Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't talk to me like that, you worthless piece of shit. Maybe you call your mother that name, but I'm not going to take it. And again, I'll admit when I'm wrong. I was not wrong. In addition to being a worthless human being, you're dumber than a bag of rocks.
Try to pay attention you smelly rancid fucking ****. Gerald ford did not have a son named Jack because his given name was John. Do you understand the diff between given names and nicknames you dumbass cocksucking backwards redneck ass sucking ****?
Look, I told you to stop talking to me the way you talk to your Mom and probably your wife. I know it's hard because you're so angry. You know you're wrong and it kills you. Yes, John was his given name but he has always gone by Jack. So get bent, idiot. You're wrong, I'm right. Deal with it.
Calling one stupid is not the same as calling one the word you used.
When you use one ad hom you use them all. I don't live in the PC fantasyworld where there are degrees of ad homs. Whether you call someone stoopid or a **** you are saying the exact same thing.
That did it. You just proved to the entire word what an idiot you really are. OMG!!! How dumb!!
If you don't know politics 101 you're better off staying in the flame zone you dumb bitch. Keep embarrassing yourself.....you've got nothing to lose and mountains of more ignorance to gain.
So your saying you haven't anything but your opinion......Got it. What a buffoon.
No that isn't what I'm saying but dumbasses like you can only exist on a board by putting words in other's mouths. Do you think I'm dumb enough to waste time posting links for your bitch ass?
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
We've had 2 presidents in a row that were'nt qualified.
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
how exactly is our current President more qualified?
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
how exactly is our current President more qualified?
Editor of the Harvard Law Review
President of the Harvard Law Review
State senator for 7 years
Professor of law for 12 years
Community organiser for three years
Senator for 4 years
Could go a lot more indepth into those individual parts of his career...
Bush
Owned a Baseball team
Owned a company that tanked
Helped Daddy in election campaigns
In other words, you magnify everything Obama's done and minimalize everything Bush had done.
Could you tell me how being an editor of a law review qualifies you to be President?
In other words, you magnify everything Obama's done and minimalize everything Bush had done.
Not at all.
In other words, you magnify everything Obama's done and minimalize everything Bush had done.
Not at all.
Then why was it you left out Bush's years as Governor, yet listed Obama's years as a Senator?
Not at all.
Then why was it you left out Bush's years as Governor, yet listed Obama's years as a Senator?
That was addressed in a previous post...add it to the list if you like....
Then why was it you left out Bush's years as Governor, yet listed Obama's years as a Senator?
That was addressed in a previous post...add it to the list if you like....
All you said was that he wasnt qualified to be Governor? Regardless, the discussion was about qualifications for being President and experience as Governor is a significant qualification for a President.
That was addressed in a previous post...add it to the list if you like....
All you said was that he wasnt qualified to be Governor? Regardless, the discussion was about qualifications for being President and experience as Governor is a significant qualification for a President.
he wasn't qualified to be governor. and if his daddy weren't george h.w. bush, he never would have been.
That was addressed in a previous post...add it to the list if you like....
All you said was that he wasnt qualified to be Governor? Regardless, the discussion was about qualifications for being President and experience as Governor is a significant qualification for a President.
he wasn't qualified to be governor. and if his daddy weren't george h.w. bush, he never would have been.
That was addressed in a previous post...add it to the list if you like....
All you said was that he wasnt qualified to be Governor? Regardless, the discussion was about qualifications for being President and experience as Governor is a significant qualification for a President.
he wasn't qualified to be governor. and if his daddy weren't george h.w. bush, he never would have been.
The claim that President Bush "lied" is often made, but it has never (not once, ever) been substantiated. And I am curious: with links and valid support, could anybody offer any kind of evidence that President Bush "lied?" And, putting aside the trite claim that he allegedly "lied us into war(s)," pray tell. What exactly did he supposedly "lie" about?
The very nature of espionage and intelligence gathering is laden with degrees of uncertainty. There are very few intelligence reports that are released without caveats and qualifiers. The NIE's issued regarding Iraq and there possible WMD holdings and/or capabilities ALL contained a variety of those caveats and qualifiers that described the less than certain qualities of the raw intelligence used to create the estimate. Some of the information was extremely dated. Some of it was single sourced. Some of it was based upon satellite photo interpretation. Some of it came from sources who clearly had ulterior motives... etc., etc.
SO... when President Bush and his team all used various forms of the statement, "THERE IS NO DOUBT" when discussing Saddam's possession of stockpiles of WMD's, those were LIES. Now...if they had said, "There is LITTLE doubt" or "I have no doubt", those statements would not have clearly been lies. But to make the statement that doubt did not exist about Saddam having stockpiles of WMD's.... those statements were all lies, because degrees of doubt and uncertainty DID exist.
To tell the American people that there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's and then to repeatedly imply that there was an ongoing buddy-buddy relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda and the further implication that Saddam could give one of his CERTAIN WMD's to Osama THAT VERY MOMENT was part of the ploy that Team Bush used to create the urgency to invade NOW. And that ploy was, as shown above, based upon a LIE.
I hope that answers your question.
At the risk of over-simplifying your contention, you seem to be making the argument that because President Bush stated our belief that Saddam "had" weapons of mass destruction in a more categorical way than our "intelligence" actually justified, that makes him a liar.
Well, while your contention does have some merit to it (imho), in terms of logic and the clarity of your syllogism, I would have to disagree with you all the same. It would be a more valid argument (imho) if so many others, including his predecessor and a whole array of liberal Democrats had not reached essentially the same conclusion based on the same evidence. In other words, when enough folks come to the same conclusion, it is unreasonable to suggest that any one person expressing that conclusion is engaged in "lying."
One can be mistaken without being a "liar."
One can express one's self with a degree of imprecision without being a "liar," either.
And before suggesting that a person is a liar, the question of motive rears its ugly little head. Specifically, before arguing that President Bush deliberately "lied" to "get us into war," one should (to be fair) examine the logic of the proposition that President Bush was a man of such a character as would make him view the lives of our fighting men and women in such a cavalier manner. I frankly do not see how anybody can make that claim about President Bush.
They say things like he was "stupid," but lots of people who were in a spot of having discussions with him came to very different conclusions.
They say he was a dry drunk. Well, he surely did have some substance abuse problems in his past, but nobody has ever shown that he took the problem into his years as President.
"They" say lots of stupid stuff, but, generally, "they" come up empty when called upon to back those things up.
Oh and Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism and that includes al qaeda.
IMO Bush wasn't qualified in any way, shape or form to hold the top political office in the US. And please, don't give me this "he was governor of Texas" BS - he wasn't qualified to do that job either.
We've had 2 presidents in a row that were'nt qualified.
Clinton and Bush Snr were between Jnr and Raygun....
