prehistory.

Our refusal to simply admit you're correct is not a character flaw.

If an evil madman and friend of terrorists is accumulating WMD and trying to perfect them, as Saddam Hussein was at least at some point, stopping him is absolutely a vital self-defense concern.

You're just mindlessly repeating sayings you are either unable to or unwilling to defend with calm, rational argument.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know