Cheney Blunder Lauded Anti-Bush Web Site

[ZaZu]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney probably did not intend to direct millions of television viewers to a Web site calling for President Bush's defeat but that's what a slip of the domain achieved.

Anyone who heeded Cheney's advice and clicked on "factcheck.com (http://www.georgesoros.com/)" was greeted on Wednesday morning with a message from anti-Bush billionaire investor George Soros entitled "Why we must not reelect President Bush."

"President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values," Soros' message said.

Defending his record as Halliburton's chief executive, Cheney said in the Tuesday night debate that Democratic vice-presidential challenger John Edwards was trying to use Halliburton as a smokescreen. Any voter who wanted the facts, Cheney said, should check out factcheck.com -- which led to the Soros site.

The Web site Cheney had in mind, factcheck.org (http://www.factcheck.org), was not amused when the vice president proved that he was not master of the factcheckers' domain.

Factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Center of the University of Pennsylvania, said on its site on Wednesday that Cheney not only got the domain name confused, he had mischaracterized its fact-finding.

"Cheney ... wrongly implied that we had rebutted allegations Edwards was making about what Cheney had done as chief executive officer of Halliburton," the site said on Wednesday.

"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."

Source (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?&idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20041006%2F1422193687.htm&sc=roptz&photoid=20041006FLSC101)

Debating is obviously not the administrations strong suite :dry:

[BigBank_Hank]

I’ve stayed quiet for long enough about all these anti Bush articles you’ve been posting as of late but this is it.

Look no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Did you see myself or anyone else post an article about Gomer Pile when he broke the rules not once but twice last night? No.

You are so blind in your anti Bush hate that you didn’t failed to see your Vice Presidential candidate being torn apart brick by brick (as J2 said so eloquently). Edwards is just a smooth talker, who talks a lot but doesn’t say anything.

[vidcc]

Look no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Did you see myself or anyone else post an article about Gomer Pile when he broke the rules not once but twice last night? No.

You are so blind in your anti Bush hate that you didn’t failed to see your Vice Presidential candidate being torn apart brick by brick (as J2 said so eloquently). Edwards is just a smooth talker, who talks a lot but doesn’t say anything.
I would agree that this was just a silly mistake and a very easy one to make...but it is kind of funny and i would have said it is more suited to lounge type treatment for seriousness.

i wouldn't say that Edwards was torn apart brick by brick...i appreciate that anything said against the democrat would be a standing ovation moment for the republicans but that said he wasn't exactly honest with his statements and used spin tactics that were thin...but as i said before Edwards didn't call him on them so tough luck on him.
i do appreciate also that anything said about the republican candidate in a negative way should be ignored as "propoganda":rolleyes:

[Busyman]

I’ve stayed quiet for long enough about all these anti Bush articles you’ve been posting as of late but this is it.

Look no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes. Did you see myself or anyone else post an article about Gomer Pile when he broke the rules not once but twice last night? No.

You are so blind in your anti Bush hate that you didn’t failed to see your Vice Presidential candidate being torn apart brick by brick (as J2 said so eloquently). Edwards is just a smooth talker, who talks a lot but doesn’t say anything.

He can post anything he wants. I actually did post something about Cheney's performance. Do you actually have a point to make?

It's interesting that you brought up the Cheney/Edwards debate but what about the preceding Bush/Kerry debate?

Talk about a one-sided affair. I know you wouldn't. You probably think Bush did an excellent job.

You brought up nobody's perfect. Well your President is an idiot. I'm not talking a make a few mistakes type idiot. I'm talking a bonafidefigureheadpuppet.

When I watched last night's Cheney performance I wondered did his hand stink...

from being up Bush's ass.

[BigBank_Hank]

I actually did post something about Cheney's performance.

Yes I did read your comment about Edwards but the difference is neither you or I devoted a whole thread to it.


It's interesting that you brought up the Cheney/Edwards debate but what about the preceding Bush/Kerry debate?

