Jump to content

Democratic Lies 2001-2003


Recommended Posts

How many times are you going to reiterate this point that Bush Lied about WMDs? He didn't what do you think Saddam was doing those months The UN was debating about sending inspectors in

How many newsources is it going to take before you realize NOTHING is going to be found?

How many US officials and reports does it take before you realized they lied through their teeth?

How many non-US reports will it take before you understand that you took the hook, sinker and line?

Rummy himself said that there are no links between Iraq and Al Qeauda.

Let me quote the HEAD UN INSPECTOR!!!

Meanwhile, Rolf Ekeus, who headed the U.N. weapons inspections team that worked in Iraq from 1992 to 1998, joined those who said that Hussein probably destroyed his chemical and biological weapons stocks after the 1991 Persian Gulf War (news - web sites) and that it was a mistake to believe he maintained hidden stockpiles.

You're still enrolled in idiocy 101, and earning a major in propaganda believing.

You libs are just mad you found out the truth.

No, we are laughing at those who still believe propaganda after it has been disproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is useless debating because you just keep saying the same thing. Bush Lied. Bush Lied Bush Lied etc. etc. You think Saddam would destroy his stockpiles after he had worked hard to get them, and advance them. This is complete bull, you know it, i know it, Saddam easily could have shipped them into another country (SYRIA) or hid him beneath the desert. (its pretty big) Just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they are not there. Ever think of that? Clinton didn't do enough. Why do you think they didn't let Inspectors into Presidential Palaces? Were they afraid the inspectors would steal something? No they were afraid they would FIND Something hmmmm Chemical/biological weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well written Derek. Funny how the first response by our liberal comrades is to attack as opposed to discuss and offer alternatives...sounds like the same reason that in a midterm election the house AND senate were dominated by Republicans....

This is very rare for the in office president to have congress majority be his party also.

Bush WILL win reelection. :-D

Side note: THE RED SOX CLINCHED THE AL WILD CARD!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is useless debating because you just keep saying the same thing. Bush Lied. Bush Lied Bush Lied etc. etc

well it's useless aruging with someone who refuses to look at news. Who refuses to look at reports. Who refuses to look at US and UN reports. One who refuses to look at the overall time table.

Just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they are not there. Ever think of that?

Just because you try harder doesn't mean you will be able to do it. Has it occured to you that after 7 months of searching, 7 months of spending billions of dollars, bringing in thousands of new inspectors, offering HUGE amounts of money for information, we have found NOTHING? Has it occured to you that there is no current infrastructure to produce WMD since 1999? Can you produce a gun with no tools and no materials? Has it occured to you that all the evidence that the US has obtained is either 1) Circumstantial 2) Very ambigious 3) Very outdated 4) Or complete lies? There is no recent solid evidence he even had the means to produce them.

Were they afraid the inspectors would steal something? No they were afraid they would FIND Something hmmmm Chemical/biological weapons.

You do understand the underlying tensions of the Arab world? Leaking reports of supposed WMD will put every other arab country on guard, and much less likely to engage you. Also it breds a attitude that the British had prior to the second world war. People are willing to give you reasonable things because they are afraid. Saddam has given false evidence to defectors, who then tell the rest of the Arab world. Saddam did not expect the US to attack, he's been playing the stall game for a decade or two. Anything to keep him in power aganist his Muslim/Arab neighbors. Now, if the UN found that he didn't have any....well there goes his entire charade. Also, using the same mystery tactic that the USSR used, he can frighten Western powers as well. Not too shabby. However, Saddam didn't expect to go aganist evidence-is-for-sissys Bush.

Bush WILL win reelection

Because he will have to pay exorbiants amounts of capital to buy this election. We live in a society where the richest person can buy his way into governmental power.

Side Note: There's a picture of a cat with two completely different color eyes in Yahoo! news today. It's not something you see everyday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has it occured to you that after 7 months of searching, 7 months of spending billions of dollars, bringing in thousands of new inspectors, offering HUGE amounts of money for information, we have found NOTHING?

You know what's funny?

12 years is not enough time for the UN to find WMD, they should have been given longer.

7 months is far too long for the US to find WMD, they should have found them sooner.

So... I guess when the UN was around, all the WMD were well hidden, and now the US is there, they all have big signs on saying "Illegal Weapons Here! Don't tell! Shhh!"

There is no recent solid evidence he even had the means to produce them.

"The means" can be household cleaning products, fertilizers, industrial chemicals etc. We've been over this.

