Printable View
Yeah you got a point there. Bush is nothing but a puppet on strings. The real man(I use the word "Man" loosely) in charge is Cheney and the oiol companies. :01:Quote:
Originally posted by yonki@29 April 2004 - 20:37
Dont blame George, its not his fault: hes just a puppet.
of who? ariel sharon?Quote:
Originally posted by yonki@29 April 2004 - 17:37
Dont blame George, its not his fault: hes just a puppet.
Yeah you got a point there. Bush is nothing but a puppet on strings. The real man(I use the word "Man" loosely) in charge is Cheney and the oiol companies. :01: [/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Arm+29 April 2004 - 23:44--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm @ 29 April 2004 - 23:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-yonki@29 April 2004 - 20:37
Dont blame George, its not his fault: hes just a puppet.
whoa, my bad, boy was i way off :blink:
RF, please start a third thread starting with just one of the lies. Whenever people defend the war/president they always talk in circles. I am very eager to see J2's replies. I have yet to see a discussion with direct questions, direct answers, and NO PERSONAL ATTACKS (J2, It seems you have a problem with that at times)!!!!!!!!!!
I though I made myself clear earlier.
I'm not gonna do it.
I'm not going anywhere; I'll be here as is my habit, and I will continue to respond as I have.
The specific formula I tried to propose for the purpose of addressing Bush vis-a vis Rat, is, however, passe; I felt I tried it with the one member who might actually go through with it, and he indicated he would not entertain it.
No more dog-and-pony shows.
End of story.
You made it clear that you were unhappy with the 'delivery' of Rat Faceds post.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4
I though I made myself clear earlier.
I'm not gonna do it.
I'm not going anywhere; I'll be here as is my habit, and I will continue to respond as I have.
The specific formula I tried to propose for the purpose of addressing Bush vis-a vis Rat, is, however, passe; I felt I tried it with the one member who might actually go through with it, and he indicated he would not entertain it.
No more dog-and-pony shows.
End of story.
I don't understand what the problem would be if Rat Faced started a new thread with one point per post as you requested.
It's a shame. Rat Faced obviously put a lot of time and effort into producing that and it also seems pretty sincere to me.
Now you, probably Bush's strongest supporter on this board, are refusing to participate in a debate you requested. As you can see many of us are eager to see your response.
It maybe unfortunate but... your refusal does look like, well.... how can I put it diplomatically.... a strategic retreat in the face of overwhelming force?
J2k4, I beg to differ..
You said you wished to go through " 1 point at a time", not 1 lie.
I was giving you a "choice" of lies to start with, as i was unsure what you wished to discuss.
However, I also appologise for the mistake.
This being the case, i'll pick a Domestic Issue of the USA, rather than Iraq.
This way maybe you can enlighten me, as well as some US members of the board possibly, how the word "Lie" doesnt fit?
In discussing, im well aware that a politicians stock in trade is "spin"... however spin is different, im sure you will agree, to an outright lie....
I will start a new thread off on the topic of my choosing, rather than the topic of your choosing, as was my intent.
Paul
aw, man. this thread's dead in the water. reading through the first page, i came up with an easy one:
"We're not into nation-building" -- statement to the press by GWB, during the 2000 election campaign.
perhaps Bush should've used a qualifying phrase like "mostly not into," "tentatively not into," or "hopefully not into." but nope, he was just straight up "not into" it.
3RA1N1ACQuote:
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@3 May 2004 - 22:28
aw, man. this thread's dead in the water. reading through the first page, i came up with an easy one:
"We're not into nation-building" -- statement to the press by GWB, during the 2000 election campaign.
perhaps Bush should've used a qualifying phrase like "mostly not into," "tentatively not into," or "hopefully not into." but nope, he was just straight up "not into" it.
We have a saying in the British Civil Service (although I daresay it cuts across most countries) "believe nothing until you hear the official denial". :unsure:
Hehe along with "It takes longer to do things quickly, its more expensive to do things cheaply and its more democratic to do them in secret".