If you remember correctly there was a whole thread devoted to the Presidential debate before the big delete where I had commented.


Talk about a one-sided affair. I know you wouldn't. You probably think Bush did an excellent job.

If you’d rather have style than substance from your president than that’s you. Kerry’s only defense for his country would come only after he went a licked the U.N.’s ass for their approval. Then he’d have to make sure that no one around the world would be offended by what we were going to do with his “Global Test”. What the hell is a global test?

[Busyman]

If you’d rather have style than substance from your president than that’s you. Kerry’s only defense for his country would come only after he went a licked the U.N.’s ass for their approval. Then he’d have to make sure that no one around the world would be offended by what we were going to do with his “Global Test”. What the hell is a global test?
On that note Hank, you are severely one-sided.

You pick one anecdote after your President embarassed himself as a Republican?

DUDE!!! he lost that debate. It's as obvious as your to-be-expected bias.

[vidcc]

a global test is an expression...i think you chose to believe the Bush spin on this and ignored totally the bit said before :rolleyes:

What it means is that any action has to be legitimate in not just the reason for the action but the way it's handled. If you are going to go around invading other nations the world is going to want to see that it's just. This has to happen. If it doesn't then we are no better than the "bad people" we attack.


It doesn't mean that he will ask for permission..get past the spin please

[BigBank_Hank]

Vid I have always thought of you as fairly objective until that post. I can’t honestly believe that you would think that.

For crying out loud Edwards couldn’t even answer that question last night.

And you guys have the never to call me one sided.

[Busyman]

Vid I have always thought of you as fairly objective until that post. I can’t honestly believe that you would think that.

For crying out loud Edwards couldn’t even answer that question last night.

And you guys have the never to call me one sided.
You are...severely.

I think Cheney beat Edwards.

The difference is I look at the debates as an unbiased person even though I intend to vote for Kerry. Interesting huh.

Example.

My son is in a dance contest in which I'm a judge but I gave another dancer a better score in a competition.

This is something you are unable to do because you are incapable of separating yourself from your bias. It's like an automaton.

This is unfortunately the reason why a label such as Republican or Democrat will be a death knell if one doesn't use their brain and step back and stop the "cheering".

You ever heard, "When you are in love, she can do no wrong."

I was in love a long time ago and after that "ordeal" of being hurt something clicked in my head and I have forever changed.

One day that light bulb will go off in your head.

You are not critical of your own party which is sad. I view politicians, all of them, with suspicion.

When Kerry is elected, I will light into him the same way.

BE CRITICAL OF YOUR POLITICIANS!!!

It hopefully results in better government. The problem is usually the other party is only one's critical. The party members are just partygoers. Your vote is counted already.

[ZaZu]

I’ve stayed quiet for long enough about all these anti Bush articles you’ve been posting as of late but this is it. I don't like Bush when I come across something critical of him that I think is interesting I'll post it

You are so blind in your anti Bush hate that you didn’t failed to see your Vice Presidential candidate being torn apart brick by brick (as J2 said so eloquently). Edwards is just a smooth talker, who talks a lot but doesn’t say anything. Edwards is not my Vice Presidential candidate I'm a [/url][url=http://www.lp.org/]Libertarian (http://www.lp.org/) though I'll probably vote Kerry/Edwards to be voting against Bush

[vidcc]

Vid I have always thought of you as fairly objective until that post. I can’t honestly believe that you would think that.

For crying out loud Edwards couldn’t even answer that question last night.

And you guys have the never to call me one sided.
So now you are calling my stance unobjective...please tell me what Kerry said right before the "global test" bit.

I am objective, i took the whole statement into account, not just the global test.....
here are kerrys words



No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Here we have our own secretary of state who's had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations. I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy, in the Cuban missile crisis, sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with [French President Charles] de Gaulle, and in the middle of the discussion to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, [the secretary of state] said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And de Gaulle waved them off, and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me." How many leaders in the world today would respond to us, as a result of what we've done, in that way?


he states if and when we take action we do it in a way that passes the global test. please say where he said i would ask first.

