| FairyQueen 19.06.2004 16:48 |
I was watching the Dennis Miller show yesterday on CNBC and he was talking about how hard it was for John Kerry to find a Vice President so Miller said "Finding a vice president for Kerry is just as hard as finding a prom date for your web toed friend who wears a QUEEN t-shirt that hasn't... well...been worn since Queen opened for Leo Slayer"..It was pretty hilarious...he's very funny in general...I watch his show evry night... |
| Josuè 19.06.2004 17:25 |
I can't get the joke, would you explain it? :S |
| FairyQueen 19.06.2004 17:49 |
John Kerry is the demcratic presidential nominee and he still hasn't picked a vice president nominee yet for himself...but I don't know if you still get it... |
| Flashman 19.06.2004 17:59 |
FairyQueen wrote: your web toed friend who wears a QUEEN t-shirt that hasn't... well...been worn since Queen opened for Leo Slayer.Is this Dark Myuutwo or what? |
| FairyQueen 19.06.2004 18:34 |
LOL Flashman! |
| Josuè 19.06.2004 19:11 |
I'm dumb |
| Farlander 19.06.2004 20:37 |
Dennis Miller is great. He was always my favorite Weekend Update guy on Saturday Night Live. He just has this dry, random humor that cracks me up every time. |
| Mr.Jingles 20.06.2004 11:22 |
|
| Mr.Jingles 20.06.2004 11:27 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote:Josuè wrote: I can't get the joke, would you explain it? :SDon't feel bad Josue. Even for those who live in the U.S. Dennis Miller's jokes are either hard to understand or just not funny. |
| FairyQueen 20.06.2004 11:54 |
Actually since Josue is from Spain, I'm not surprised he didn't get it it's ok....anyway for thr American audience...Dennis Miller's jokes are only for the how you say..well educated or things that are completly random as said before...that's why he's hilarious...besidesI know you hate him because he likes Bush....Al Franken was sort of funny but never really was..only when he played that Smiley character on Saturday Night Live otherwise...I think he went off his rocker..but it was hilarious when he got into that fight with Bill O'Reilly on C-span...it was hilarious when Bill told Franken to Shut Up.....I think Bill O'Reilly seems to be more humourous than Franken..but...that's just me...I'm glad there's at least one celebrity that makes sense...that's Miller...people who know a lot about things like me..usually find his jokes hilarious....you have to be semi-educated...or maybe you don't care for joks that take time to think about...which I like...I like a challenge... |
| Maz 20.06.2004 13:23 |
Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The guy is just a pathetic and completely unfunny comedian. No wonder why he was forced to explain his jokes on his website. What's more pathetic is that when you finally get a Dennis Miller joke by going to his site, you realize that you've just wasted your time finding the meaning of a totally unfunny joke.Of course, that's just Danny's opinion of the man. Not everyone agrees with his limited viewpoint. I always found Dennis Miller funny on Weekend Update all those years ago, and the little I saw of his HBO show I liked. Miller does have a dry sense of humor and makes references to offbeat or obscure facts, so it's not for everyone. Those who get amused with quick sexual jokes or whose humor rarely rises above scatology probably don't find Miller funny. Many people do find him funny, however. |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 20.06.2004 21:38 |
I think Dennis Miller meant "Leo Sayer", the guy who made You Make Me Feel Like Dancin' a disco hit in the 70s...and a dead-ringer for Richard Simmons too. (AIIIEEEEEE!! Could've been William Hung!! LOL) |
| FairyQueen 21.06.2004 12:50 |
yea...I mean Leo Sayer...sorry I spelled the name incorrectly... |
| Erin 21.06.2004 13:05 |
*checks toes for webbing* |
| inu-liger 21.06.2004 13:07 |
Fuck off, Flashman |
| inu-liger 21.06.2004 14:33 |
Did ya spend the $500 you mooched from McD's yet, old Chum?Actually, it's more like $450 after federal tax deductions. And no I haven't spent it all, yet. Next week though I'm going to my mum's out in Eastern Canada for almost two months for my summer vacation, so that's where the money's going towards. |
| Mr.Jingles 21.06.2004 16:15 |
Seems like Dennis Miller is so smart by saying that Queen opened for Leo Sayer. It's like saying that Led Zeppelin opened for The Osmonds. |
| Brandon 21.06.2004 16:23 |
Sooooo not the point, Jingles. I like Miller a lot. Frankin and Maher are so left-wing and rely on political humor so much that they only appeal to a very limited part of the population. I watch Miller's show when I get the chance but one show I'll always watch is Tough Crowd. Now that's funny! |
| Whatinthewhatthe? 21.06.2004 19:06 |
Not to start a new subject, but how many of you saw Queen on SNL (live, not tape)? I did -- I thought then they looked really nervous at first and then loosened up after the first song. I wish they had been on more than once. A real shame they never came back! |