Or he could have won.

I just find it strange that the one group of people who stand the most to gain by complaining about this are silent on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is useless debating because you just keep saying the same thing. Bush Lied. Bush Lied Bush Lied etc. etc. You think Saddam would destroy his stockpiles after he had worked hard to get them, and advance them. This is complete bull, you know it, i know it, Saddam easily could have shipped them into another country (SYRIA) or hid him beneath the desert. (its pretty big) Just because we didn't find them, doesn't mean they are not there. Ever think of that? Clinton didn't do enough.

Bush lied. :P

Saddam did not have any WMD stockpiles. Nor was there ever any convincing evidence offered to show that he did, just half-truths (ie. the aluminum tubes, the trailers) or outright lies (ie. the Niger uranium). That's why the administration has been backing away from its claims. A quick perusal of the record shows Bushco going from knowing excatly how much and and how many WMD Iraq posessed to throwing their hands in the air and declaring "They had 'em,! Honest!"

But why listen to Dubya when we can hear from someone who was, you know, actually there.

It was a surprise to me then and it remains a surprise to me now that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force

Press Interview

Why do you think they didn't let Inspectors into Presidential Palaces? Were they afraid the inspectors would steal something? No they were afraid they would FIND Something hmmmm Chemical/biological weapons.

Or could it have been because many of the "inspectors" were actually CIA agents charged with locating Saddam and targetting him for assasination. Hmmmmm...

Spies like them.

"The means" can be household cleaning products, fertilizers, industrial chemicals etc. We've been over this.

Uh huh. :rolleyes:

"25,000 liters of anthrax ... 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin ... materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent ... upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents ... several mobile biological weapons labs ... thousands of Iraqi security personnel ... at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors."- George W, State of the Union Address, January 28, 2003

Not Drain-O. Not bags of fertilizer, but a massive, soophisticated program, complete with the means to deliver them. Where are they. You're grasping at straws now.

I just find it strange that the one group of people who stand the most to gain by complaining about this are silent on it.

And, uh, what exactly would that accomplish at this point?

Bush WILL win reelection. :-D

Doesn't one have to actually BE elected before they can be re-elected? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Drain-O. Not bags of fertilizer, but a massive, soophisticated program, complete with the means to deliver them. Where are they. You're grasping at straws now.

That was just intended to show you that the "infrastructure" required to create WMD isn't that great, and great quantities of biological and chemical weapons could be produced by any country with some semblance of industry.

While no WMD have yet been found, the fact remains that if UN inspectors could not find it in 12 years, you might want to allow the US longer than 7 months! Iraq is a big country, and WMD can be hidden pretty well, assuming they aren't in Syria by now anyway.

If it irks you that President Bush "lied" to the people, I must point out the obvious difference between telling that which you believe to be true and may later be proven false, as Bush did, or telling that which you know and believe is false and passing it off as truth, as Clinton did.

Regardless, it's irrelevant since the WMD were a sidenote to the reasons for invasion, namely, that Iraq refused to comply with the UN for 12 years, and the UN had stipulated that stronger measures be taken, which were not. Saddam posed a danger to the world and to his own people, and if you ask, why him, then I ask, why not? What do you call one deposed evil dictator? A good start.

The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. What are you complaining about - so-called "unilateral" action, "unilateral" being Newspeak for "coalition of 30 nations", by the US? You're complaining because you like evil dictators and you feel that more of them should be in power? You're complaining because you feel that the Iraqi people deserve torture and murder? What?

And, uh, what exactly would that accomplish at this point?

Well, at this point or at any point since the election, it might have accomplished something. As I said, had Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights movement just said, "Well, the law says we have to sit at the back, and courts have already ruled on it, so, oh well!" history might have turned out differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it irks you that President Bush "lied" to the people, I must point out the obvious difference between telling that which you believe to be true and may later be proven false, as Bush did, or telling that which you know and believe is false and passing it off as truth, as Clinton did.

That's only if you accept, with childlike faith, that Bush believed what he was saying. Personally, I'm skeptical enough to question virtually every word that comes out a politician (any politician)'s mouth. If George Bush, or Bill Clinton for that matter, said the sky was blue, I'd have to look out my window to make sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 years is not enough time for the UN to find WMD, they should have been given longer.

7 months is far too long for the US to find WMD, they should have found them sooner.

Bush said, as craig quoted, that ALL it would take to find 6 months to find WMD in Iraq. Let's do the math. March, April, May, June, July, August, Sept.......Do I count 7 months? Na, let's just do some fuzzy math. Like Bush's Enron supporter! Another Bush lie!