It's clear from Kerry's first sentence that the "global test" doesn't prevent unilateral action to protect ourselves. Notice what else Kerry says. The test includes convincing "your countrymen" that your reasons are clear and sound. Kerry isn't just talking about satisfying France. He's talking about satisfying Louisiana. He's talking about you.


Edwards did answer the question but just in case you missed it with those fingers in your ears, here is Edwards response.


What he's saying is we're going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last 50 to 75 years.

First, we're going to actually tell the American people the truth. We're going to tell them the truth about what's happening.

We're not going to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else when, in fact, they're not.

We're going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we are using force and what the explanation for it is.

And it's not just the American people. We're also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth.

Because the reality is, for America to lead, for America to do what it's done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible.

It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they can trust what we're doing, what we say, what we say at the United Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of the world -- of other countries.

They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good, because they will not follow us without that.
I doubt you will agree :)

[spinningfreemanny]

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—

I think the exact opposite, being this:

You do not have to do it in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test.

Here's why:

if the threat to American people (which is under debate in Iraq; I understand, but this is hypothetical) is dangerous, I global test should have No Bearing Whatsoever on "the way" we act.


and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons has no bearing whatsoever on how America acts. It's a nice plus (that is almost never achieved, by the way, if actions are unilateral), but it has No weight in any decision to protect the American people.

The idea that can't get through Kerry's rather large skull is that other countries have their own interests at heart; not American interests. Thus it is of no consequence if they do not agree on our action because their decision is not concerning protecting the American People, it is concerning their own people and interests.
:)

[B.Helto]

speaking of factchecking....

My favorite Cheney quote:

"Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

two problems with this:

1. They've been photographed and videotaped together several times in the past, including sessions in the Senate.

2. Cheney seldom attends on those "Tuesdays" that he refers to - less than half the sessions.

still, it's a pretty good soundbite and the GOP is running with it.

[vidcc]

I think the exact opposite, being this:

You do not have to do it in a way that passes the test--that passes the global test.

Here's why:

if the threat to American people (which is under debate in Iraq; I understand, but this is hypothetical) is dangerous, I global test should have No Bearing Whatsoever on "the way" we act.



Proving to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons has no bearing whatsoever on how America acts. It's a nice plus (that is almost never achieved, by the way, if actions are unilateral), but it has No weight in any decision to protect the American people.

The idea that can't get through Kerry's rather large skull is that other countries have their own interests at heart; not American interests. Thus it is of no consequence if they do not agree on our action because their decision is not concerning protecting the American People, it is concerning their own people and interests.
:)
Manny

that's clutching at straws.
so you think it's ok for the USA to attack another nation for "suspect" reasons ? If a country is a "genuine threat" why wouldn't it be considered just?
You think that America has the right to invade any nation without justification?
Can i take it that you feel that other countries should have the same rights of action? Can i take it that Palestine doesn't have to justify itself? can i take it that Iran doesn't have to justify itself? can i take it that Russia doesn't have to justify itself..... sudan?.... SADDAM?....any country that isn't a democracy?....or just the USA?

And you think we are a target because we are "christians":rolleyes:

So please explain to me how that makes the world....not just "your world"...everyone elses world safer?

[BigBank_Hank]

Global: Of or involving the entire earth; worldwide.

Test: A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.

Source ( www.dictionary.com)

How much more clearly can I illustrate this to you? You among others like to like to accuse me of spinning but in this case its you who is making me dizzy.

[vidcc]

Global: Of or involving the entire earth; worldwide.

Test: A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.

Source (http://www.dictionary.com/)

How much more clearly can I illustrate this to you? You among others like to like to accuse me of spinning but in this case its you who is making me dizzy.
Ok how much clearly can i point out...read what he said right before
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.
Where did he say he would ask first?