| Matti 21.06.2004 19:14 |
......Wish I could see that one..... |
| Mr.Jingles 22.06.2004 00:25 |
Yes, Dennis Miller was funny but that was many years ago when he was on SNL. Back then he would equally make fun of both liberals and conservatives, or depending on which ones gave more inspiration to come up with funny stuff. That's what comedy is all about, it's about not being able to distinguish when a source of great comedy material comes to mind. Just look at Richard Pryor making fun of a cocaine addiction that nearly took his life. No wonder why he's considered one of the best comedians ever. Imagine if Bill Maher, Al Franken or John Stewart decided to have some pity on Clinton and not make fun of him during the Lewinsky sex scandal just because the sympathize with him. As far as I'm concerned they didn't miss a beat on that one, and neither they did when Howard Dean started screaming like a pissed off wrestler. Miller has fallen so low as to support George W. Bush for a re-election. It is truly pathetic to see how hard he tries to make jokes about John Kerry when Bush has pretty much ruined the dignity of the nation. I'm not trying to say that Kerry is supossed to be America's savior, but badmouthing Kerry after the Bush administration has been a disaster makes Miller look like a hypocrite. Imagine if R. Kelly was badmouthing Michael Jackson and calling him a pervert pedophile. |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 00:51 |
"the Bush administration has been a disaster." Except that it hasn't. You know what I think really put Miller into the conservative camp? Clinton. THAT administration was a disaster in his eyes, because it made the presidency, and by extention the nation, a laughingstock. Clinton lied through his teeth. He cheated on his wife. He did not what was good for the country or even the Democratic Party, but what was good for Bill Clinton. He was a self-serving hypocrite. Clinton was EVIL. That's what pushed Miller over the edge. Bush was able to bring some dignity back to the presidency, and Miller appreciates that. You can say, "oh ha ha Bush is stupid ha ha," but that's really reaching and petty and you know it. He's not the greatest man that ever lived and he's not the strongest leader the United States could have and no one is making that claim, but at least he is devoted to a certain set of principles that are not self-serving. Even if you don't agree with those principles, you have to appreciate that fact about him. I think that's where Dennis Miller is coming from in regards to his support of Bush. Miller makes fun of Bush. Or at least he did on Dennis Miller Live. But his new show isn't comedy so much a real political forum. So he has a side and doesn't attack it too much now because of that. Rest assured, if he was still doing Dennis Miller Live, he would still support Bush, but he would make a lot of jokes at his expense as well. It's just that his new show is a different thing. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.06.2004 01:15 |
Guess he have another one who thinks that lying about a blow job is worse than lying about a reason to go to a war based on empty accusations and that so far has claimed the lives of thousands of innocent people. |
| hamsters 22.06.2004 01:34 |
FairyQueen wrote:Dennis Miller's jokes are only for the how you say..well educatedOh fucking get over yourself. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.06.2004 01:38 |
"the Bush administration has been a disaster."...Except that it hasn't.So what has the Bush administration achieved? THAT administration was a disaster in his eyes, because it made the presidency, and by extention the nation, a laughingstock.As far as I'm concerned the economy grew during the Clinton administration, and that's a fact. But I agree with you, the sex scandal sure was an inspiartion of great jokes on late night talk shows. Recently Clinton admitted some of the failures of his administration. At least he has the dignity of admitting his own mistakes. So far Bush hasn't apologized for not finding those WMD. Clinton lied through his teeth. He cheated on his wife. He did not what was good for the country or even the Democratic Party, but what was good for Bill Clinton. He was a self-serving hypocrite.And Bush was not? Clinton was EVIL.Is your real name Rush Limbaugh by any chance? He's not the greatest man that ever lived and he's not the strongest leader the United States could have and no one is making that claim, but at least he is devoted to a certain set of principles that are not self-serving.And those principles are...? Bush was able to bring some dignity back to the presidencyCongratulations, Farlander. I guess Fatty will no longer be the funniest Queenzoner on these boards. |
| Maz 22.06.2004 01:45 |
