Iraqi Journalist Throws Shoes At Bush..Misses - Page 7

Tin Foil Timothy · 20th December 2008, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.

I almost spat my coffee over my keyboard when I read that. In amongst the fabricators of straw man arguments and gross untruths there's some real entertainment value in this forum.

Priceless!!! We should frame it and hang it on the wall!!

gtc · 20th December 2008, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

You and Cicero are quite the pair here.

Saying that just makes you look even sillier.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush

No you didn't.

This is what you posted:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist

Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker

In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.)

Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist

Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week.

These are articles in support of the man who threw his shoes at Bush.

Then you ended the post with this:

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush.

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known.

What were you expecting? People know that throwing shoes at someone is not polite, its why the man did it. There is no need to point out that it is impolite to do so.

As an aside, what is a straw man style excuse? Either something is a straw man argument or it isn't.

gtc · 20th December 2008, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

And you call yourself a skeptic!

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here.

You've tried posting Naomi Wolf's 12 signs of fascism before and it was debunked.

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

Skeptic Ginger · 20th December 2008, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

....

If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

Conspiracy theory?

gtc · 20th December 2008, 08:53 PM

Yes.

It is a conspiracy theory.

You are alleging that there is a conspiracy to undermine or even overthrow democracy that encompasses the GOP and the MSM amongst others. Its almost all you ever post about.

Skeptic · 20th December 2008, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient.

Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.

JihadJane · 21st December 2008, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

Hee hee.

Originally Posted by Skeptic

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

Life for women in US Iraq is much worse than it was under the murderous Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days.

Dr Adequate · 21st December 2008, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

Pardalis · 21st December 2008, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

Dr Adequate · 21st December 2008, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by Pardalis

Reality's a bitch ain't it?

And yet I still prefer it to the alternative.

Cicero · 21st December 2008, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by skeptigirl

Given all the evidence (Plame affair; Downing St memo; books by Bush supporter, Bob Woodward and the counter-intelligence head, Richard Clarke; PBS Moyers special, The Selling of the War, to name a few sources), it does boggle the mind the denial people cling to. It goes to show you the marketing adage, just repeating something often enough and people begin to believe it, works quite well. Bush and Cheney actively repeat the "intelligence failure" mantra and sadly, it is successful. But it will only be temporarily IMO. History will not be kind.

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?

Klimax · 21st December 2008, 11:07 AM

What happened to skeptics here???

Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do.
They embrace CT,they trash/insult president only because his administartion had different take on issues.Two wars - not good;one would be enough at a time to complete all objectives.That was his and of administartion error.Getting rid of Sadam,good;going into Afhanistan good.
But I have to wonder why politics will bring out of people the worst is in them... Sceptigirl,Upchurch,godless dave,JoeTheJuggler you should think how is this debate painting you in what light.(bad light)You were not right nearly every time you posted in this thread supporting in fact Sadam and one of his supporters.After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?(And who could guarantee that he won't attack again)

(this was to left-wing)

And then similar does/will apply to right-wing(See elections and campaing against Obama),but Bush was not worst president (from MY POV,this is from CR)simply had major attack,one bad war and one after long time ending and some strange law passed.I think average performance...

So question stands how does it come that politics will make from skeptics oneside-arguers?

P.S.:Please ignore truthers as they are even more disconected from reality then any of Bush-haters.(See 9/11 CT forum) Or do you want to prove me wrong?

JihadJane · 21st December 2008, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Klimax

After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

Dr Adequate · 21st December 2008, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by Cicero

I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?

Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

Dr Adequate · 21st December 2008, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Klimax

What happened to skeptics here???

Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do.

Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

Cicero · 21st December 2008, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

Read it? I could have predicted it. She believes Woodward is a Bush 43 supporter. When Woodward didn't line up with the pro Val & Joe contingency, that must have cemented it.

Tin Foil Timothy · 21st December 2008, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so.

And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?)

This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.

Ahh the tired old 1 bit thinking of "if you hate bush, you must support his enemies" crap again.

I think the guy who through the shoe was great. I am sorry that Bush was able to duck in time causing him to miss.

But do I support Saddam Hussein? Hell no. Hussein was one nasty mofo.

"pro-Democracy Bush!" I'mi still laughing at that one. Pure classic humor!!!

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

What was the first thing the CPA did after invading the place and setting up the green zone? No it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. It was to ilegally change Iraq's laws to privatize the place, so that unlimited wealth could be withdrawn from the country.