[BigBank_Hank]

I’m sorry for a minuet there I thought that you could actually see how the whole thing is a contradiction in itself.

Lets look at the whole thing again shall we.



No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.

Ok here he says he’s going to protect our country from a threat and would do what it takes to take care of the problem. That’s ok. But then we have this:


But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

Heres where the problem comes in. Only after he checks with the world to see if its ok with them and passes their test will we do something.

Global: Of or involving the entire earth; worldwide.

Test: A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.


I hate the new quote system.

[Busyman]

speaking of factchecking....

My favorite Cheney quote:

"Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session.

The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

two problems with this:

1. They've been photographed and videotaped together several times in the past, including sessions in the Senate.

2. Cheney seldom attends on those "Tuesdays" that he refers to - less than half the sessions.

still, it's a pretty good soundbite and the GOP is running with it.

Part of the reason I said Cheney won the debate....

On facts he was seriously shitty but facts don't necessarily win debates.

It's all about public perception.

[vidcc]

Again i ask you to point out where he says he would ask first.

Passing the test means doing things in a manner that can be seen as just. at no point does it say it means we have to get permission first.

I am looking at what he said...not what the spin doctors are saying he said.

Are you happy for the USA to do things for illigitimate reasons?


If Bush had said it we would no doubt be hearing you praise this "global leader" showing the way.

I am not taking a side with kerry on Iraq. I agree we him that we went in so we have to deal with it. I agree it was the wrong war/time/place. But i disagree with him when he says he would have gone in...even though he says he would have done it differently.

[Busyman]

I’m sorry for a minuet there I thought that you could actually see how the whole thing is a contradiction in itself.

Lets look at the whole thing again shall we.




Ok here he says he’s going to protect our country from a threat and would do what it takes to take care of the problem. That’s ok. But then we have this:



Heres where the problem comes in. Only after he checks with the world to see if its ok with them and passes their test will we do something.

Global: Of or involving the entire earth; worldwide.

Test: A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial: a test of one's eyesight; subjecting a hypothesis to a test; a test of an athlete's endurance.


I hate the new quote system.

Come on man.

What President won't be for security in America? Some of you are sprouting bullshit.

Dismissing Kerry saying that he will get an "ok" from all the other countries is idiotic. Your President fucked up in major way and your failure to acknowledge this makes you seem more idiotic than the President. He even knows he fucked up. I can see his reason for not saying so, what's yours.

U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremmer says he fucked up.

U.S. Inspector Duelfer says he fucked up.

It's head-out-your-ass time.

[BigBank_Hank]

B-

I knew that you wouldn’t and won’t get it because a hypocrite obviously won’t be able to spout out hypocrisy.

[vidcc]

Actually hank i'm going to go deeper into how you figure this out


Quote:
But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.


Heres where the problem comes in. Only after he checks with the world to see if its ok with them and passes their test will we do something.
now what does this part say ?

Quote:
But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

isn't the word "did" a past tense? and "doing what you are doing"...doesn't that mean you are already doing it?

If he had said and you can prove to the world what we are going to do you would have a case...but hank you have this wrong buddy.
the fact is he didn't say
Only after he checks

[BigBank_Hank]

That makes even less sense than before. It’s just plain stupid.

So after we do something to protect ourselves THEN it has to pass a global test. Doesn’t that contradict his whole stance of building a coalition and gathering allies?

Really the whole thing is ridiculous.

I still hate the new quote system.

[vidcc]

So after we do something to protect ourselves THEN it has to pass a global test. Doesn’t that contradict his whole stance of building a coalition and gathering allies?

no . We have to be legitimate in our actions is what it means.... so that we don't endanger our chances of buildng building a coalition and gathering allies.

[Rat Faced]

But if and when you do it, Jim, you've got to do in a way that passes the test—that passes the global test—where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.

I would argue your definition of Global, in the context of that statement.