So, the gist that I'm reading from your posts is that Miller's not funny anymore because you don't like his politics. According to your previous posts, Miller was once funny, years ago when he attacked conservatives, but now that he supports Bush, he's "pathetic." Just call a spade a spade to begin with and stop trying to misdirect others. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.06.2004 01:47 |
As I mentioned before... Dennis Miller used to make fun of BOTH liberals and conservatives. Read again before posting. |
| Maz 22.06.2004 02:15 |
I did read before posting, Danny. Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Posted: 6/20/2004 11:26:35 AM Mr.Jingles79 wrote: The guy is just a pathetic and completely unfunny comedian. No wonder why he was forced to explain his jokes on his website. What's more pathetic is that when you finally get a Dennis Miller joke by going to his site, you realize that you've just wasted your time finding the meaning of a totally unfunny joke. Posted: 6/22/2004 12:24:49 AM Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Yes, Dennis Miller was funny but that was many years ago when he was on SNL. Back then he would equally make fun of both liberals and conservatives, or depending on which ones gave more inspiration to come up with funny stuff. Now, first you state that you think Miller is unfunny and pathetic. Then, after several people take umbrage with your assessment, you say he used to be funny when he made fun of both conservatives and liberals. What's changed in your opinion of Miller to make you think he's no longer funny? Posted: 6/22/2004 12:24:49 AM Mr.Jingles79 wrote: Miller has fallen so low as to support George W. Bush for a re-election. It is truly pathetic to see how hard he tries to make jokes about John Kerry when Bush has pretty much ruined the dignity of the nation. So, based on my reading of your comments, the reason you think Miller is no longer funny is because he doesn't make fun of conservatives or Bush (though Farlander claims he did on his comedy show, but doesn't now on his more politically orientated CNBC show, an accurate and reasonable assessment to me). Posted: 6/22/2004 1:45:02 AM The New and Improved Zeni wrote: According to your previous posts, Miller was once funny, years ago when he attacked conservatives, but now that he supports Bush, he's "pathetic." Just call a spade a spade to begin with and stop trying to misdirect others. |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 02:21 |
So what has the Bush administration achieved?Now I hope THAT is a joke. Or else you haven't watched the news in four years. Recently Clinton admitted some of the failures of his administration. At least he has the dignity of admitting his own mistakes.Clinton admits NOTHING that can hurt him presently. So far Bush hasn't apologized for not finding those WMD.Bush acted in the only way available to him based on the information that he had. It doesn't matter that the info was clearly wrong (though it obviously would have been better if it had been correct). The fact that Iraq was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors where they needed to be was reason enough to go in. There was no other SAFE choice. It had to be done. The fact that there was nothing found is not something you can blame on Bush or even on the people who gave him wrong information. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the government of Iraq. And Bush was not?No. Bush is clearly doing what he thinks is best for the nation and world. Whether or not you think it is best for the nation and the world is another matter entirely. Frankly, I cannot think of another president or even a serious candidate in my lifetime that was motivated entirely by self-interest. I mean, I think Al Gore is completey wrong in pretty much everything he says and I would never want him to be the president, but if he were, I can tell that he would at least be doing what he thought was best. Is your real name Rush Limbaugh by any chance?Negative. And those principles are...?Do you know nothing about the man? Have you ever heard him speak? His principles are obvious to everyone in the entire world. You cannot run for president and not have that information splattered all over the place. You may not agree with them, but you know perfectly well what they are. Congratulations, Farlander. I guess Fatty will no longer be the funniest Queenzoner on these boards.He never was. |
| Mr.Jingles 22.06.2004 10:34 |