"The means" can be household cleaning products, fertilizers, industrial chemicals etc. We've been over this.

Wait, they've proven that Saddam had a extensive infrastrucure to produce enriched Uranium and produce nuclearwar heads? :)

That was just intended to show you that the "infrastructure" required to create WMD isn't that great, and great quantities of biological and chemical weapons could be produced by any country with some semblance of industry.

Thus, under this logic, the US can now attack anyone it wishes under pre-emptive warfare! Want cheap eletronics? Attack Japan. Gold and Diamonds, Congo! Anything you want, just say that are producing chemical and bio weapons in their factories!

If it irks you that President Bush "lied" to the people, I must point out the obvious difference between telling that which you believe to be true and may later be proven false, as Bush did, or telling that which you know and believe is false and passing it off as truth, as Clinton did

That doesn't irk us. You're completely missing the point. Clinton's lies were of little consequences, where he put his thing didn't cause huge problems, just a big scandal. Bush's lies are getting us into a $400 billion ADDITIONAL debt, creating thousands, if not millions additional terrorists, massive instability, astronomical oil prices, offending every puesdo-ally the US has, spreading US forces to the near membrane thin, and creating a atsmopshere of fear. Clinton's lies never even came close to one of those. It's the consequences, not the actual lying that irks us. There is no such thing as a honest politican. The politican that lies and gets us into a huge mess irks us. key words: HUGE MESS.

The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. What are you complaining about - so-called "unilateral" action, "unilateral" being Newspeak for "coalition of 30 nations", by the US? You're complaining because you like evil dictators and you feel that more of them should be in power? You're complaining because you feel that the Iraqi people deserve torture and murder? What?

That may be, but is the world better with a few thousand more die hard terrorists? Coalition of the 30 nations is coalition of the bribed and extorted. Which is worse: A contained dictator or a hundred thousands terrorists running around with NO ONE keeping track of them?

Don't get me that "liberation" BS. Iranians have suffered far worse than Iraqi. Fantical mullahs have been matching peaceful student protests with violent police and paramilitary brutal beatdowns. Student leaders are dragged out of their dorms and are never see again. Anyone who crosses the mullahs is rarely seen again. The people there are willing to stand up for what they want, and they are brutally oppressed. IF we really wanted to liberate like you say, Why didn't we "free" Iran first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush said, as craig quoted, that ALL it would take to find 6 months to find WMD in Iraq.

But is this a lie or just a poor estimate? The 6-month figure probably didn't originate with Bush - unless you believe that all his advisors told him, "We don't know when", and he said, "Screw that, I'm telling the people 'six months'"?

Wait, they've proven that Saddam had a extensive infrastrucure to produce enriched Uranium and produce nuclearwar heads?

You're being obtuse. And by the way, yes, until the Israeli Air Force wiped out his reactor.

Thus, under this logic, the US can now attack anyone it wishes under pre- emptive warfare! Want cheap eletronics? Attack Japan.

Well, when the US attacks Japan, I'll eat my words. In the meantime, while the US is going exclusively after tyrannical regimes and terrorists, you'll have to excuse me if I feel little to no pity for their "victims".

Clinton's lies were of little consequences, where he put his thing didn't cause huge problems, just a big scandal.

Ahem. Selling supercomputers for decryption, nuclear weapons technology and missile technology to China? You don't have to be a genius to tell that that's going to cause a huge problem for somebody pretty soon, bearing in mind who the recipients of China's goodies are.

That may be, but is the world better with a few thousand more die hard terrorists?

No, hence the pursuit of terrorists, destruction of their camps and annihilation of their sponsors. Or were you out to lunch when that was going on?

A contained dictator

Yeah, he was real contained. Didn't stop him sponsoring terrorist attacks on Israel one bit. It's also pretty lousy being one of 25 million or so Iraqis that have to endure being contained with him.

IF we really wanted to liberate like you say, Why didn't we "free" Iran first?

Point A: Who are the Axis of Evil?

Point B: Not being in the CIA, neither of us can say why Iraq posed a bigger threat than Iran, but as the White House does not have a death wish I think it's safe to say it did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't one have to actually BE elected before they can be re-elected? :P

You democRATS always have to bitch about the election. Why don't you just shut up already. Bush won, Gore lost face it. You guys are just a bunch of sore losers. and no if you want to get technical, A vice-president could take over for a president who was assinated killed, etc. And be reelected. they were not elected as president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You democRATS always have to bitch about the election. Why don't you just shut up already. Bush won, Gore lost face it. You guys are just a bunch of sore losers. and no if you want to get technical, A vice-president could take over for a president who was assinated killed, etc. And be reelected. they were not elected as president.