After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy.

Anyone who thinks that those who invaded Iraq did it for democracy there are fooling themselves. Or being fooled by the western spin.

gtc · 21st December 2008, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

Klimax · 21st December 2008, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.

War uinfortunately brings that but we have already examples like German or Japan.(They were however easier as there was no insurgency).I view "graph of state" as the one produced by function x^x - first some decreas,then fast improvement.It is difficult to rebuilt and improve when you have terrorist and insurgency.And then they have already freedom which was not there during Sadam.(Sadly I cannot relate from personal experience, but there are good reporters like Michael Yon and Michael Totten
(Both cover as Iraq so Afghanistan,good articles there))

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

There is no silly straw doll... This entire thread shows unhealthy BDS. (there is most possibly thread with ODS)
I read carefully and it's clear that some skeptics forgets critical thinking.

Skeptic · 21st December 2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?

That the Bush administration was wrong about the WMD is certain (well, ALMOST certain -- there's always the possibility Saddam did in fact hide them well). But, two completely obvious points the Bush haters keep ignoring:

1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war, but at most one of the reasons given to Congress. Most of the other reasons were correct.

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it).

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

These are obvious facts. These facts do not mean the war in Iraq was a good idea. But it certainly, and obviously, was NOT "a war based on the WMD lie", and it is certainly, and obviously, NOT the case that the "idiot Bush believe the mission was accomplished".

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats.

I, too, wonder why critical thinking goes straight out the window when Bush is involved, in favor of silly conspiracy theories.

Skeptic · 21st December 2008, 11:01 PM

Quote:

On what do you base this assertion?

Ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, for starters. There's a fair chance they will not be genocided under a democratic government, as they were under Saddam. It's not necessarily the case -- perhaps a democratic government will devolve into anarchy and the massacres will start again -- but better a possible salvation with democracy, than certain doom with Saddam.

But you're right: the country's infrastructure IS in ruins. Still, that too has a positive side: when the country's infrastructure was operating well, Saddam had very little trouble sending tanks and soldiers and poison-gas trucks to genocide those people, nor did the vans carrying his political opponents to one of the many prisons he built for them encounter any delay on the way.

Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism...

Tin Foil Timothy · 21st December 2008, 11:05 PM

Originally Posted by gtc

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country.

.

You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

This is a serious question ....

Can I ask what your IQ is?

Are you seriously, and with a straight face, proclaiming that someone could be antisemitic because they used the word 'leech' ?

Bud, I'm honestly beginning to think there is something wrong with you.

Tin Foil Timothy · 21st December 2008, 11:14 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?
.

Your logic for it not being a deliberate lie has no strength or credibility

Do you really think that people who don't miss a heartbeat about a million civilians getting killed would be worried about any embarrassment of the eventual revelation there were really no WMDs?

They don't give a flying ****

They knew they could just blame it on someone else. Incompetence, Flawed intle, etc, etc. Doesn't matter the job is done.

Iraq was invaded on a lie.

Tin Foil Timothy · 21st December 2008, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days.

This is true. Even though most Iraqis are glad to get rid of Saddam, they are much worse off now under the PNAC regime.

"pro-democracy Bush" - ROFLMAO!!! Still a classic. If that guy didn't have such a hatred of the Palestinians I'd say he was a comedy genius!

Pardalis · 21st December 2008, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy.

Do you have any reliable sources on that, any numbers?

Dr Adequate · 22nd December 2008, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war ...

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

Here's the text of Powell's speech to the U.N, the speech that he later described as a painful blot on his record. Reading it over, what would you say was the main reason he gives for going to war, if not WMDs?

Quote:

2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on?

'Cos by that time they'd had the war they wanted. Being "embarrassed" might seem a small price to pay, especially as this only applies to people with a sense of shame. Colin Powell was embarrassed, but I can't think of another senior official who's betrayed the least embarrassment. Perhaps you can: if so, feel free to quote them.

But yes, it might have been a combination of wishful thinking and drooling idiocy, or "woo" as we call it round here. I don't see how that makes it OK.

Quote:

Or take the "mission accomplished" sign:

1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it).

As the White House has admitted, the banner was made, and hung in that particular position, by White House staff:

Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech.

And even if you wish to deny what the White House has admitted, are you trying to claim that Bush standing slap-bang in front of it was not an intentional photo-op?

Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that?

Damn, such terrible bad luck.

Quote:

2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet.

Let's hear from Bush, shall we?

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Quote:

And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats.

Let's be frank, they are "practically dogma" with anyone whose view of reality is not obscured by Bush's ass.

Darth Rotor · 22nd December 2008, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

How trite. Please remember that neither Bush nor Powell were clairvoyant. Saddam had programs in some state unknown, I recommend the Scheuer points about how intel dried up after Desert Fox to indicate how in the dark the Bush admins were. Therefore, using an unfortunate helping of confirmation bias, Bush and his team chose to make a worst case assumption about the programs that, within a year of the egg being broken open to see if it had one or two yokes, were not where they had been assessed to be. Time and again I find the Cheney attempts at six sigma in national security decision assessment to be the core problem here, his much ballyhooed unwillingness to deal with the 1/100 or 1/1000 risk. On that basis, the decision process is even more appalling, and IMO, more telling.

We aren't dealing with a lie here. We are dealing with a profound case of

1. Myopia
2. Zero defects woo.
3. A false dichotomy in terms of what options were available. Two is not the correct number, and rarely is at that level.

That is, to me, far more troubling than anything so simple as a lie.

DR

Cicero · 22nd December 2008, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Iraq was invaded on a lie.

Was Kuwait invaded on a lie?

Toke · 22nd December 2008, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by Cicero

Was Kuwait invaded on a lie?

As I recall it desert storm was a fight for democracy, I don´t recall which one.

Toke · 22nd December 2008, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism...

I am sure the quarter of the iraki population that is displaced or dead as a result of the invation are real gratefull for being liberated.

Look on the bright side, american imperialism is no more evil than so many other empires through history, just more powerfull.

OneShotKi11 · 22nd December 2008, 11:09 AM

He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next...

Cicero · 22nd December 2008, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by OneShotKi11

He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next...

That Iraqi "journalist" manged to hit the American flag, but couldn't tag a guy 10 feet in front of him, twice. But he will get a lot of practise being tagged himself while enjoying the hospitality of the local gray bar hotel.

Tin Foil Timothy · 22nd December 2008, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that?

Damn, such terrible bad luck.

What? You mean the Autocue.

Never mind Painting by Numbers, this is Presidency by Numbers. Is he that much of a drone that he has to have a victory speech scripted. but then all good fiction is scripted isn't it?

Skeptic · 22nd December 2008, 01:04 PM

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

Tin Foil Timothy · 22nd December 2008, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

Why doesn't it cut it?

Darth Rotor · 22nd December 2008, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy

Why doesn't it cut it?

They aren't geniuses.

Cicero · 22nd December 2008, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by Toke

I am sure the quarter of the iraki population that is displaced or dead as a result of the invation are real gratefull for being liberated.

Over 70,000 French citizens died from Allied bombings before France was liberated in WWII. Nearly a million French homes were destroyed, or partially destroyed, by the Allies and even one or two cities were completely destroyed. Yet, most french citizens were indeed grateful for being liberated.

Many Iraqis people hated the U.S. before 1991, before 2003, and will always hate the U.S. What else is new?

Dr Adequate · 22nd December 2008, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

How trite. Please remember that neither Bush nor Powell were clairvoyant ...

We aren't dealing with a lie here. We are dealing with a profound case of

1. Myopia
2. Zero defects woo.
3. A false dichotomy in terms of what options were available. Two is not the correct number, and rarely is at that level.

That is, to me, far more troubling than anything so simple as a lie.

My Orwell quote was not aimed at Bush et al, but at Skeptic, when he claimed that WMDs were never offered as the main reason for invading Iraq. This is a blatant rewriting of history. This is indeed on a par with Stalin airbrushing Trotsky out of photographs and with the Orwellian statement that "We have always been at war with Eastasia."

Dr Adequate · 22nd December 2008, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic

I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

When you have to break new records in logical fallacies, this is nature's way of telling you that you're wrong.

I make that a false trichotomy involving three different straw men. If you're going for some sort of a record, why don't you throw in a petitio principii?

Tin Foil Timothy · 22nd December 2008, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

They aren't geniuses.

Yes, good point!