So what has the Bush administration achieved?... Now I hope THAT is a joke. Or else you haven't watched the news in four years.Yes I have, and the more I watch the news the more I realize that 4 years of this awful administration have been more than enough. Bush acted in the only way available to him based on the information that he had. It doesn't matter that the info was clearly wrong (though it obviously would have been better if it had been correct).So it doesn't matter that 846 have (so far) died in this war because Bush received the wrong info? It doesn't matter than thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured because the Bush administration made a boo-boo? The fact that Iraq was refusing to allow the weapons inspectors where they needed to be was reason enough to go in. There was no other SAFE choice. It had to be done.As far as I'm concerned when Iraq received warnings of a possible invasion and then they started allowing inspectors everywhere. Some weapons were indeed turned in, but that still doesn't make Saddam Hussein nor his government good people. He truly deserved to be thrown out, but he wasn't the only one. There are dozens of tyrants in this world just like Saddam Hussein (even some who are a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam himself), but it seems to be like Bush had a special interest in Saddam Hussein. Obviously he had to convince Americans that invading Iraq and over-throwing him was right. That's why he came up with the stories about WMD and the links with Al-Qaeda. Today after more than a year of war, WMDs haven't been found and the only link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is that both of them received weapons and were aided by the Reagan administration during the 80s. The fact that there was nothing found is not something you can blame on Bush or even on the people who gave him wrong information. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the government of Iraq.As usual blaming other people for their own mistakes. No. Bush is clearly doing what he thinks is best for the nation and world. Whether or not you think it is best for the nation and the world is another matter entirely.Hitler thought that exterminating the Jews was the best for Germany, Europe and the world. So because the whole world disagreed with him, didn't that matter at all? Do you know nothing about the man? Have you ever heard him speak? His principles are obvious to everyone in the entire world. You cannot run for president and not have that information splattered all over the place. You may not agree with them, but you know perfectly well what they are?Let's see what Bush has to say... - "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 - "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000 - "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 - "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000 |
| FairyQueen 22.06.2004 11:55 |
Jesus Christ jingles....your're like the pot calling the kettle black...everything is goddamn doom and gloom with people on the far side of the political spectrum...and plus..I think you should visit Iraq...you'll then change your views on it because it's not a total shithole as you imply it to be...Iraq is the belly of the beast, the middle east...there was this pastor or priest I think...he was set against the war before he went to Iraq...after he visited Iraq....he changed his views on it completely..the guy had an epithany(I might have spelled that wrong)...he was crying....he said the Iraqis he met said that would have killed themselves if Bush didn't come in there and get rid of Saddam...there was not one Iraqi, he said, who didn't have a picture of a loved one that was killed by Saddam...the priest said he was disgusted by the media because all they ever show were negatives of the war..in which case...Iraq is getting pretty stable..there aren't that many bombings as you think...because most of Iraq isn't like that...one of the Iraqi woman officials who is part of the new Iraqi council..she said Iraq was a prison under Saddam..and let me tell you....it was...I recommend reading a new book by Stephen F. Hayes that just came out called The Connection...Democracy for Iraq..may be hard to believe now but hopefuly will lead to a safer middle east because democracy spreads like wildfire and people woulnd't want a theolologist government...and plus we should get t.v's to the people in the middle east because they don't know what the hell is going on in the outside world...Remember...Saddam shipped those weapons out or burried them somewhere...he wasn't refusing letting in inspectors because he still had his underwear on..he was hiding something...anyway...Saddam could have been taking out on human rights alone...the people in Iraq are greatful...trust me...they just need to speak out more against these terrorists because they never had freedom of speech before so think they will be punsihed for speaking out against these terrorists..which is true amonst the terrorists themselves..these terrorists are cults...if someone within the terrorists would complain about their actions..they will be killed...it happens in Palestine all the time...within the terrorists groups there...according to a man..I forgot his name...he's in charge of the Palestinian human rights council I think...he said this year alone so far 350 Palestinians were killed by other Palestinians....shocking....that's why we need democracy...and Bush is starting in the right place..spit on him if you like...but don't even DARE compare him to Hitler..that's a goddamn ignorant comment...that asshole killed almost my whole family...and the stories I've heard about what his party did to my family...don't even go there by even inferring that Bush is like him or even a tiny bit similar...I don't know where you get this bull that the whole world disagreed with us...you call 38 allies with us not the whole world...these countries have been insulted by people like you who disregarded them in Iraq as not even there....we don't need Germany or France...Saddam was their sugar daddy... |
