[quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:
<strong>
what's a matter a-nut, you don't approve of the negativity towards our fearless leader, he who stammers-a-lot?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, not at all.
i don't approve of people posting disgusting and offensive graphics in every thread making appleinsider a very unenjoyable place to browse and one that has no class
[quote]i don't approve of people posting disgusting and offensive graphics in every thread making appleinsider a very unenjoyable place to browse and one that has no class<hr></blockquote>
I doubt he intended to post that bastardized hermaphrodite or whatever the hell that thing was. Somethingawful has rigged their server so that when you try to repost their images you instead get other pictures instead which are just plain wrong.
That would explan why it seemed so out of character for curiousburb. Sorry, curious!
So.... uh, so does anyone have these press conferences any more in the actual attempt to persuade? This one was just more from the "party line." This was just George as a mouthpiece, his remarks were too general. Well, actually, the Brits seem to do a better job at debate and justfying their opinions. It's a shame that Blair gets drowned out and his remarks fall on deaf ears, and Bush gets the royal treatment and stil can't make a stronger statement.
I doubt he intended to post that bastardized hermaphrodite or whatever the hell that thing was. Somethingawful has rigged their server so that when you try to repost their images you instead get other pictures instead which are just plain wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SA substituting "things you'll get banned for" for the image people tried to link to is one way to lose friends
apologies to anybody who saw disturbing not-my-intent-images
cheeky policy
it might help if the thread creator had a checkbox to disable not only smilies, but also images in a thread they want to keep text-only,
but maybe ubb doesn't make it easier
--
back on topic... the transcript of the bush press conference is now up. lots of echo
Hell I only saw the first 3 minutes (I have a 7-9pm editing lab) and he made a pretty solid argument just then.
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true).
It'd be great if we can get the UN on board (and I still think we will) but it's not necessary. Our president will take whatever actions he deems necessary to defend national security. That's it.
All this anti-war movement has boiled down to is an anti-Bush movement, which is amazingly childish.
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true).
...
All this anti-war movement has boiled down to is an anti-Bush movement, which is amazingly childish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean something like this LA LA LA LA OIL OIL IMPERIALIST OIL OIL NOT LISTENING OIL OIL NO SMOKING GUN ILLEGAL WAR LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
I'll happily take my statement back if someone can make a cogent argument against what he said without making fun of his cadence or physical appearance.
"He's totally a dumbhead!"
That shit gets tired. I can't believe people expect to have any legitimacy attached to their words when that's the best they can come up with.
The press conference was typical Bush. But the unavoidable context is the horribly botched way this has been handled internationally. It's hard to imagine him screwing this up worse than he has. I used to think the parallels with his dad's administration were striking: neither peace nor prosperity. But now, the contrast with his father is clear: In 1991, he sought and built an overwhelming coalition of support around the world. He gained their respect and they followed. This new Bush says "screw you" to the world and then half-heartedly seeks their support, all the while saying we don't need you anyway. And then surprise! They don't support us. Gawd. This guy is such a bungler.
That shit gets tired. I can't believe people expect to have any legitimacy attached to their words when that's the best they can come up with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I haven't seen or read his speech, and I haven't criticized him here either. Your generalization is pretty weak too though.
Uh, when I said no argument, I meant no new arguments. Maybe I've been paying more attention to what's been said before, so it's not new to me. Maybe a better way of saying it is that I was expecting more depth to his arguments.
My apologies if I shouldn't do this, I'm sure it will get modded if that is the case.....
Ironically enough, it could actually be considered an interesting (though disgusting), on-topic commentary on this evening's performance.
[You know you will get modded yet you do it anyway. Very very intelligent.]
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]
sorry grove, I see that I should have PM'd it to the curious ones.... I thought maybe a link was permissable with a warning, as opposed to the big disgusting thing staring you in the face right there in the thread as an IMG.... I Live to Learn, and stand educated, thanks!
<strong>But now, the contrast with his father is clear: In 1991, he sought and built an overwhelming coalition of support around the world. He gained their respect and they followed. This new Bush says "screw you" to the world and then half-heartedly seeks their support, all the while saying we don't need you anyway. And then surprise! They don't support us. Gawd. This guy is such a bungler.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your memory is very short. Out of the last 3 presidents, Dubya has done just as much as his father to get the UN involved with Iraq and both did more than Clinton.