20th December 2008, 08:09 PM	#241
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by skeptigirl And you call yourself a skeptic! Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here. I almost spat my coffee over my keyboard when I read that. In amongst the fabricators of straw man arguments and gross untruths there's some real entertainment value in this forum. Priceless!!! We should frame it and hang it on the wall!!
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

20th December 2008, 08:50 PM	#244
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,620	Originally Posted by gtc .... If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence. Conspiracy theory?
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

21st December 2008, 01:37 AM	#247
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,744	Originally Posted by Skeptic he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so. Hee hee. Originally Posted by Skeptic And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?) Life for women in US Iraq is much worse than it was under the murderous Saddam Hussein. Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH Last edited by JihadJane; 21st December 2008 at 01:39 AM.

21st December 2008, 08:36 AM	#251
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by skeptigirl Given all the evidence (Plame affair; Downing St memo; books by Bush supporter, Bob Woodward and the counter-intelligence head, Richard Clarke; PBS Moyers special, The Selling of the War, to name a few sources), it does boggle the mind the denial people cling to. It goes to show you the marketing adage, just repeating something often enough and people begin to believe it, works quite well. Bush and Cheney actively repeat the "intelligence failure" mantra and sadly, it is successful. But it will only be temporarily IMO. History will not be kind. I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats?
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

21st December 2008, 11:07 AM	#252
Klimax NWO cyborg (3930K inside) Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 7,897	What happened to skeptics here??? Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do. They embrace CT,they trash/insult president only because his administartion had different take on issues.Two wars - not good;one would be enough at a time to complete all objectives.That was his and of administartion error.Getting rid of Sadam,good;going into Afhanistan good. But I have to wonder why politics will bring out of people the worst is in them... Sceptigirl,Upchurch,godless dave,JoeTheJuggler you should think how is this debate painting you in what light.(bad light)You were not right nearly every time you posted in this thread supporting in fact Sadam and one of his supporters.After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign).About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again?(And who could guarantee that he won't attack again) (this was to left-wing) And then similar does/will apply to right-wing(See elections and campaing against Obama),but Bush was not worst president (from MY POV,this is from CR)simply had major attack,one bad war and one after long time ending and some strange law passed.I think average performance... So question stands how does it come that politics will make from skeptics oneside-arguers? P.S.:Please ignore truthers as they are even more disconected from reality then any of Bush-haters.(See 9/11 CT forum) Or do you want to prove me wrong?
	__________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400

20th December 2008, 08:43 PM	#242
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by skeptigirl You and Cicero are quite the pair here. Saying that just makes you look even sillier. Originally Posted by skeptigirl I post evidence of worldwide support of the sentiment against Bush No you didn't. This is what you posted: Originally Posted by skeptigirl Thousands protest for release of Iraqi journalist Iraq rally for Bush shoe attacker In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero. (It’s Not Bush.) Thousands of Iraqis protest arrest of shoe-throwing journalist Montrealers are being invited to hurl their footwear at the U.S. Consulate on Saturday in solidarity with an Iraqi journalist who threw his shoes at President George W. Bush this week. These are articles in support of the man who threw his shoes at Bush. Then you ended the post with this: Originally Posted by skeptigirl Not trying to cherry pick, mind you, but I couldn't find more than a blog comment or reply supporting Bush. Originally Posted by skeptigirl and you make this straw man style excuse for why there is no equivalent of Bush supporters making their views publicly known. What were you expecting? People know that throwing shoes at someone is not polite, its why the man did it. There is no need to point out that it is impolite to do so. As an aside, what is a straw man style excuse? Either something is a straw man argument or it isn't.

20th December 2008, 08:45 PM	#243
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by skeptigirl And you call yourself a skeptic! Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. And in his case, it's mostly only convenient to claim to be for democracy and freedom. I think if you took a few minutes to look past the rhetoric at the actual things Bush has done in the last 8 years, it might be more apparent to you what a silly statement you've made here. You've tried posting Naomi Wolf's 12 signs of fascism before and it was debunked. If you want us to accept your conspiracy theory then you really need to supply some evidence.

20th December 2008, 08:53 PM	#245
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Yes. It is a conspiracy theory. You are alleging that there is a conspiracy to undermine or even overthrow democracy that encompasses the GOP and the MSM amongst others. Its almost all you ever post about.

20th December 2008, 11:07 PM	#246
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: Bush is only pro-democracy when it is convenient. Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so. And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?) This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep.

21st December 2008, 07:11 AM	#248
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Skeptic And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?) I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant.

21st December 2008, 08:03 AM	#249
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I'm glad I don't live in your imagination: it is dark, fetid and unpleasant. Reality's a bitch ain't it?