First: I'm not a Democrat: I'm a Canadian.

Second: I think such a blatant miscarriage of justice and affront to democracy should be questioned and condemned regardless of who won. But your kind are more interested in idealogical, partisan allegiances than true democracy.

Third: What the hell does presidential protocol have to do with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What idiocy.

Let's see;

-Bush won 38 states vs. 12 for Gore

OK so in the Lie-beral world Gore wins because he won the fewest states !!

-6 Recounts were conducted in Fla. 3 by Dumbocruds. Bush won all recounts. In one recount the military was excluded and Bush still won.

OK so in the Dumbo world, Gore lost 7 times in Fla and therefore MUST be declared the winner !!

-CNN -- the Clinton News Network - announded at 7:40 pm on election night - 80 minutes before the Polls closed - that Gore won Fla. This cost the Reps 10.000 votes in the PanHandle as Rep voters stayed home [Democratic led investigation determined this]. CNN broke the law trying to give Gore the election.

OK so in the Lie-Beral world breaking the law is ok as long as the Dumbo's win !!!

Face it. You whine, you cry, and you sound and look like a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry let me refrain, for all you canadians, Liberals. there. Sorry.

Yes Bush beat gore, Liberals try to tell us now that the election was rigged, that the ballots didn't make sense, and they get as many recounts as possible untill they win. Thats how the election should work right? They were just shocked that the Clinton reign came to an end. So they have to go and cry untill they get their way.

They are like kids whining untill they get their way, but now they are upset because they didn't get their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're being obtuse. And by the way, yes, until the Israeli Air Force wiped out his reactor.

And that was a LONG, LONG time ago.

The 6-month figure probably didn't originate with Bush -

Neither did alot of other lies, but he said it, and must be held accountable. With all these lies and no one being fired...one must wonder.

No, hence the pursuit of terrorists, destruction of their camps and annihilation of their sponsors. Or were you out to lunch when that was going on?

Do you really think that Iraq hasn't created thousands of more terrorists that were formerly moderates or even pro-us? Na, it's the right-wing notion that killing someone's father won't make they want to come after you!

Yeah, he was real contained. Didn't stop him sponsoring terrorist attacks on Israel one bit. It's also pretty lousy being one of 25 million or so Iraqis that have to endure being contained with him.

Contained better then the Mullahs in Iran. It's actually 22 million, but who's counting? Are we going to simply ignore the fact that US sponsored terrorists attacks on unarmed civilians as well? They can't do it, but we can? :)

Point A: The Iranian youth want a western culture, they like the US.

Point B: Iran has less oil.

You democRATS always have to bitch about the election. Why don't you just shut up already. Bush won, Gore lost face it. You guys are just a bunch of sore losers. and no if you want to get technical, A vice-president could take over for a president who was assinated killed, etc. And be reelected. they were not elected as president.

You condone the removal of 70,000+ black voters from the election results in Florida? Because I'm a right-winger, black votes don't count!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right. I wasn't lying about Bush getting a 600. There was the rumor that he got a pretty dang low SAT score.

Three things:

Winston Churchill was described as a "dunce" by his masters at Harrow.

Albert Einstein's physics teacher called him "an idiot who will never amount to anything."

Adolf Hitler's teachers referred to him as a thoroughly mediocre student.

What does this tell you - that these three men, and President Bush, were all really morons, or that teachers and tests can be wrong?

And that was a LONG, LONG time ago.

You are still being obtuse. You demand to know where the infrastructure for chemical/bioweapons are. I inform you that you need no great infrastructure. You then ignore that and demand to know where the infrastructure for nuclear weapons is. The answer: there probably isn't any, but according the the UN and the Geneva Convention WMD does not have to be just ICBMs.

Neither did alot of other lies, but he said it, and must be held accountable.

How do we punish a genuine mistake? Was it malicious? No. Was it deliberate? No. Therefore, we should probably mete out the same punishment that you deserve for your uninformed mistakes in the "US Carriers" thread - nothing, since it was a genuine mistake and, to the best of your knowledge at the time, what you were saying was true.

Do you really think that Iraq hasn't created thousands of more terrorists that were formerly moderates or even pro-us?