The rhetoric between the Bush and Clinton administration with regard to force in Iraq is so parallel it's hilarious to watch you partisan boobs act like something has changed.
Clinton actually said Iraq was part of an "unholy axis" and spoke of "weeks, not months" with regard to force in Iraq.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
Clinton didn't even bother asking the UN (or Congress for that matter) before dropping bombs in Yugoslavia or before ordering Desert Fox. Bush went to the UN very soon after deciding that Iraq had to be dealt with.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
It's all perception with you people and it's disgusting. There's no desire for substance, just political posturing. I'd rather jab my eyes out than vote for any Democrat or Republican. It's pathetic.
John McCain conveniently forgets how he doubted Clinton's resolve to really go in militarily against Iraq and now he wonders why this wasn't taken care of earlier.
Tom Daschle acts now like the UN is a goddam deity about international affairs and in 1998 he was beating the war drum harder than Rumsfeld.
Hell I only saw the first 3 minutes (I have a 7-9pm editing lab) and he made a pretty solid argument just then.<hr></blockquote>
I am somewhat disappointed (and yet somehow not surprised) that you are judging all the comments about his speech from the first three minutes. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true). <hr></blockquote>
I'll give you these, and maybe even a couple damning facts to be named later.
But if you agree with his main messages (hopefully you have reviewed the whole show via streaming by now)....that SH and Iraq are "a direct threat to the American public", and that this unsupportable allegation justifies "we're going in, with or without a UN resolution or any allies besides Blair/Straw"..... then you're going to have to keep arguing to support that position.
Comments
<strong>
whadimiss?</strong><hr></blockquote>
nothing much...but you'll be glad you did.
<strong>****ing lowtax
i'm really going to just tell everyone to never link from SA again. they're dickwads about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, but this is the funniest shit I've seen in a while.
Love the Ali G sig Jonathan.
Down we goooooooooooo.....
Please stay on topic! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Prepared/prescreened press conference with a reverent, grunting monkey.
Continue...
<strong>ya know.... shit like this makes AI really unenjoyable anymore.... and its becoming more and more common.
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
what's a matter a-nut, you don't approve of the negativity towards our fearless leader, he who stammers-a-lot?
<strong>****ing lowtax
i'm really going to just tell everyone to never link from SA again. they're dickwads about it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
eh?
sorry... first i've heard. thanks for fixing.
um... the link was page 10 of this week's PhPh. "W Quarterously" if you want to surf SA yourself.
but i do want to find the exact text of saddam's "we're uncomfortable to bite" comment
<strong>
what's a matter a-nut, you don't approve of the negativity towards our fearless leader, he who stammers-a-lot?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no, not at all.
i don't approve of people posting disgusting and offensive graphics in every thread making appleinsider a very unenjoyable place to browse and one that has no class
I doubt he intended to post that bastardized hermaphrodite or whatever the hell that thing was. Somethingawful has rigged their server so that when you try to repost their images you instead get other pictures instead which are just plain wrong.
Prove me wrong.
CONTINUE... <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
So.... uh, so does anyone have these press conferences any more in the actual attempt to persuade? This one was just more from the "party line." This was just George as a mouthpiece, his remarks were too general. Well, actually, the Brits seem to do a better job at debate and justfying their opinions. It's a shame that Blair gets drowned out and his remarks fall on deaf ears, and Bush gets the royal treatment and stil can't make a stronger statement.
<strong>
I doubt he intended to post that bastardized hermaphrodite or whatever the hell that thing was. Somethingawful has rigged their server so that when you try to repost their images you instead get other pictures instead which are just plain wrong.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SA substituting "things you'll get banned for" for the image people tried to link to is one way to lose friends
apologies to anybody who saw disturbing not-my-intent-images
cheeky policy
it might help if the thread creator had a checkbox to disable not only smilies, but also images in a thread they want to keep text-only,
but maybe ubb doesn't make it easier
--
back on topic... the transcript of the bush press conference is now up. lots of echo
Hell I only saw the first 3 minutes (I have a 7-9pm editing lab) and he made a pretty solid argument just then.
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true).
It'd be great if we can get the UN on board (and I still think we will) but it's not necessary. Our president will take whatever actions he deems necessary to defend national security. That's it.
All this anti-war movement has boiled down to is an anti-Bush movement, which is amazingly childish.
and any links to said disgusting image?