| Mr Coolest Cat 22.06.2004 12:20 |
How you bunch of girls can argue for so long about fuck all baffles me, grow up. |
| Maz 22.06.2004 14:11 |
And yet another lesson in maturity from Harvey. If you don't like it, don't bother to read it, and for heaven's sake, don't post in it. How people can do nothing but thread-crap baffles me. |
| inu-liger 22.06.2004 14:17 |
Does this remind you of a certain person here? ;)The fact that there was nothing found is not something you can blame on Bush or even on the people who gave him wrong information. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the government of Iraq.As usual blaming other people for their own mistakes. |
| inu-liger 22.06.2004 14:18 |
And Bush Jr. is the worst goddamn president who ever served in the Oval White Office. He deserves to be shot to death. |
| Deaky's Middle Nut 22.06.2004 14:39 |
To hear much of the news reporing lately, you'd think a national 9/11 Commission report had blown a giant hole in the Bush administra tion's rationale for toppling Saddam Hussein. The commission did no such thing. But that didn't stop congressional Democrats — led by presumptive presidential nominee John Kerry — from renewing their charges that the administration "misled America" about Saddam Hussein's ties to Osama bin Laden. Again, that's not what the report says. And even if it did, a Saddam-Osama alliance is not why America opened a front in Iraq as part of the War on Terror. The staff report, re leased as part of yes terday's final public hearings, says there was no evident connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. In fact, the Bush administration has never said there was. The report also says the commission has "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." Again, the administration never said there was. But the report does say that bin Laden actively sought to work with Saddam, through contacts arranged by the Sudanese government. Indeed, it says, "a senior Iraqi intelligence office reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994." Further, it says, "contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden returned to Afghanistan." The report claims that those contacts "do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." But that's far from a flat-out "no ties exist." And, again, the administration has alleged only that Saddam and al Qaeda maintained contacts that were more than casual or inconsequential, none of which is denied in the commission report. In fact, as Stephen Hayes writes in The Weekly Standard, the conventional wisdom in Washington long before George W. Bush took office was that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were partners in terrorism. Two Clinton-administration stalwarts, Attorney General Janet Reno and U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, brought an indictment against bin Laden and a deputy, Mohammed Atef, in 1998 — charging that Saddam and Osama "reached an understanding . . . that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq." Yes, those allegations were eventually dropped from the indictment. These likely means they couldn't have been proven in a court of law under federal rules of evidence — not necessarily that they were baseless to begin with. (This underscores the dangers of treating global terrorism in the age of suitcase nukes as a legal — not a military — matter, as candidate Kerry proposes.) Meanwhile, back in 1999, ABC News reported that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum, citing their "long relationship" and a December 1998 meeting in Afghanistan between Osama and Iraqi intelligence chief Faruq Hijazi. That same year, the Congressional Research Service reported that if Saddam Hussein "decides to use terrorists to attack the continental United States, he would likely turn to bin Laden's al Qaeda," which was then recruiting "Iraqi chemical weapons experts." Did everyone mislead America? If, in fact, the nation was misled, the misleading began long before George W. Bush entered the White House. But what if substantive Osama-Saddam ties were for real? Just because the Kean commission hasn't yet found any evidence does not mean it doesn't exist. As recently as Monday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that Saddam "had long-established ties with al Qaeda" — a statement his spokesman reiterated again yesterday. Further details can be found in Richard Miniter's vastly illuminating column, located in the New York Post. In other words, the Kean commission — whose blatantly partisan Bush-bashing has been manifest |