Global in this context would mean the whole of the country... it is defined by the words following:

"where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you're doing what you're doing,"

The other countries are tagged onto the end of the statement as an afterthought.

There are many definitions of the word "Global", and though your definition is a correct one, the context of the whole statement means that is not the definition that is required.

[Busyman]

That makes even less sense than before. It’s just plain stupid.

So after we do something to protect ourselves THEN it has to pass a global test. Doesn’t that contradict his whole stance of building a coalition and gathering allies?

Really the whole thing is ridiculous.

I still hate the new quote system.

Whatever Hank.

The bottomline is your, our President fucked up. The rationale he used to go to war preemptively didn't work and there's no way you or this fucked up President can tell any intelligent person otherwise.

Say Saddam's a bad man. So are many others.

Say Iraqi's needed freedom. So do many others. It didn't justify a prolonged war with no post war plan that impacts the U.S. negatively with needless Americans dying, gross financial losses (except for Halliburton), and respect for us a nation globally.

Say Saddam was trying to get nukes. Who ain't?

Say Al Qaeda was in Iraq. They weren't. They had more to do with Iran than Iraq and Saddam had his own feud with them.

I watched 60 minutes last night and there were Iraqis interviewed about the American occupation. Initially they thought they were saved now they see it differently. Families have lost more relatives, cultural treasures, and freedom than before we invaded. People are routinely kidnapped.

By the way these Iraqis didn't want there names revealed or be seen talking to Americans in public for fear of being killed by insurgents.

Bush should up fess to America that he invaded for the wrong reason and is using the wewentintogiveIraqisfreedomAlQaedawasthereallalongSaddamhelpedsponsor911Iraqisstillwantusthere as a band-aid.

If you Hank actually know that Bush is a fuck up and have a substantial financial interest or something in President Bush then I commend you for putting up such a nice Republican united front for us all here.
We have been duped. Why one would do this on an internet forum is anyone's guess though seeing as you are not a politician and could never hope to be, uh bump that, Bush is in office but he has name. Add to that we really don't know who you are.
BUT....

If you actually believe Bush's track record thus far is great and he's doing nothing wrong then you have to be the best grade A class bonafide idiot in the history of idiocy and it's shameful that people like yourself represent a voting demographic in America.

If this was Clinton you'd be foaming at the mouth.

EDIT: ...and the new quote system does suck.

[BigBank_Hank]

Why one would do this on an internet forum is anyone's guess though seeing as you are not a politician and could never hope to be, uh bump that, Bush is in office but he has name. Add to that we really don't know who you are.

There are many points that I would like to comment on about your post but this is most intriguing to me.

Firstly why one would do this on an internet forum. I like the conversation here and think that it’s a great mental exercise to do this sort of thing. It’s not fun at all to always have conversations about politics with people who agree with you. People around here generally understand the threat that we are under. This used to be a very pro Democrat state but things have changed. There are more people with Bush stickers on their cars than you can shake a stick at.

Now onto my main point: why could I never be a politician? I’ve seen you say this more than once now and its really got me wondering why I could never get you to vote for me.

[spinningfreemanny]

Here's the point:
You cannot make countries understand; nor satisfyingly prove that your doing what your doing; that is their perspective and in their territory. I'm sure that even you can concede that President Bush believes that what he is doing is right, for various reasons, but making other countries concede is preposterous. I also believe that the reasons mentioned (and have been rehashed, rehashed, and rehashed), though maybe not agreed on, can be understood. We cannot force countries to understand, and we shouldn't hinder protecting Americans for it.

For the scinareos you mentioned vid; there has to be legal credence to what they are doing.

[Busyman]

There are many points that I would like to comment on about your post but this is most intriguing to me.

Firstly why one would do this on an internet forum. I like the conversation here and think that it’s a great mental exercise to do this sort of thing. It’s not fun at all to always have conversations about politics with people who agree with you. People around here generally understand the threat that we are under. This used to be a very pro Democrat state but things have changed. There are more people with Bush stickers on their cars than you can shake a stick at.