<strong>...
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true).
...
All this anti-war movement has boiled down to is an anti-Bush movement, which is amazingly childish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You mean something like this LA LA LA LA OIL OIL IMPERIALIST OIL OIL NOT LISTENING OIL OIL NO SMOKING GUN ILLEGAL WAR LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: Scott ]</p>
<strong>
All this anti-war movement has boiled down to is an anti-Bush movement, which is amazingly childish.</strong><hr></blockquote>
All this anti-anti-war movement movement has boiled down to creating a straw-man argument that can be easily dismissed, which is amazingly childish.
EDIT: spelling.
[ 03-06-2003: Message edited by: bunge ]</p>
"He's totally a dumbhead!"
That shit gets tired. I can't believe people expect to have any legitimacy attached to their words when that's the best they can come up with.
<strong>
That shit gets tired. I can't believe people expect to have any legitimacy attached to their words when that's the best they can come up with.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I haven't seen or read his speech, and I haven't criticized him here either. Your generalization is pretty weak too though.
<strong>could you please clarify what is SA and how do I get there?
and any links to said disgusting image?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You REALLY don't want to see it. No, REALLY!! Something awful, indeed, both the visual and the tactic that put it here.
But if you must, click [http://www.youarenotsmart.com]this[/URL]
CLICK THIS LINK AT YOUR OWN RISK
My apologies if I shouldn't do this, I'm sure it will get modded if that is the case.....
Ironically enough, it could actually be considered an interesting (though disgusting), on-topic commentary on this evening's performance.
[You know you will get modded yet you do it anyway. Very very intelligent.]
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: groverat ]
sorry grove, I see that I should have PM'd it to the curious ones.... I thought maybe a link was permissable with a warning, as opposed to the big disgusting thing staring you in the face right there in the thread as an IMG.... I Live to Learn, and stand educated, thanks!
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: FormerLurker ]</p>
<strong>But now, the contrast with his father is clear: In 1991, he sought and built an overwhelming coalition of support around the world. He gained their respect and they followed. This new Bush says "screw you" to the world and then half-heartedly seeks their support, all the while saying we don't need you anyway. And then surprise! They don't support us. Gawd. This guy is such a bungler.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your memory is very short. Out of the last 3 presidents, Dubya has done just as much as his father to get the UN involved with Iraq and both did more than Clinton.
The rhetoric between the Bush and Clinton administration with regard to force in Iraq is so parallel it's hilarious to watch you partisan boobs act like something has changed.
Clinton actually said Iraq was part of an "unholy axis" and spoke of "weeks, not months" with regard to force in Iraq.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
Clinton didn't even bother asking the UN (or Congress for that matter) before dropping bombs in Yugoslavia or before ordering Desert Fox. Bush went to the UN very soon after deciding that Iraq had to be dealt with.
Clinton is the master diplomat, Bush is a bungling moron.
It's all perception with you people and it's disgusting. There's no desire for substance, just political posturing. I'd rather jab my eyes out than vote for any Democrat or Republican. It's pathetic.
John McCain conveniently forgets how he doubted Clinton's resolve to really go in militarily against Iraq and now he wonders why this wasn't taken care of earlier.
Tom Daschle acts now like the UN is a goddam deity about international affairs and in 1998 he was beating the war drum harder than Rumsfeld.
*stabs Republicrats and Demicans in the eyes*
Bush didn't have an argument? Are you sure?
Hell I only saw the first 3 minutes (I have a 7-9pm editing lab) and he made a pretty solid argument just then.<hr></blockquote>
I am somewhat disappointed (and yet somehow not surprised) that you are judging all the comments about his speech from the first three minutes. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[quote]
Iraq has broken every single resolution passed against them(undeniably true). They've lied to inspectors (undeniably true). They've bugged scientists (undeniably true). They have not provided full cooperation (undeniably true). They have not shown a true intention to disarm (undeniably true). <hr></blockquote>
I'll give you these, and maybe even a couple damning facts to be named later.
But if you agree with his main messages (hopefully you have reviewed the whole show via streaming by now)....that SH and Iraq are "a direct threat to the American public", and that this unsupportable allegation justifies "we're going in, with or without a UN resolution or any allies besides Blair/Straw"..... then you're going to have to keep arguing to support that position.