I only insult those people that doesn't understand current realities, and continue to apologize for this president that has gotten us involved in a unnecessary war that's costing your men and women untold tragedies and two billions dollars every week, money that can be used at home to help our own people with infrastructure, schools, hospitals, flood victims, and health care.
You're an arse that can't see what's in front of you.
Advocate wrote: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.
Nixon was crooked. Perhaps you'd favor me with some evidence that George Bush is.
cicerone imposter wrote:I only insult those people that doesn't understand current realities, and continue to apologize for this president.
Yea! And that goes for all 3 of them!!!!
DrewDad wrote:This has got to be the funniest thread running right now....
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....
Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.
Advocate, Don't waste your time; this bozo has no ability to read links provided nor understand the English language enough to see the overflowing media reports on Bush's incompetence and low performance rating.
We just have to wait until Bush's approval rating hits the teens; a good possibility since nothing Bush does has gone well. Even his speech on using the National Guard to help with border control is being laughed at. Nobody takes him seriously except people like BD.
Amigo wrote:This is like watching Tyson fight a cheerleader.
Well, since you claim that your side has so conclusively proven Bush is a liar I make the following challenge to you. Please list the Bush lies that have been proven in this thread and include a link to a post that proves each one. You can't and won't.
Brandon will ask you to prove the content of the link after you post the link. Don't waste your time.
cicerone imposter wrote:I only insult those people that doesn't understand current realities, and continue to apologize for this president that has gotten us involved in a unnecessary war that's costing your men and women untold tragedies and two billions dollars every week, money that can be used at home to help our own people with infrastructure, schools, hospitals, flood victims, and health care.
You're an arse that can't see what's in front of you.
Yes, you do insult people who disagree with you and attempt to debate you. Pardon the conservatives, your majesty, for not bowing down, ceasing all debate, and simply admitting that you're correct.
Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:This has got to be the funniest thread running right now....
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....
Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.
You wouldn't have to be obsessed with this forum, or anything other than minimally aware of world events to know about the words in Bush's S.O.T.U. address. To plead ignorance to this doesn't make you a worldly, busy man with a 'life', who doesn't have time for obscure little factoids, it makes you an ignorant ass. Or more of one, if that was possible at this point.
Brandon, Your weakness is showing; I don't give a shet that nobody bows down to me. You make such stupid statements, it's no wonder very few people take you seriously. Why don't you go cry to your momma; she might comfort you!
kickycan wrote: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?
Ahh, A rare and often bitting appearance by a notorious resident political analysist.
The timing! The delivery!
But mostly the appropriate answers!
Brandon9000 wrote:Amigo wrote:This is like watching Tyson fight a cheerleader.
Well, since you claim that your side has so conclusively proven Bush is a liar I make the following challenge to you. Please list the Bush lies that have been proven in this thread and include a link to a post that proves each one. You can't and won't.
Yes I can. No I won't.
If Bush came on T.V. and yelled
"I Lied! I've been wacked out on coke and Wild Turkey the whole time. I'm loaded right now! I can't even remember half the ****! What the hell is wrong with you people!"
You would stick ice picks into your lying liberal traitor terrorist ears.
Brandon9000 wrote:Advocate wrote: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.
Nixon was crooked. Perhaps you'd favor me with some evidence that George Bush is.
How can he not be crooked??? He is the head of the Bush Crime Family!!!
What Kickycan said!!! Hurray!
snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:This has got to be the funniest thread running right now....
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....
Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.
You wouldn't have to be obsessed with this forum, or anything other than minimally aware of world events to know about the words in Bush's S.O.T.U. address. To plead ignorance to this doesn't make you a worldly, busy man with a 'life', who doesn't have time for obscure little factoids, it makes you an ignorant ass. Or more of one, if that was possible at this point.
A fair person doesn't accuse someone of lying and then, when asked for evidence, imply that the question is improper because the information is all out there. It is simply improper to accuse anyone of wrongdoing without providing a bit of evidence. As for your characterization of me, it does nothing to support your thesis, and merely serves to brand you as another A2K member who can't debate without childish insults.
Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:This has got to be the funniest thread running right now....
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....
Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.
You wouldn't have to be obsessed with this forum, or anything other than minimally aware of world events to know about the words in Bush's S.O.T.U. address. To plead ignorance to this doesn't make you a worldly, busy man with a 'life', who doesn't have time for obscure little factoids, it makes you an ignorant ass. Or more of one, if that was possible at this point.
A fair person doesn't accuse someone of lying and then, when asked for evidence, imply that the question is improper because the information is all out there. It is simply improper to accuse anyone of wrongdoing without providing a bit of evidence. As for your characterization of me, it does nothing to support your thesis, and merely serves to brand you as another A2K member who can't debate without childish insults.
Whatever - You're either pitifully ignorant or pitifully disingenuous if you say you haven't heard or don't know about the SOTU address in which the president (you're trying to defend) claimed knowledge of Hussein getting nuclear materials from Africa. And knowing about it, while claiming you don't - now
that would be childish. So which is it, Brandon - you a liar or a fool?
snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:DrewDad wrote:This has got to be the funniest thread running right now....
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....
Mostly it says that I've never heard of the 16 word controversy. I hate to disappoint you, but I actually have a life in the real world, and don't read every post here. Why don't you tell me what it is so that I may address it. And, need I remind you that you rarely answer questions I ask of you, so why should I answer all of yours? But go ahead, tell me what it is and I'll respond.
You wouldn't have to be obsessed with this forum, or anything other than minimally aware of world events to know about the words in Bush's S.O.T.U. address. To plead ignorance to this doesn't make you a worldly, busy man with a 'life', who doesn't have time for obscure little factoids, it makes you an ignorant ass. Or more of one, if that was possible at this point.
A fair person doesn't accuse someone of lying and then, when asked for evidence, imply that the question is improper because the information is all out there. It is simply improper to accuse anyone of wrongdoing without providing a bit of evidence. As for your characterization of me, it does nothing to support your thesis, and merely serves to brand you as another A2K member who can't debate without childish insults.
Whatever - You're either pitifully ignorant or pitifully disingenuous if you say you haven't heard or don't know about the SOTU address in which the president (you're trying to defend) claimed knowledge of Hussein getting nuclear materials from Africa. And knowing about it, while claiming you don't - now
that would be childish. So which is it, Brandon - you a liar or a fool?
I never claimed I don't know about it, and don't compare it to an inability to debate without calling your debating opponent names. My understanding is that the president was honestly quoting intelligence reports. Can you make a case that it was a lie?
Roxxxanne wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Advocate wrote: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.
Nixon was crooked. Perhaps you'd favor me with some evidence that George Bush is.
How can he not be crooked??? He is the head of the Bush Crime Family!!!
Well, I'd ask you to support your assertion in the standard manner that people in debates do, but I've spoken to you enough to know that you either can't or won't.