| inu-liger 22.06.2004 15:20 |
All I read is "blah blah blah". I don't speak blah fluently (although I speak idiot rather fluently) |
| Deaky's Middle Nut 22.06.2004 15:44 |
I have found that the vast majority of the frothing Bush Haters are clueless to the actual goings on, they simply follow along with the rest of the herd, gleaning their information from the left wing media in the US. A study has been published on media bias here Here's some excerpts: Results: How Close are Media Outlets to the Center? We now compute the difference of a media outlet's score from 39.0 to judge how centrist it is. Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last. Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the "mainstream" press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0) Conclusion Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present "both sides of the issue." Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist's own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House. |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 17:08 |
So it doesn't matter that 846 have (so far) died in this war because Bush received the wrong info? It doesn't matter than thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians have been killed or injured because the Bush administration made a boo-boo?Of course it matters, but you can't put the blame for that on anyone but the government of Iraq. If they had just complied with what they were required to regarding the weapons inspectors, this would never have happened. A country that has shown it is willing to invade other countries as recently as a decade ago suddenly refuses to allow the weapons inspectors to inspect! You HAVE to go in. It's the only safe option. As far as I'm concerned when Iraq received warnings of a possible invasion and then they started allowing inspectors everywhere.No, Hussein was defiant right up until he was captured. If he really had no weapons, I cannot fathom a possible reason for his behavior. That was a deeply stupid thing he did. Perhaps he thought complying made him weak in the eyes of other nations? I don't know. He truly deserved to be thrown out, but he wasn't the only one. There are dozens of tyrants in this world just like Saddam Hussein (even some who are a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam himself), but it seems to be like Bush had a special interest in Saddam Hussein.We're not going to go ousting every tyrant in the world. Hussein's refusal to comply with U.N. in his particular position made him someone who needed to be de-throned for the good of world and United States. He was just the biggest problem at the time. Obviously he had to convince Americans that invading Iraq and over-throwing him was right.Americans hardly needed convincing of that, except hippie college professors who walk around with no shoes smoking pot all day, and they weren't convinced of anything anyway. That's why he came up with the stories about WMD and the links with Al-Qaeda. Today after more than a year of war, WMDs haven't been found and the only link between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein is that both of them received weapons and were aided by the Reagan administration during the 80s.He went on the information he had and everyone knows it. It was unfortuate our spies made these errors, but as I said, it changes nothing in the end. As usual blaming other people for their own mistakes.They don't blame anyone for their mistakes. The point is that their mistakes, while unfortunate, were completely irrelevent. The same thing needed to happen regardless. Hitler thought that exterminating the Jews was the best for Germany, Europe and the world. So because the whole world disagreed with him, didn't that matter at all?I am illustrating the difference in the motives of Bill Clinton and George Bush. You are unwilling to concede the point, so you change the subject. Let's see what Bush has to say... - "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." —LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000 - "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000 - "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000 - "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000Once again you change the subject. Bush makes the occational slip of the tounge in speeches and you pointed it out. Well aren't you clever. Laugh and clap your hands. But you know perfectly well what Bush stands for. You may not agree with it, but you know. You see how even when I am illustrating an aspect of Bush that is not a support or defense of him in any way, you twist your response into an attack? That tells me that you are either 1.) so consumed with irrational hate that you are unable to see past it or |
| Deaky's Middle Nut 22.06.2004 17:12 |
