Will you re-elect Bush?

There is no greater glory among men than to be the sick bastard who farts so creatively that strong men vomit.

[JimmyTango]

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven


Which reminds me, I went back to your earlier posts in this thread. Interesting how you say you're neither a Dem or a Republican. Where's your criticism of Democratic leaders in all this?

If you also go back and read, you will see I am showing the other side of the coin that the Republicans are showing.

I see few Democrats posting stuff in this thread.

[RCglider]

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Study English since it is not your stong suit(apparently).

Would you mind pointing out my spelling and grammar errors?

Also, please enlighten us into your world of economics. Maybe my questions were a bit difficult? Try this:

Johnny has two apples. Mary takes two apples away from him. How many apples does Johnny have left?

[frankk6969]

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
There is no greater glory among men than to be the sick bastard who farts so creatively that strong men vomit.

Originally posted by JimmyTango
If you also go back and read, you will see I am showing the other side of the coin that the Republicans are showing.

I see few Democrats posting stuff in this thread.

As vehemently as you've argued I would say you've TAKEN UP the Dem position. Does it just get boring having no one to root for?

Whatever, you've failed to point out exactly where I said "Bush is exactly/always right" where this Niger thing is concerned. The only reason I care is that when it was pointed out that I had misstated one of your comments, I promptly retracted my misstatement. That I can't get the same courtesy in return indeed confirms that, as you once said, "this arguement is obviously going no where."

Nothing personal, no hard feelings. Stick a fork in this one - I'm done with it.

[JimmyTango]

Originally posted by RCglider
Would you mind pointing out my spelling and grammar errors?

Duh, where did George go?

English. I said study English. Not study spelling. They point was(and pointed it to someone else in another post) that what you thought i said was not what i said.

Do you need me to now draw you a map?

God bless ignore

[JimmyTango]

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
As vehemently as you've argued I would say you've TAKEN UP the Dem position. Does it just get boring having no one to root for?

Whatever, you've failed to point out exactly where I said "Bush is exactly/always right" where this Niger thing is concerned. The only reason I care is that when it was pointed out that I had misstated one of your comments, I promptly retracted my misstatement. That I can't get the same courtesy in return indeed confirms that, as you once said, "this arguement is obviously going no where."

Nothing personal, no hard feelings. Stick a fork in this one - I'm done with it.

Why would you argue about the Brittish Intelligence and call what I pointed out as "hyped" evidence(as you exactly called it).

Or, why would you post this:

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
That whole statement is blatantly incorrect. "No evidence" my ass. Does it mean nothing that there are still hundreds of credible documents (in British hands) supporting the claims about Uranium?

Damn right you are saying Bush was right.

I hate to use "The Daily Show" as a source of hard facts, but they had a bit on the US style of "meet the press" and "question period".

I'd like to see the US congress operate a bit more like the British or Canadian system when it comes to debate and questions. Here and in britain, the prime minister can be put on the spot if someone asks them a question or makes an accusation. They'll have to defend themselves with whatever evidence they can muster, and it helps to weed out the spin so prevalent in "media events".

I don't have a good or bad opinion on Bush, but I really don't like seeing media events where he refuses to answer questions because it wasn't the agreed upon question or he simply doesn't feel like answering. If he get's a list of questions a day in advance and unleashes his spin team on them, are american citizens getting the full truth? Don't get me worng, I don't think Bush is blatantly lying to the public, but it'd be nice for him to routinely answer random questions or to defend himself without relying on his spin team.

I can vouch that many a conspiracy or underhanded business deal has been revealed by a back-bencher in our parliament, and it has led to the downfall of many a premier and a couple of prime ministers.

This makes me sad.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030805/ap_on_re_us/distillery_fire



There are only two things you dont talk about on internet forums.

Religion and Politics.

This thread started out friendly enough...as most do...but as they all eventually do, it turned into a flame war...


Calm down fellas, after all, just like the forum description says....

we are watching....



Muhahahahahahaha!

( oh my poor whiskey! )

Two words: Reading Comprehension

I merely said that there wasn't a complete lack of evidence. I've been right all along in that you don't pay attention.
This needs to be put to rest, so please, no more assuming I said one thing when I clearly said something else.

Originally posted by Sannop
God bless ignore

Thanks for reminding me...

Originally posted by MMmmGood
This makes me sad.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=6&u=/ap/20030805/ap_on_re_us/distillery_fire

My wife and I saw this story on our local news the other night. As it was showing pictures of this tragic alcohol inferno, the anchorman mentions how it "probably did serious damage."

PROBABLY????? We laughed our asses off; I also felt sorry for the anchor guy...I could see the look on his face as he read the teleprompter.

[JimmyTango]

Originally posted by Doug the Unforgiven
Two words: Reading Comprehension

I merely said that there wasn't a complete lack of evidence. I've been right all along in that you don't pay attention.
This needs to be put to rest, so please, no more assuming I said one thing when I clearly said something else.

You did not clearly say somethign else. If you had, you would have said 'there isn't a complete lack of evidence.' Not once did you post anything like that. Never did you ever say 'yes, that is right JT, however, there is also this.' It has always been 'yeah, well all this British evidence.'' explain to me all this bristish evidence.... etc etc.'

My reading comprehension is fine. Your explaining is not. No one can read your mind. And I am glad I can't. As this whole post, you are replying to things not said, or twisting things said. You take one sentence, and over the course of 2 or 3 replys, it becomkes seomthign else. I see that at least 3 different times. Now, you omit parts of your posts, and claim them to be visibly there.

It is almost like you are having a conversation with me in your head, and that is where you come up with this BS. It also must be where you said 'there was not a complete lack of evidence.'

MMMMM, cream cheese butt-plug....