ah, I see where you are confused....you see, there are more words below that headline thing, and if you read them, you get more of the context of Bush's comments.
This is the way most of these things they call "articles" work - they put that headline thingy up at the top, but then there are more words hiding down below them. Sometimes they just look like jumbles of letters, but if you look carefully, you will discover sentences and stuff. All very amazing...
ah, I see where you are confused....you see, there are more words below that headline thing, and if you read them, you get more of the context of Bush's comments.
This is the way most of these things they call "articles" work - they put that headline thingy up at the top, but then there are more words hiding down below them. Sometimes they just look like jumbles of letters, but if you look carefully, you will discover sentences and stuff. All very amazing...
Gee fishdoc I would have never guessed as I write press releases all the friggen time...
so whats more stupid'er' us going there and getting it done, but then as soon as they start guerilla warfare we leave? jeez I like how you people draw conclusions, if I could use the same tactics when I file my tax return I'd be rich, but alas...
whats with liberals who when someone disagree's with them they attack the mentality of person debating them, rather than argument at hand?
If you want to hate bush fine... but if so please paint those 3 words on a big banner so I can laugh at you.
Ands whats with people in other countries saying whats disrepectful to our troops? Are you a citizen of the united states? do you have relatives in the military? well?
I would hope that the troops had that kind of reaction, tone and spirit. They shouldn't be disrespected by that. They should all be saying Bring Them On!
I would hope that the troops had that kind of reaction, tone and spirit. They shouldn't be disrespected by that. They should all be saying Bring Them On!
it's a ****ing war.
thank you very much applenut... some people just don't have a spine...
your first post on the topic was a complaint about people just looking at headlines, and not reading the context, despite the fact that the very link that started the thread *included* context. So I guess that, despite your "expertise" with news reporting, you somehow missed that.
And your analogy seems wholly off...in your example, who is represented by "Mexican food"? Our troops? The terrorists? In which case the Hispanic cooks are...who again? That just does not parse.
As for your "whats more stupid'er' us going there and getting it done, but then as soon as they start guerilla warfare we leave?" seems like a non-sequitor. So our possible positions are either say "bring em on" or leave? Seems like there are other options.
Finally - people in other countries are somehow banned from stating what is disrespectful? So if, say, an Italian politician were to make racist comments about his citizens, US citizens would somehow neither know nor be allowed to say that it is disrespectful? That is a very odd proposition.
This isn't about spines and balls. That's grade school intelligence type of thinking.
Anyone with half a brain knows we don't want them to "bring it on", we want them to go away. Or at least, stop attacking.
The goose-stepping conservatives around here will be the first to boil over with rage the next time there's a major terrorist attack in the country. But where will your "bring it on" sentiments be then? Stuck straight up your collective arse along with the hundreds or perhaps thousands of dead Americans.
Either that, or I expect you goose-stepping brainless trash to come back after the next attack and post great commentary like "Hell yeah! Bring it on Osama! We'll kick your ass again!!!" Of course you won't, like I said, you'll be boiling over with rage in amounts proportionate to your relative lack of intelligence.
Thinking may be painful for some of you, but not as painful as reading some of the thoughtless comments in this thread.
I don't think that is the point, Applenut. Bush could have said "we welcome your attacks as they winnow out the weak among our troops", and it would not have increased the terrorist's attacks, but it WOULD be offensive.
I think if I were the parent or loved one of someone killed by one of these terrorists post-combat, I would be offended by our president saying "hey, we are tough, we can handle it - bring it on!" Clearly, that may apply to us as a nation (and particularly to those of us sitting safely in our offices, oval or otherwise), but it has been proven that we can NOT prevent the tragic loss of life of individual soldiers, no matter how tough we think we are, and I think it shows a lack of respect for those killed (to date and in the near future) to be inviting attacks.
bunge I like how you take the initative and and say that all future terrorists attacks happen because of the the war in iraq... lol Gee lets see so what about the trade towers before the war in iraq? Iraq has nothing to do with these attacks, that has all to do with the situation with Israel and Palenstine both of which I'm finally glad to see starting to talk, and oh yeah who is in office and forced israel to give a little? oh yeah bush...
secondly you have a point fishdoc, but over here its a rallying comment, just like in chief of the military forces is to say. I for one would think it'd be a huge mistake on Bush's part to put his tail between his legs, and just hope they stop attacking...