21st December 2008, 08:09 AM	#250
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Pardalis Reality's a bitch ain't it? And yet I still prefer it to the alternative.

21st December 2008, 11:20 AM	#253
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,744	Originally Posted by Klimax After things will settle Iraq is going to be far better place then it was(during Sadam reign). On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins.
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

21st December 2008, 01:29 PM	#254
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Cicero I knew the libs would throw Woodward under the Greyhound when he wouldn't tow the company line about the lame Plame affair. What will it take to get the famous investigative journalist, who took on the Nixon Administration, to get back into the good graces of the far left? You fell in love with David Brock only after he repudiated his former boss, The American Spectator, retracted his comments about Anita Hill, and posted his prejudices against FOX News in his Media Matters website. What sort of contortions will Woodward have to submit to before he can worm his way back into the good graces of far left moonbats? Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it.

21st December 2008, 01:31 PM	#255
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Klimax What happened to skeptics here??? Those who are trashing woo in other section,who are promoting critical thinking... here they absolutely HATE Bush NO MATTER what he did/does/will do. Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know.

21st December 2008, 03:24 PM	#256
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Maybe you should have read skeptigirl's post before replying to it. Read it? I could have predicted it. She believes Woodward is a Bush 43 supporter. When Woodward didn't line up with the pro Val & Joe contingency, that must have cemented it.
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

21st December 2008, 05:41 PM	#257
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Skeptic Perhaps; but so was Clinton, so was every American president -- the USA always had to deal with dictatorial jerks, and not all of them could, nor perhaps should, be removed. National interest figures in which, if any, of them should. But the "Bush Derangement" folks ignore the rather obvious point that even if Bush is only "pro-democracy when it is convenient" (all which that is left, incidentally, of the "Bush started Iraq war for oil", "Bush started Afghanistan war for a pipeline", "Bush stole the elections", "Bush will declare martial law", etc., etc. conspiracy theories that were oh-so-popular around here a while ago), he nevertheless IS pro-Iraqi democracy, and very obviously so. And yet, you and others here lionize the shoe-thrower -- a man who openly supports one of the most bloody tyrants in the world, Saddam Hussein, and who yearns for the good ol' days when he was in power, with his murderous serial-raping sons as well. (Speaking of mass rape: ever noticed how little women's rights count for, in the eyes of the "feminist" Bush haters, as long they're gruesomely violated by someone who hates Bush?) This is the kind of company the Bush haters have no problem keeping, as long as they dislike Bush, too. And a man is judged by the company they keep. Ahh the tired old 1 bit thinking of "if you hate bush, you must support his enemies" crap again. I think the guy who through the shoe was great. I am sorry that Bush was able to duck in time causing him to miss. But do I support Saddam Hussein? Hell no. Hussein was one nasty mofo. "pro-Democracy Bush!" I'mi still laughing at that one. Pure classic humor!!! Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country. What was the first thing the CPA did after invading the place and setting up the green zone? No it wasn't to help the Iraqi people. It was to ilegally change Iraq's laws to privatize the place, so that unlimited wealth could be withdrawn from the country. After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy. Anyone who thinks that those who invaded Iraq did it for democracy there are fooling themselves. Or being fooled by the western spin.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

21st December 2008, 06:24 PM	#258
gtc Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: the downunderverse Posts: 7,114	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country. You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology.

21st December 2008, 10:41 PM	#259
Klimax NWO cyborg (3930K inside) Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 7,897	Originally Posted by JihadJane On what do you base this assertion? The country's infrastruture is in ruins. War uinfortunately brings that but we have already examples like German or Japan.(They were however easier as there was no insurgency).I view "graph of state" as the one produced by function x^x - first some decreas,then fast improvement.It is difficult to rebuilt and improve when you have terrorist and insurgency.And then they have already freedom which was not there during Sadam.(Sadly I cannot relate from personal experience, but there are good reporters like Michael Yon and Michael Totten (Both cover as Iraq so Afghanistan,good articles there)) Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Why are you shouting at that silly straw doll? It can't hear you, you know. There is no silly straw doll... This entire thread shows unhealthy BDS. (there is most possibly thread with ODS) I read carefully and it's clear that some skeptics forgets critical thinking.
	__________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400