Yes, and they're bombing the UN. Funny, that.

Na, it's the right-wing notion that killing someone's father won't make they want to come after you!

The civilian casualties in Gulf II were about 25% of the number of civilians that Saddam's regime usually executed in the same time period. I'm sure that most Iraqis are really, really unhappy about that - probably about as unhappy as Auschwitz inmates were when the Red Army turned up at the camp.

Are we going to simply ignore the fact that US sponsored terrorists attacks on unarmed civilians as well?

No, we are going to cut support and go after them, as the US did in Afghanistan.

Point B: Iran has less oil.

Pure nonsense. Go study the costs of the war, the expected timeframe for Iraqi oil supplies to be up to speed again, the length of time for the US to recover the war costs alone even assuming they plundered the entirety of Iraqi oil wealth, which they aren't and won't... don't post in ignorance.

You condone the removal of 70,000+ black voters from the election results in Florida?

No, I don't, but as it turns out even if all 70,000 of them had voted for Gore it wouldn't have made a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right. I wasn't lying about Bush getting a 600. There was the rumor that he got a pretty dang low SAT score.

Three things:

Winston Churchill was described as a "dunce" by his masters at Harrow.

Albert Einstein's physics teacher called him "an idiot who will never amount to anything."

Adolf Hitler's teachers referred to him as a thoroughly mediocre student.

What does this tell you - that these three men, and President Bush, were all really morons, or that teachers and tests can be wrong?

PLease, DO NOT tell me that Bush is anything like those three. President Bush does in no way shape or form fall into a category with those three. Bush is stupid. Don't deny that now even some GOP members have grown increasingly worried over Bush and his idiocy with domestic AND foreign matters. Just read the newspaper. Turn on the news or even the radio. Do things look good to you right now? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PLease, DO NOT tell me that Bush is anything like those three. Bush is stupid... some GOP members have grown increasingly worried over Bush and his idiocy.

That's a good Leftist.

Cite some worthless "evidence", and when it's proven false, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat, "Bush is stupid, Bush is stupid, Bush is stupid." Hey, click your heels together too, you might get to go back to Ba'athist Iraq, Stalinist Russia or wherever your fantasy wonderland is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes let's forget that Bill Clinton the 'do nothing' President did not know that Bin Laden existed until early 1996 [see Miniter]. Even though Bin Laden was blowing up various sites around the world. Let's forget that Bill Clinton did nothing on foreign affairs and ignored Kosovo until Blair dragged his sorry ass in. Let's forget that Bill Clinton avoided the draft, trotted off to Moscow to drink of communism and was chummy with leftists while in school in England. Let's forget that Clinton was impeached, soiled his office [literally] and ran down the US military even as its assets overseas were under attack. Let's forget that he is the biggest liar in US politics in recent memory. He is a genius.

Let's forget that Al Gore failed Bible College [is that actually possible ??], received Cs and Bs in High School [is that actually possible ?], failed out of Vanderbilt Law School [now that is actually impossible], and received Cs at Harvard [the school who's motto is 'pay us stupid money and we will give you all A's!!!]. Let's forget that Al invented the Internet, found the Love Canal issue, and inspired Love Story. Let's forget that after Clinton Al is the 2nd biggest liar in recent American political history.

He lies - so according to the Lie-berals that is Great ! You are a genius !!

This is the moral compass of the left. Only stupid people take action and accomplish. Only geniuses, lie and come up with stupid ideas like Global Warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rightwingnews"

Do you see any problems with that phrase? :)

Let's forget that Bill Clinton did nothing on foreign affairs and ignored Kosovo until Blair dragged his sorry ass in.

Let's simply forget about Haiti as well Craig? Because US troops just went their without Clinton ordering it right?

Let's forget that Bill Clinton avoided the draft

At least he doesn't pretened that he served some time. Bush on the other hand.....He'll admit that he dodged it, can Bush say that he faked his years in the air national guard? :)

was chummy with leftists while in school in England.

Because a education in England is useless and only teaches you leftist ideas! Thus ALL people educated in England are leftists! Thus, HUGO is a leftist! :)

Let's forget that he is the biggest liar in US politics in recent memory.

Biggest lair? Regean deserves that by far. Then Bush. Then Clinton.

