Bush committed to tracking al-Qaida

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Did anyone actually expect us to simply walk in a grab him. Maybe call him out of hiding with a free ice-cream offer.

What is sad is that people actually fall for the song and dance when someone like Obama says they will capture him they. I seriously think that certain people in America would rather support Osama Bin Laden than support George W Bush..

I know someone who could have gotton him, but his pants around his ankles at the time and pretendin to be a cigar salesmen.

...but you'll let Bush off the hook. Selective impartiality.

Im not lettin anyone off the hook, it isnt over yet. Mistakes? Sure there have been mistakes.Is anyone on this board that is critical of Bush made a mistake? He!! yeah you have. All you armchair "I could do better bunch". There is a saying, if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

Most of our mistakes - don't start phony wars and get thousands of people killed.

That said - if you're going to go back to calling everyone a 'traitor' - I'd really rather you didn't.

Last I checked people usually die in wars, its a given. Does that make it a mistake? Of course not. Maybe you could find me Bushes televised speech to Saddam in which he warned him of what would happen if he didnt comply. Bushes fault or Sadams own stupidity? The latter i suspect.

"traitor"? You got someting you want to say? Or is this a desperate attempt to antagonize? Spit it out there young fella.

Edited August 6, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Did anyone actually expect us to simply walk in a grab him. Maybe call him out of hiding with a free ice-cream offer.

What is sad is that people actually fall for the song and dance when someone like Obama says they will capture him they. I seriously think that certain people in America would rather support Osama Bin Laden than support George W Bush..

I know someone who could have gotton him, but his pants around his ankles at the time and pretendin to be a cigar salesmen.

...but you'll let Bush off the hook. Selective impartiality.

Im not lettin anyone off the hook, it isnt over yet. Mistakes? Sure there have been mistakes.Is anyone on this board that is critical of Bush made a mistake? He!! yeah you have. All you armchair "I could do better bunch". There is a saying, if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem.

...like Slick Willie making mistakes, hmmm. Like I said, selective impartiality...tsk, tsk.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Last I checked people usually die in wars, its a given. Does that make it a mistake? Of course not. Maybe you could find me Bushes televised speech to Saddam in which he warned him of what would happen if he didnt comply. Bushes fault or Sadams own stupidity? The latter i suspect.

Well we could rehash the same old ###### a dozen times and a dozen different ways - but we'll still arrive at the same twisting of legalities, shifting justifications, and unsubstantiated claims about 'imminent threats' - and no 'war supporting' USC will touch the British government's leaked memo that said explicitly that Bush et al had already made the decision to go to war regardless of all their 'warnings', and were seeking ways to fix the intelligence around the policy. But then you lot never did see the British side of the debate did you?

Edited August 6, 2007 by Number 6

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Last I checked people usually die in wars, its a given. Does that make it a mistake? Of course not. Maybe you could find me Bushes televised speech to Saddam in which he warned him of what would happen if he didnt comply. Bushes fault or Sadams own stupidity? The latter i suspect.

Well we could rehash the same old ###### a dozen times and a dozen different ways - but we'll still arrive at the same twisting of legalities, shifting justifications, and unsubstantiated claims about 'imminent threats' - and no 'war supporting' USC will touch the British government's leaked memo that said explicitly that Bush et al had already made the decision to go to war regardless of all their 'warnings', and were seeking ways to fix the intelligence around the policy.

Ah, this is the same old same...the game Marc plays whenever criticism is aimed in the direction of those he supports (namely Bush). In Marc's eyes, the Bush Administration can do no wrong. You'll never get him to openly criticize Bush here. ...but ask him about Slick Willie and he'll talk your ear off.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I haven't really liked any of the US Presidents who have served in my lifetime, but comparatively speaking Bush is so horrible that he's lowered the standard not only for future presidential candidates, but also for the accepted behaviour of high-profile officials in public office - now you really can get away with addressing the public and clearly not knowing what you're talking about. Used to be people would be scandalised when he said something patently stupid, contradictory or ridiculous. But he does it every day...

[Heracles 417]

I haven't really liked any of the US Presidents who have served in my lifetime, but comparatively speaking Bush is so horrible that he's lowered the standard not only for future presidential candidates, but also for the accepted behaviour of high-profile officials in public office - now you really can get away with addressing the public and clearly not knowing what you're talking about. Used to be people would be scandalised when he said something patently stupid, contradictory or ridiculous. But he does it every day...

so who do you recommend.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm undecided - its a heck of a thing giving your vote away to someone who, at best, barely half represents your views. Lesser of two evils - is still evil after all.