"You see how even when I am illustrating an aspect of Bush that is not a support or defense of him in any way, you twist your response into an attack? That tells me that you are either 1.) so consumed with irrational hate that you are unable to see past it or 2.) so unsure of your own position that you feel you must reinforce it to yourself at any available opportunity." That is the way all of these left wingnuts act! It is the irrational hatred, the intensitude of it, is truly mind boggling. Just wait, lefties. God forbid your useless guy wins, if you think that you all have shows some hatred, just wait........... John Kerry IS Jimmy Carter |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 17:14 |
That is the way all of these left wingnuts act! It is the irrational hatred, the intensitude of it, is truly mind boggling.True, but let's be fair - there are plenty of right-wing nuts guilty of the exact same thing. |
| Deaky's Middle Nut 22.06.2004 17:20 |
Yes there are, but the lefties hatred makes the righties look like a Monk convention! The sad part is, the majority of those ewho proclaim to "hate Bush" have no true Idea what the truth would be if it bit them on the ass! They get all of their info from CBS, ABC, and CNN. Sad Sad days! |
| Holly2003 22.06.2004 18:38 |
In Dubya's letter to Congress saying why he was about to take military action against Iraq he states clearly that he included Iraq among "those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." Here's the link, in Dubya's own words: link Some more links: link link link And for those those who start to drool if they have to read more than a few lines at at time, these quotes really spell out the Bush Admin's attempts to link Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein: - "The liberation of Iraq removed...an ally of al-Qa'ida" President George Bush, 1 May 2003 "There's overwhelming evidence... of a connection between al-Qa'ida and Iraq" Vice-President Cheney, 22 January 2004 "Within a week, or a month, Saddam could give his WMD to al-Qa'ida" Donald Rumsfeld, 14 November 2002 "Saddam was a danger in the region where the 9/11 threat emerged" Condoleezza Rice, 17 September 2003 |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 21:10 |
Those people have a common foe in us. They may not be working together, but they share a goal. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," you know. That's all that was being pointed out. In fact, Bush was ADAMANT that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. The recent information released to the public supports this beyond argument. |
| Farlander 22.06.2004 21:14 |
"Yes there are, but the lefties hatred makes the righties look like a Monk convention! The sad part is, the majority of those ewho proclaim to "hate Bush" have no true Idea what the truth would be if it bit them on the ass! They get all of their info from CBS, ABC, and CNN. Sad Sad days!" I disagree. I think the idiocy is shared about equally by both sides. The difference is that younger people, who still have that fire of youth burning inside them, are more easily swayed by the liberal argument. They are so quick to defend it and will do it so violently that it just seems to be unbalanced to that side. |
| Holly2003 23.06.2004 00:58 |
No, Bush took both lines: on some occasions he said clearly there was no Saddam-9/11 link but on other occasions (as documented above) he made it clear that he was going to war in Iraq because of strong links between Saddam and Bin Laden. Clearly he was hoping that the general public would link Saddam to 9-11, as indeed they did. However, now the 9-11 Commission have said those strong links did not exist. Despite this some shills are still claiming that Saddam was involved in 9-11 and that Saddam and Al Qu'ida were working together. If Bush wasn't exactly lying (as he was with the nuclear links & the mobile weapons labs), then he overstated the case to justify the war. |
| inu-liger 23.06.2004 13:11 |
Bush is an aggressor to all nations worldwide, imo. He's the reason so many people hate Americans now. Bush can go whack his own bush |
| FairyQueen 23.06.2004 17:19 |
Newsflash!!!!...everyone always hated America and people always will...it's not goddamn rocket science..don't use Bush as your goddamn scapegoat..... |
| Holly2003 23.06.2004 17:34 |
Inu Yasha vs FairyQueen - one of the great intellectual debates of our time :) |
| Mr.Jingles 24.06.2004 10:55 |
The other day I saw a moron with a bumper sticker that said... "Boycott The French". Turns out to be that after all this time the French were indeed right on their positon. And idiots like that one are still in denial or just don't have the brains to realize that they're wrong. |
| Saint Jiub 24.06.2004 15:55 |
The French are scammers (along with Russia) heavily involved in the oil for food UN scandal link |
| inu-liger 24.06.2004 18:00 |
Hey Holly, I just have to ask: What is "Pro tanto quid retribuamus" Latin for? |