Let's forget that Al Gore failed Bible College [is that actually possible ??], received Cs and Bs in High School [is that actually possible ?], failed out of Vanderbilt Law School [now that is actually impossible], and received Cs at Harvard [the school who's motto is 'pay us stupid money and we will give you all A's!!!]. Let's forget that Al invented the Internet, found the Love Canal issue, and inspired Love Story. Let's forget that after Clinton Al is the 2nd biggest liar in recent American political history.

At least Gore didn't have to pull thousands of string to get into Yale, and then get C+s. Many of the smartest people in the US and the world get Cs and Bs in Highschool. Unless you'd like to make another idiotic sweeping generalization that all people who get Cs and Bs in HS are idiots!

Harvard's motton is NOT pay us stupid money and we give you all As. The best students are getting free rides. Your distan for higher level college is completey disgusting. Do you not want people to better themselves by going to the most prestegious colleges in the world?

That internet comment is still funny. :)

You need to show a comparison in how you reach your conclusions. Grant was a huge liar as well. Not only was he a liar but his admisntraion was a den of theives. But of course he's perfectly acceptable to you eh Craig?

Cite some worthless "evidence", and when it's proven false, stick your fingers in your ears and repeat, "Bush is stupid, Bush is stupid, Bush is stupid." Hey, click your heels together too, you might get to go back to Ba'athist Iraq, Stalinist Russia or wherever your fantasy wonderland is.

Um, the right does this as well. Instead of saying Bush is stupid, you say "we are always right, we are always right." How about you get around to fabricating WMD and stamping "Made in Iraq" seals on them, There's no other way you're going to prove they had/have WMD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you did not refute one fact I listed.

Not one. Gore is as close to being dumb as a politician can get. He is the first VP to lose a Presidential election with such a huge lead and a robust economy [that of course he lied about, but that proves my point], and a Liberal media, including CNN telling us what a smart guy he is !! How can you lose with the media four square behind you and a huge lead in the polls and in money ??

Because Gore is an idiot. That is why and the US peole saw through him. Like they eventually saw through Billy 'Pig Farmer' Clinton.

You maintain that Lie-berals like Clinton, Davis, and Gore are good leaders - they are pathetic liars and inactive incompetents.

Your comeback is that Bush is a bigger liar. Oh really. Provide one shred of evidence and I guarantee you whatever you provide i can refute with what Bush REALLY said.

I have compiled lists of Lie-beral media utterances attributed to George and then researched what he really said - and the 2 rarely match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have compiled lists of Lie-beral media utterances attributed to George and then researched what he really said - and the 2 rarely match.

You sure you've read them from a source, a magazine, you sure it wasn't NOTHING? (sorry, cheap family guy joke)

Let me guess, you got what he really said from rightwing news sources? :)

You maintain that Lie-berals like Clinton, Davis, and Gore are good leaders - they are pathetic liars and inactive incompetents

Wrong again. I never said or mainted that Liberals like Davis or Gore, or even Clinton.

Gore is an idiot. Enough said. I never said he was smart, I simply mainted that he did and accepted and admit things that Bush can't or won't. He wasn't a rhodes scholar like Clinton and Clark.

Clinton had the best 8 years the US has ever seen.

Davis, you cannot blame everything on one person, often when the factors are out of his control. While he is responsbile for some of the woes, you cannot blame everything on him. You maintain that he is a horrible politican, often because he "caused" the crisis. If we follow that logic, bush is a horrible politican because he caused this mess. How can you apply one logic to Davis and not to Bush?

Well you did not refute one fact I listed.

Yes i did, you simply refuse to admit it. :)

Your comeback is that Bush is a bigger liar. Oh really. Provide one shred of evidence and I guarantee you whatever you provide i can refute with what Bush REALLY said.

You'll reply with "All newsources are scum and need to be killed." You haven't disproved any of the 20+ newslinks i've posted before. What makes you think you can do it now? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comeback is that Bush is a bigger liar. Oh really. Provide one shred of evidence and I guarantee you whatever you provide i can refute with what Bush REALLY said.

I have compiled lists of Lie-beral media utterances attributed to George and then researched what he really said - and the 2 rarely match

"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003
"This is an impressive crowd, the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elite. I call you my base."

- Al Smith Memorial Dinner in New York, 10/19/2000

When you're talking about politics, what do you and [your father] talk about?

Bush: Pussy.

- To David Fink of the Hartford Courant, at the 1988 Republican Convention

"I know how hard it is to put food on your family."

- Greater Nashua, New Hampshire, 1/27/2000

"What's not fine is, rarely is the question asked: is our children learning?"

- Los Angeles Times, 1/14/2000

Have at 'em.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...