President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Yeah, the liberals "are" compasionate, because they don't approve of Bush's killing of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Whereas, neocon conservatives continue to approve of what Bush has wrought against those innocent people. Just because their leader was bad doesn't justify the killing of tens of thousands of people for any justification presented by Bushco; for many people around the world, Bush is the prime terrorist.

Q: What do people call a person resposible for the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people?

A: Bush

Yes, when I think terrorist, I think Bush.

I am very much afraid, Mr. Just an Observer that you are unaware of one of the main dictums of Social Science and History--the past has an inexorable effect on the present.

Again, are you suffering under the delusion that when President Bush was elected, in January 2001, that the CIA tossed out all of the intelligence they had in the files on Iraq and WMD's ?

Please let me know. If you claim this and can prove it, you will be famous and can start a new school of Historiography.

You can help yourself if you repeat ten times, with your eyes closed-

"The past does influence the present"

"The past does influence the present"

"The past does influence the present"

Try it, sir, It may help you!!!

Mr. Just an Observer. I don't believe I have made any crude remarks toward you.

Your allusions to my alleged "Sexual Behavior" has no part in these discussions and are, indeed, a violation of the rules on A2K.

I am willing to discuss politics with you, but unwilling to submit to crude comments which have no place in a civilized discussion!!!

But you do masturbate to that Clinton poster above your bed, don't you, Bernard? Just curious. I have money on this, so please don't LIE.

Holy sh*t, you are certifiably out of your mind. Step away from the computer and go back to chewing paper and smearing peanut butter in your hair.

BenardD is Massagatto; no more needs to be explained.

Just an Observer, sir- You said:

Again, a crude and childish retort:

Holy sh*t, you are certifiably out of your mind. Step away from the computer and go back to chewing paper and smearing peanut butter in your hair.

May I suggest that you answer the question I posed? If you cannot, I do understand but there is no need for you to engage in Ad Hominem.

You do know what that is, of course. It is, I am reliably informed, contrary to the TOS on A2K.

I don't even bother responding to him. It is a form of self-abuse when one does.

I encourage you, and everyone, to report him to the mods for both trolling the topic (constant changes of topic to clinton) and for re-appearing under different names after being banned.

Cycloptichorn

hahaha....... Massegetto, again reaches back into his anxiety bag chock-full of his troubling fixation with Bill Clinton.

as if.

btw. massegetto, rainman if you please, when will you ever learn?

Instead of rebutting the list of scores of documented instances where Bush was shown to have lied on the six links, you chose instead to ignore the facts, attack a web site as a communist front, and bring into the debate superfluous nonsense about Bill Clinton.

That is not the mark of courage of conviction or of willingness to debate the issues at hand, but rather a reflection of cowardice or gross mongoloid idiocy.

Yes, reality does have liberal bias, but for those living in the Bizarro World of George Bush's America, up is down, lies are the truth, and "Bill Clinton " is retort dejour.

Repeat after your mental guru: "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."

Homer Simpson

btw: rainman, replying to you is akin to playing the A2K version of "whack-a-mole." one is almost embarrassed for enjoying so much meaningless fun when beating you on the head for your dumb remarks.

Other than the "sir" BernardR uses in his posts, nothing else has any discussio value, because he doesn't read the links provided, or answer the tough and easy questioned posed to him. He still asks the silly questions as if it has merit. He can very well look for the answers himself by going to Google, rather than asking dumb questions. He might learn something about his dumb questions.

I have a question...
While I agree that Clinton is not the President,and therefore not relevant to the current discussions,will the left make the promise that the second the next President is sworn in,they will NEVER mention Bush's name?
They cannot use him for comparison to the next President,they cannot blame him for ANYTHING that happens once the next President is sworn in,and that anything that happens once the next President is sworn in has nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do?

Wow...that is the perfect way to phrase it. Nicely said.

mm wrote:
They cannot use him for comparison to the next President,they cannot blame him for ANYTHING that happens once the next President is sworn in,and that anything that happens once the next President is sworn in has nothing to do with anything Bush did or did not do?


mm misses the whole point of what this president has wrought this country and the whole world, as if once the next president is sworn in, all the problems Bush created will disappear. What an impossible dork!

mm, Do you really think when the next president is sworn in, the sectarian violence in Iraq will disappear? Get real, for cry'n out loud.

Since Bush was first sworn in,you and others on the left have been saying that Clinton cannot be used for any type of comparison,because he wasnt President any longer.
Now,you are saying the exact opposite after Bush leaves office.
That seems like a double standard.

To use the logic the left exhibited,ANYTHING that happens after Bush leaves office is the fault of the next admin.

I am amused at the "fear" I generate among the left, Mysteryman. They are unable to rebut my posts that they wish to muzzle me.

I have never shown fear of the kind which would lead me to try to anyone's freedom to speak.

I take Cyclopitchorn's post as a badge of honor!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't even bother responding to him. It is a form of self-abuse when one does.

I encourage you, and everyone, to report him to the mods for both trolling the topic (constant changes of topic to clinton) and for re-appearing under different names after being banned.

Cycloptichorn
**************************************************************
Your charge, of course, that I am not who I say I am, is something that I would be happy to have the authorities of A2K review. I can, of course, give them any pertinent information that they wish to have.

Did the next president start the war in Iraq? This is really a simple question, mm. Give it a shot.

Clinton did not attack Iraq! That was Bush! How can you compare the two?

No,but to use ancient history a Republican didnt start the war in Vietnam,but he did finish it.
Whats your point?
Do we Blame Kennedy and Johnson for the Tet offensive,or the fall of Saigon,or the seige at Khe Sanh?
After all,they were in office when the war started?

If another 9/11 type attack happens 5 minutes after the next President is sworn in,you cant blame that on Bush.
After all,he wasnt President at the time,was he?
If the economy crashes,you cant blame that on Bush.
If Iran uses nukes on someone,you cant blame that on Bush.