[Heracles 417]

I'm undecided - its a heck of a thing giving your vote away to someone who, at best, barely half represents your views. Lesser of two evils - is still evil after all.

So what is your type of ideal candidate then?

What should they stand for?

What would they have done after sept 11?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm undecided - its a heck of a thing giving your vote away to someone who, at best, barely half represents your views. Lesser of two evils - is still evil after all.

So what is your type of ideal candidate then?

What should they stand for?

What would they have done after sept 11?

How's about you start off - I've actually got $hit to do tonight.

[Heracles 417]

I'm undecided - its a heck of a thing giving your vote away to someone who, at best, barely half represents your views. Lesser of two evils - is still evil after all.

So what is your type of ideal candidate then?

What should they stand for?

What would they have done after sept 11?

How's about you start off - I've actually got $hit to do tonight.

Busy man you are. Don't want to hold your from anything important now.

It seems to be a trend from you. That is, disagree and criticize anyone who disagrees or questions your logic but never provide any alternative or solution.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'm undecided - its a heck of a thing giving your vote away to someone who, at best, barely half represents your views. Lesser of two evils - is still evil after all.

So what is your type of ideal candidate then?

What should they stand for?

What would they have done after sept 11?

How's about you start off - I've actually got $hit to do tonight.

Busy man you are. Don't want to hold your from anything important now.

It seems to be a trend from you. That is, disagree and criticize anyone who disagrees or questions your logic but never provide any alternative or solution.

You know - lately I'm starting to look at how much time I spend on here (and I'd say looking back at the copious amount of posting on the "black jail" thread - so should you) - not so much the endlessly repeating topics and having to treat everyone's collective amnesia over and over and over by repeating points previously made that are ignored or else deliberately misinterpreted, but actually sharing my time with some (frankly) stupid people.

The thought of having to trot out and justify my political position to you on every single issue - frankly bores the living $hit out of me. I don't get paid to write essays on internet forums unfortunately.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

I haven't really liked any of the US Presidents who have served in my lifetime, but comparatively speaking Bush is so horrible that he's lowered the standard not only for future presidential candidates, but also for the accepted behaviour of high-profile officials in public office - now you really can get away with addressing the public and clearly not knowing what you're talking about. Used to be people would be scandalised when he said something patently stupid, contradictory or ridiculous. But he does it every day...

so who do you recommend.

From the sound of it a lot of people here would vote for this one.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Let's leave Bush alone...he's got enough problems as President. We should support our President and his courageous effort to bring Bin Laden to justice. God Bless him.

[Heracles 417]

You know - lately I'm starting to look at how much time I spend on here (and I'd say looking back at the copious amount of posting on the "black jail" thread - so should you) - not so much the endlessly repeating topics and having to treat everyone's collective amnesia over and over and over by repeating points previously made that are ignored or else deliberately misinterpreted, but actually sharing my time with some (frankly) stupid people.

The thought of having to trot out and justify my political position to you on every single issue - frankly bores the living $hit out of me. I don't get paid to write essays on internet forums unfortunately.

Totally agree. There is no point in going round in circles if two people refuse to take the time to listen to somebody's views. You know that means 'L I S T E N' rather than automatically branding them a racist, or stupid, bigot etc.

Hence why I asked you those questions. Not out of spite but curiosity. The one thing evident in this forum is that unless someone has similar views to XYZ; no body, if any, bothers listening to what someone with opposing views is trying to say.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Actually this is the sort of $hit that I can honestly say I don't have time for:

You have to give people the information to make an informed choice about what's right for them. And lets face it - Abstinence-only programmes are mostly operated by, or related to - the Church.

Does that opinion include a 10 year old child?

I really don't want to debate any subject with you when my every post will be subjected to this sort of ludicrous (sensationalist) overanalysis.

You have to give people the information to make an informed choice about what's right for them. And lets face it - Abstinence-only programmes are mostly operated by, or related to - the Church.

Does that opinion include a 10 year old child?

Moreover, when I read posts like this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this if thats not soft racism on display, it betrays, at the very least, shocking naivete. As far as that goes - I'm still no nearer to understanding what your opinion was on that issue. but there we go.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Number 6