21st December 2008, 10:52 PM	#260
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: About WMDs simply inteligence errors and under/oversimating and since they were once used who could guarantee they wouldn't be used again? That the Bush administration was wrong about the WMD is certain (well, ALMOST certain -- there's always the possibility Saddam did in fact hide them well). But, two completely obvious points the Bush haters keep ignoring: 1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war, but at most one of the reasons given to Congress. Most of the other reasons were correct. 2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on? Or take the "mission accomplished" sign: 1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it). 2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet. These are obvious facts. These facts do not mean the war in Iraq was a good idea. But it certainly, and obviously, was NOT "a war based on the WMD lie", and it is certainly, and obviously, NOT the case that the "idiot Bush believe the mission was accomplished". And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats. I, too, wonder why critical thinking goes straight out the window when Bush is involved, in favor of silly conspiracy theories.

21st December 2008, 11:01 PM	#261
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Quote: On what do you base this assertion? Ask the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, for starters. There's a fair chance they will not be genocided under a democratic government, as they were under Saddam. It's not necessarily the case -- perhaps a democratic government will devolve into anarchy and the massacres will start again -- but better a possible salvation with democracy, than certain doom with Saddam. But you're right: the country's infrastructure IS in ruins. Still, that too has a positive side: when the country's infrastructure was operating well, Saddam had very little trouble sending tanks and soldiers and poison-gas trucks to genocide those people, nor did the vans carrying his political opponents to one of the many prisons he built for them encounter any delay on the way. Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism...

21st December 2008, 11:05 PM	#262
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by gtc Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Bush isn't pro-democracy in Iraq. He's pro Capitalist "Profit before people" where all his buddies can leech all the wealth from the country. . You claim not to be anti-semitic, yet you use their terminology. This is a serious question .... Can I ask what your IQ is? Are you seriously, and with a straight face, proclaiming that someone could be antisemitic because they used the word 'leech' ? Bud, I'm honestly beginning to think there is something wrong with you.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

21st December 2008, 11:14 PM	#263
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Skeptic 2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on? . Your logic for it not being a deliberate lie has no strength or credibility Do you really think that people who don't miss a heartbeat about a million civilians getting killed would be worried about any embarrassment of the eventual revelation there were really no WMDs? They don't give a flying **** They knew they could just blame it on someone else. Incompetence, Flawed intle, etc, etc. Doesn't matter the job is done. Iraq was invaded on a lie.
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

21st December 2008, 11:31 PM	#264
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by JihadJane Iraqi's yearn for "the good ol' days" because they were better for most than the New American Century days. This is true. Even though most Iraqis are glad to get rid of Saddam, they are much worse off now under the PNAC regime. "pro-democracy Bush" - ROFLMAO!!! Still a classic. If that guy didn't have such a hatred of the Palestinians I'd say he was a comedy genius!
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089

21st December 2008, 11:45 PM	#265
Pardalis Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Montréal Posts: 25,831	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy After Iraq was shock and awed to shreds, who got the contracts for reconstruction? The Iraqis didn't they? Nope. Even though it cost up to 20 times as much the reconstruction was given to, guess, the western corporates who flew in services and supplies, instead of sourcing them locally and helping the Iraq economy. Do you have any reliable sources on that, any numbers?