Now onto my main point: why could I never be a politician? I’ve seen you say this more than once now and its really got me wondering why I could never get you to vote for me.
What's really sad is that I added that in as an edit and I'll be damned if that's the only thing you focused on. (the quote thing wasn't the only edit)

I figured as much.

The other stuff I mentioned is very hard to refute. That's why it wasn't addressed...even in the "Now onto my main point" part you were still addressing an edited segway.

[vidcc]

Here's the point:
You cannot make countries understand; nor satisfyingly prove that your doing what your doing; that is their perspective and in their territory. I'm sure that even you can concede that President Bush believes that what he is doing is right, for various reasons, but making other countries concede is preposterous. I also believe that the reasons mentioned (and have been rehashed, rehashed, and rehashed), though maybe not agreed on, can be understood. We cannot force countries to understand, and we shouldn't hinder protecting Americans for it.

For the scinareos you mentioned vid; there has to be legal credence to what they are doing.Just for my own clarification manny...do you think kerry said he will ask other countries before he takes action?

Well let's put a real life scenario in place...911.

we found out who did it and we went after them....that's credibility. we didn't need to ask the world and they backed us


Iraq...we didn't get our facts straight before we took our actions...not credible.... now it doesn't matter that "everyone knew:rolleyes: " saddam had WMD...what matters is that we took actions before we did know for sure and it turns out we were wrong.WE took action because we said...well the UN isn't doing anything to disarm this "imminent threat".... but turns out that he was disarmed do you think that's credible?
before you answer i don't want to be hearing the "new just thought of reasons" after the WMD turned out to be an "oops"....i want to hear about the reasons we did it when we did it.

[Busyman]

Here's the point:
You cannot make countries understand; nor satisfyingly prove that your doing what your doing; that is their perspective and in their territory. I'm sure that even you can concede that President Bush believes that what he is doing is right, for various reasons, but making other countries concede is preposterous. I also believe that the reasons mentioned (and have been rehashed, rehashed, and rehashed), though maybe not agreed on, can be understood. We cannot force countries to understand, and we shouldn't hinder protecting Americans for it.

For the scinareos you mentioned vid; there has to be legal credence to what they are doing.
Good lord if I hear "He believes what he's doing is right" one more time.....

Heart is not the only consideration for a President. Intelligence, diplomacy, communication...all of those are a consideration as well.

Who wants conviction if it's for the wrong thing?
Action is great if it's the right action.
We've got folks saying, "At least he did something."

I say, "STFU, YOU'RE AN IDIOT!!!"

"Well Saddam's out of power"
Great, mission accomplished. NOT.

Sorry to say it but a dictatorship is at least...uh...stable.

[vidcc]

I'm sure that even you can concede that President Bush believes that what he is doing is right, for various reasons
Hitler believed what he was doing was right...was he?

I am not comparing bush to hitler other than believing they are rightas justification

[Rat Faced]

Here's the point:
We cannot force countries to understand

Strange.... isnt that why we're in Iraq?

So they "Understand" Democracy and take part?

Or is forcing them to understand one thing different from another?

[Rat Faced]

I am not comparing bush to hitler

I do, however.

[vidcc]

I do, however.
pinko commie :lol: :lol:

[vidcc]

Strange.... isnt that why we're in Iraq?

So they "Understand" Democracy and take part?

Or is forcing them to understand one thing different from another?wish i had posted that :(

seems i got through to him about different cultures:D

[BigBank_Hank]

What's really sad is that I added that in as an edit and I'll be damned if that's the only thing you focused on. (the quote thing wasn't the only edit)

I figured as much.

The other stuff I mentioned is very hard to refute. That's why it wasn't addressed...even in the "Now onto my main point" part you were still addressing an edited segway.


You should know that I never run or avoid answering posts.

