Upcoming war with Iran.
-
Well I am not even going to discuss that. All I am shit scared about is US citizens who don't care if he lied or not. The poster above thinks his commander in chief did lie and yet he is fine with that. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Well I am not even going to discuss that.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Well I am not even going to discuss that.
Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:
Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots. Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either. I do know there are some dubious details though, details that the US public should be calling him up on. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots. Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either. I do know there are some dubious details though, details that the US public should be calling him up on. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots.
Huh? Wouldn't that require Bush to have lied in order for us to be "blind patriots"? I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated, but you also agreed and said that he lied (only complaining that he was OK with the war).
Paul Watson wrote:
Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either.
Trust me. If Bush lied about something, the left in this country would have seized on that.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK
:| One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached. Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie, over a 1000 US citizens are killed along with countless Iraqis and that is OK with you? Holy smokes, Batman. []Let us be clear. I am not saying Bush did or did not lie. I am using what the poster above said and asking how what he believes can be OK but that when Clinton lied about sex (not war, not killing people, not corruption, just some sex (what he did was wrong, I agree)) that is impeacheable.[] regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do-- modified at 13:21 Thursday 9th March, 2006
Paul Watson wrote:
One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached.
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Paul Watson wrote:
Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie
What lie? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Just like you keep avoiding my statement about blind patriots.
Huh? Wouldn't that require Bush to have lied in order for us to be "blind patriots"? I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated, but you also agreed and said that he lied (only complaining that he was OK with the war).
Paul Watson wrote:
Frankly I don't know enough about the details of Bush's reason for going to war in Iraq to make a strong case for him having lied or not. It would take me months if not years to research it properly. I doubt you know enough either.
Trust me. If Bush lied about something, the left in this country would have seized on that.
Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Paul Watson wrote:
One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached.
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Paul Watson wrote:
Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie
What lie? My mom told me once that "while we all don't speak the same language, everyone in the world undestands an asskicking"
kgaddy wrote:
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."? regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doPaul Watson wrote:
Do you not have a problem with TodHileHoffer having said; "Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK."?
espeir wrote:
I admit it's stupid to think it's OK for Bush to have gone into Iraq based on lies he perpetrated
THAT WAS IN THE POST YOU RESPONDED TO! I also said that you agreed that he lied. So I'm asking where/when.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
Or maybe if he didn't commit perjury... L'il Kim is going to prison over that.
-
kgaddy wrote:
Wrong, he was impeached for commiting perjury.
Which is just a technicality. The reason he was questioned in the first place is for his antics with his cigar. If it wasn't for the cigar bit, there would have been no questioning, thus no perjury and no impeachment.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this. I read a bit of Roth that said (paraphrased) "And a sign draped over the White House said 'A human lives here'." He, Roth, was talking about Clinton. I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
Or maybe if he didn't commit perjury... L'il Kim is going to prison over that.
I may be wrong but you and your kin seem to prefer bombing people to a bit of sex in the White House. It seems very immature to me. I'd love to be corrected. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do -
I'm still trying to figure out where he lied.
Maybe this will help you figure it out: The Other Lies of George Bush[^] Bush Watch[^] Partisan, sure, but still valid behind the rhetoric. If only 10% is true, it is far worse for the American people than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And hiding behind the claim of "faulty intelligence" -- especially when the intelligence is so obviously questionable in the first place -- is the equivalent of saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Ass-covering. Dissembling. Lying.
-
Maybe this will help you figure it out: The Other Lies of George Bush[^] Bush Watch[^] Partisan, sure, but still valid behind the rhetoric. If only 10% is true, it is far worse for the American people than "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And hiding behind the claim of "faulty intelligence" -- especially when the intelligence is so obviously questionable in the first place -- is the equivalent of saying "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is". Ass-covering. Dissembling. Lying.
I stopped reading that first link after the very first claim. Bush said that there were numerous contacts with Al Queda and that they did not lead to a "material relationship". That's actually what he told the reporters! Of course that's twisted by psychopaths like yourself to mean that he was stating that Iraq and Al Queda directly "dealing" with eachother. Geeze, man. Get a clue!
-
I may be wrong but you and your kin seem to prefer bombing people to a bit of sex in the White House. It seems very immature to me. I'd love to be corrected. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doHuh? What? Where does? Huh? What do you? Nevermind. Hello brick wall how are you today? Fine? Oh good! Let's have a spot of tea, shall we? No? What's that you say? You prefer coffee? SWINE!
-
And it shows how restrictive western society is that a president felt he had to lie about a mistake like this. I read a bit of Roth that said (paraphrased) "And a sign draped over the White House said 'A human lives here'." He, Roth, was talking about Clinton. I do find the lie to be far worse than the act that made him lie. regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
doMature societies embrace adultery.
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Of course he lied to us about why we went into Iraq, but that's OK
:| One president has his cigar sucked and he gets impeached. Another starts a war on false pretenses, on a lie, over a 1000 US citizens are killed along with countless Iraqis and that is OK with you? Holy smokes, Batman. []Let us be clear. I am not saying Bush did or did not lie. I am using what the poster above said and asking how what he believes can be OK but that when Clinton lied about sex (not war, not killing people, not corruption, just some sex (what he did was wrong, I agree)) that is impeacheable.[] regards, Paul Watson Ireland Feed Henry! K(arl) wrote: oh, and BTW, CHRISTIAN ISN'T A PARADOX, HE IS A TASMANIAN!
adapted from toxcct:
while (!enough)
sprintf 0 || 1
do-- modified at 13:21 Thursday 9th March, 2006
"When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006
-
"When Clinton lied no body died." I'm just saying we moved into Iraq to set up a western capitalist nation, not because Saddam had weapons. As an added bonus we can use it a base in case another of those governements (like Iran) gets out of line. But he couldn't just tell the American people the truth, because people can't accept the truth. The people prefer lies, it is much easier that way. *** Edit. Oh yeah, we get a bonus to the economy and cheap oil. And the Iraqi people will have a higher standard of living. Its a win win situation for everyone. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog -- modified at 13:36 Thursday 9th March, 2006
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Its a win win situation for everyone.
Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
-
ToddHileHoffer wrote:
Its a win win situation for everyone.
Except for, of course, those who are dead or severely injured. -J
Think of a computer program. Somewhere, there is one key instruction, and everything else is just functions calling themselves, or brackets billowing out endlessly through an infinite address space. What happens when the brackets collapse? Where's the final 'end if'? Is any of this making sense? -Ford Prefect
I know, I'm just playing around. But at least our military is volunteer. People who sign up know the risks involved. I wouldn't do it, but hey some people really want to kill people and it is the only way you can do it legally. "People who never make mistakes, never do anything." My Blog
-
I stopped reading that first link after the very first claim. Bush said that there were numerous contacts with Al Queda and that they did not lead to a "material relationship". That's actually what he told the reporters! Of course that's twisted by psychopaths like yourself to mean that he was stating that Iraq and Al Queda directly "dealing" with eachother. Geeze, man. Get a clue!
A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.
-
A half-assed rebuttal to one item from one link, without addressing my actual point. Typical.
I asked you for evidence of a lie, not a link to some guy who is literally making stuff up. Honestly find me the quote. And then find me evidence that it's a lie. I'm not the one making the claim. You are. Back it up.
-
Mature societies embrace adultery.
Whereas your ideal society would go with the scarlet "A" on the forehead and some time in the stocks?