22nd December 2008, 02:23 AM	#266
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Originally Posted by Skeptic 1). It was NOT the main reason for going to war ... We have always been at war with Eastasia. Here's the text of Powell's speech to the U.N, the speech that he later described as a painful blot on his record. Reading it over, what would you say was the main reason he gives for going to war, if not WMDs? Quote: 2). It was NOT a deliberate lie, but simply a mistake. Why would anybody claim Saddam had WMDs when they knew they didn't, when it is obvious that in that case they'd be greatly embarrased by not finding them later on? 'Cos by that time they'd had the war they wanted. Being "embarrassed" might seem a small price to pay, especially as this only applies to people with a sense of shame. Colin Powell was embarrassed, but I can't think of another senior official who's betrayed the least embarrassment. Perhaps you can: if so, feel free to quote them. But yes, it might have been a combination of wishful thinking and drooling idiocy, or "woo" as we call it round here. I don't see how that makes it OK. Quote: Or take the "mission accomplished" sign: 1). It wasn't put up by Bush or his people, but by the carrier's crew, to emphasize THEIR SPECIFIC MISSION was accomplished (as they came back to port after making it). As the White House has admitted, the banner was made, and hung in that particular position, by White House staff: Not long afterwards, the White House had to amend its account. The soldiers hadn't put up the sign; the White House had done the hoisting. It had also produced the banner — contrary to what senior White House officials had said for months. In the end, the White House conceded on those details, but declared them mere quibbles. The point was, they said, that the whole thing had been done at the request of the crewmembers. Even that explanation didn't sit well with some long-time Bush aides. "They (the White House) put up banners at every event that look just like that and we're supposed to believe that at this one it was the Navy that requested one?" asked a senior administration official. Others remember staffers boasting about how the president had been specifically positioned during his speech so that the banner would be captured in footage of his speech. And even if you wish to deny what the White House has admitted, are you trying to claim that Bush standing slap-bang in front of it was not an intentional photo-op? Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that? Damn, such terrible bad luck. Quote: 2). Bush's own speech on that very same carrier empasized the Iraq mission was NOT accomplished yet. Let's hear from Bush, shall we? Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. Quote: And yet these two claims are not merely rants on the fringes of the left -- of the "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama not American" sort rants on the fringers of the right. These are practically dogma with half of the democrats. Let's be frank, they are "practically dogma" with anyone whose view of reality is not obscured by Bush's ass.
	Last edited by Dr Adequate; 22nd December 2008 at 02:37 AM.

22nd December 2008, 07:05 AM	#267
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,279	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate We have always been at war with Eastasia. How trite. Please remember that neither Bush nor Powell were clairvoyant. Saddam had programs in some state unknown, I recommend the Scheuer points about how intel dried up after Desert Fox to indicate how in the dark the Bush admins were. Therefore, using an unfortunate helping of confirmation bias, Bush and his team chose to make a worst case assumption about the programs that, within a year of the egg being broken open to see if it had one or two yokes, were not where they had been assessed to be. Time and again I find the Cheney attempts at six sigma in national security decision assessment to be the core problem here, his much ballyhooed unwillingness to deal with the 1/100 or 1/1000 risk. On that basis, the decision process is even more appalling, and IMO, more telling. We aren't dealing with a lie here. We are dealing with a profound case of 1. Myopia 2. Zero defects woo. 3. A false dichotomy in terms of what options were available. Two is not the correct number, and rarely is at that level. That is, to me, far more troubling than anything so simple as a lie. DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

22nd December 2008, 09:58 AM	#268
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by Tin Foil Timothy Iraq was invaded on a lie. Was Kuwait invaded on a lie?
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

22nd December 2008, 10:50 AM	#269
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	Originally Posted by Cicero Was Kuwait invaded on a lie? As I recall it desert storm was a fight for democracy, I don´t recall which one.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

22nd December 2008, 10:55 AM	#270
Toke Godless Socialist Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,600	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ah, the good old days, before evil American imperialism... I am sure the quarter of the iraki population that is displaced or dead as a result of the invation are real gratefull for being liberated. Look on the bright side, american imperialism is no more evil than so many other empires through history, just more powerfull.
	__________________ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

22nd December 2008, 11:09 AM	#271
OneShotKi11 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 668	He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next...
OneShotKi11 Muse Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 668

22nd December 2008, 11:35 AM	#272
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861	Originally Posted by OneShotKi11 He didnt miss with that throw! Bush's extraordinary shoe dodging capabilities kicked in, and we all seen what happened next... That Iraqi "journalist" manged to hit the American flag, but couldn't tag a guy 10 feet in front of him, twice. But he will get a lot of practise being tagged himself while enjoying the hospitality of the local gray bar hotel.
Cicero Banned Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 7,861

22nd December 2008, 01:01 PM	#273
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate Of all the things that he could have stood in front of, he just happened to stand in front of that? Damn, such terrible bad luck. What? You mean the Autocue. Never mind Painting by Numbers, this is Presidency by Numbers. Is he that much of a drone that he has to have a victory speech scripted. but then all good fiction is scripted isn't it?
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Last edited by Tin Foil Timothy; 22nd December 2008 at 01:12 PM.

22nd December 2008, 01:04 PM	#274
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush.

22nd December 2008, 01:13 PM	#275
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089	Originally Posted by Skeptic I do wish they'd make up their mind -- either Bush is an evil genius or else he's a moron. And no, "He's a moron used by evil geniuses" doesn't cut it, except for being an afterthought excuse for holding obviously contrary views about Bush. Why doesn't it cut it?
Tin Foil Timothy Banned Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,089