The reason that I didn’t answer that one is we’ve been over it so many times. I know where you stand and you know where I stand and neither one of us is going to give an inch.

And as far being hard to refute that’s your opinion not a fact. I could refute many of those points just like I’ve done already.

I wanted to talk about something new that you touched on, which is why I singled that paragraph out. Care to elaborate on why I could never be a politician a point that we haven’t been over 50 times already.

[Busyman]

You should know that I never run or avoid answering posts.

The reason that I didn’t answer that one is we’ve been over it so many times. I know where you stand and you know where I stand and neither one of us is going to give an inch.

And as far being hard to refute that’s your opinion not a fact. I could refute many of those points just like I’ve done already.

I wanted to talk about something new that you touched on, which is why I singled that paragraph out. Care to elaborate on why I could never be a politician a point that we haven’t been over 50 times already.
You have refuted squat!!!

When I said "bump that" earlier, it meant that I guess you could be a politician. Our political system is full of idiots...Bush was mentioned.
Btw I can give an inch if I'm wrong.

You are one who gets backed into a corner and clams up.

As far as knowing that you never run or avoid answering posts, I really don't get where you think I know this from...like have tough hard nosed reputation or something. Suffice to say you are nowhere near as thought provoking or highly regarded as you think you are. Most of the time if you even show up to post something you are either answering some obscure question that you picked within the post or answering as a stand-up comedian.

Most of the time I'm laughing.

Look any thread where the "hard questions" are asked about the Republican party. You are nonexistent (you are not alone however). Do the same for a Democratic or Independent and people show in droves.

[BigBank_Hank]

You have refuted squat!!!

How many times do we need to go over the war in Iraq and the reasons for invading? How about the Bush and the good he’s done thread? How about the multiple WMD threads?


As far as knowing that you never run or avoid answering posts, I really don't get where you think I know this from...like have tough hard nosed reputation or something. Suffice to say you are nowhere near as thought provoking or highly regarded as you think you are. Most of the time if you even show up to post something you are either answering some obscure question that you picked within the post or answering as a stand-up comedian.

I never said that I was an all high and mighty know it all like you pretend to be. When someone asks me a question I answer it, unlike yourself.


Look any thread where the "hard questions" are asked about the Republican party. You are nonexistent (you are not alone however). Do the same for a Democratic or Independent and people show in droves.


I simply don’t have the time to answer every silly accusation that is brought up about the Bush administration. I have a lot to do everyday and making up a name on an internet forum called Busyman and finding time to make over 3,600 posts doesn’t exactly fit into my schedule. I also don’t have time to go into all the sections around here and find members that I don’t agree with and call them stupid or idiots.

I hate lowing myself to your standards and post personal insults but I’ve take this shit from you for long enough.

[Busyman]

How many times do we need to go over the war in Iraq and the reasons for invading? How about the Bush and the good he’s done thread? How about the multiple WMD threads?



I never said that I was an all high and mighty know it all like you pretend to be. When someone asks me a question I answer it, unlike yourself.




I simply don’t have the time to answer every silly accusation that is brought up about the Bush administration. I have a lot to do everyday and making up a name on an internet forum called Busyman and finding time to make over 3,600 posts doesn’t exactly fit into my schedule. I also don’t have time to go into all the sections around here and find members that I don’t agree with and call them stupid or idiots.

I hate lowing myself to your standards and post personal insults but I’ve take this shit from you for long enough.

Who knows what you agree with except

"Bush is a great President. I'm voting for him."
"The war is going great. It's good that we went in."
"Bush's tax cuts during wartime was a great idea."
"Bush's support for outsourcing jobs overseas is good for Americans."

...with nary an explanation.

Some of these "silly accusations" relate to real American, and for that matter, global problems. If you post prepare to be called on it.

You don't have to take this shit because you don't have to respond. Folks that I don't care to talk to, threads that don't interest me, I simply don't reply. I can count maybe two times when something here actually got to me and I consider that shameful. This forum is entertainment.

Hell I just saw your age!!! Ouch.
I'm all laughed out. You win.

[3RA1N1AC]

That makes even less sense than before. It’s just plain stupid.

So after we do something to protect ourselves THEN it has to pass a global test. Doesn’t that contradict his whole stance of building a coalition and gathering allies?

Really the whole thing is ridiculous.

I still hate the new quote system.


this "protect ourselves" thing seems to invoke the american legal definition of self-defense as a blanket justification for violence. thing is, you can get by on self-defense if the other person HAS ATTACKED you, and you are in immediate life-threatening danger. an american judge will not, however, accept your actions as self-defense if you hurt or kill somebody because you thought he MIGHT have a weapon.

also: deferring to an international organization in matters affecting a foreign country's sovereignty is not ASS-LICKING. would you prefer to revert to the law of the jungle, in which it's open season for any country to invade & overthrow any other country for ANY crazy reason?

[BigBank_Hank]

Who knows what you agree with except

"Bush is a great President. I'm voting for him."
"The war is going great. It's good that we went in."
"Bush's tax cuts during wartime was a great idea."
"Bush's support for outsourcing jobs overseas is good for Americans."

...with nary an explanation.

Some of these "silly accusations" relate to real American, and for that matter, global problems. If you post prepare to be called on it.

You don't have to take this shit because you don't have to respond. Folks that I don't care to talk to, threads that don't interest me, I simply don't reply. I can count maybe two times when something here actually got to me and I consider that shameful. This forum is entertainment.

Hell I just saw your age!!! Ouch.
I'm all laughed out. You win.

First and foremost what does my age have to do with anything?

I don’t post in every single thread because as you said this forum is entertainment, and I don’t want to spend the whole time arguing with someone that will never see things the way I do.

Thing is when I do post and disagree with someone I don’t automatically dismiss them and think that they are stupid.

[Busyman]

First and foremost what does my age have to do with anything?

I don’t post in every single thread because as you said this forum is entertainment, and I don’t want to spend the whole time arguing with someone that will never see things the way I do.

Thing is when I do post and disagree with someone I don’t automatically dismiss them and think that they are stupid.
It's cool man. I just thought you were older before. In my own little way your age made things clearer.
Sometimes when I can't grasp the logic in something there is one puzzle piece that makes it fit.

Everything's all good man. I apologize.

[BigBank_Hank]

You know I thought about this thread probably all day long.

What changed when you saw my age? I would really like a honest answer to this.

[spinningfreemanny]

Strange.... isnt that why we're in Iraq?

So they "Understand" Democracy and take part?

Or is forcing them to understand one thing different from another?

You left out the rest of the sentence, stating what they are to not understand...sneaky, yet expected. :shifty:

I have already stated why democracy is needed numerous times before.

[Busyman]

You know I thought about this thread probably all day long.

What changed when you saw my age? I would really like a honest answer to this.
I rather not, no offense. My logic helps me in a great many things but explaining it too much takes away from it's uniqueness. :blink:
To me it's black and white. Even if you tell me now that that is not really your age, which logically must be considered, it works for me atm. :)

[spinningfreemanny]

Don't worry hank, he works in D.C....*cough*JADED*cough* :lol:

[Busyman]

Don't worry hank, he works in D.C....*cough*JADED*cough* :lol:
AND*cough*SO*cough*DOES*cough*YOUR*cough*PRESIDENT*cough**cough*. :o

I just had work at 1500 Penn yesterday...a stone's throw away from the current residence of the most *cough*JADED*cough. :lol: :lol:

[Rat Faced]

You left out the rest of the sentence, stating what they are to not understand...sneaky, yet expected. :shifty:

I have already stated why democracy is needed numerous times before.

So why is the US not helping the formation of Democray in Nepal, where the people are fighting for it?

Instead they are helping the Absolute Monarch...