However as if I say, if judgment were purely left to the actual judges then AO wouldn't exist, there wouldn't be color in flowers, and we'd all have the same haircut.
So it all begins again...
As for earlier the hispanic/food was just satire, I for one cannot see how if bush says "BRING THEM ON" ='s "disresprectful"
Bring Them On even being potentially disrespectful did not even cross my mind until a couple of you overanalyzed it... and im sure most others will agree with me
Well, I don't know about that. My first reaction on seeing the quote scrolling on CNN was "holy crap - he didn't mean that about the terrorists, did he?" And there has certainly been a bit of an uproar in the press and among the dems, but it is tough to know if they are finding fault because it is Bush, or GOP folks find it inoffensive for the same reason (and I am avoiding the lleged "liberal bias" issue, and for the sake of this discussion will accept that as fact). Still, it clearly did not require "overanalyzing" to find it offensive.
Some people here just never stopped playing army. There's no telling if this will keep them from attacking but I don't see the value ( outside of a gradeschool playground ) to take a provocative stance like this. That's just childish to the extreme.
and the democratic party just doesn't have any heh
...votes that is...
Gah I'm just sick of politics the only reason why I side with Bush on a lot of this is I can't stand the eternal ring of brown-nosing that is the democratic party "all about image, and nothing about action" <- which used to be the opposite entirely.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
Come ohhhhhhan! Take a poke at me! Burp!
Are you talkin ta me???????? Well,,,, Are Ya??????
Fellows
ah, I see where you are confused....you see, there are more words below that headline thing, and if you read them, you get more of the context of Bush's comments.
This is the way most of these things they call "articles" work - they put that headline thingy up at the top, but then there are more words hiding down below them. Sometimes they just look like jumbles of letters, but if you look carefully, you will discover sentences and stuff. All very amazing...
Fish
1+1 does not equal 3
most of the troops want to hear this kind of moral, sorry but we're not pusses.
Originally posted by fishdoc
Kraig911,
ah, I see where you are confused....you see, there are more words below that headline thing, and if you read them, you get more of the context of Bush's comments.
This is the way most of these things they call "articles" work - they put that headline thingy up at the top, but then there are more words hiding down below them. Sometimes they just look like jumbles of letters, but if you look carefully, you will discover sentences and stuff. All very amazing...
Gee fishdoc I would have never guessed as I write press releases all the friggen time...
so whats more stupid'er'
whats with liberals who when someone disagree's with them they attack the mentality of person debating them, rather than argument at hand?
If you want to hate bush fine... but if so please paint those 3 words on a big banner so I can laugh at you.
Ands whats with people in other countries saying whats disrepectful to our troops? Are you a citizen of the united states? do you have relatives in the military? well?
bullshit.
I would hope that the troops had that kind of reaction, tone and spirit. They shouldn't be disrespected by that. They should all be saying Bring Them On!
it's a ****ing war.
Originally posted by applenut
disrespectful?
bullshit.
I would hope that the troops had that kind of reaction, tone and spirit. They shouldn't be disrespected by that. They should all be saying Bring Them On!
it's a ****ing war.
thank you very much applenut... some people just don't have a spine...
wow - let me deal with thses one at a time.
your first post on the topic was a complaint about people just looking at headlines, and not reading the context, despite the fact that the very link that started the thread *included* context. So I guess that, despite your "expertise" with news reporting, you somehow missed that.
And your analogy seems wholly off...in your example, who is represented by "Mexican food"? Our troops? The terrorists? In which case the Hispanic cooks are...who again? That just does not parse.
As for your "whats more stupid'er' us going there and getting it done, but then as soon as they start guerilla warfare we leave?" seems like a non-sequitor. So our possible positions are either say "bring em on" or leave? Seems like there are other options.
Finally - people in other countries are somehow banned from stating what is disrespectful? So if, say, an Italian politician were to make racist comments about his citizens, US citizens would somehow neither know nor be allowed to say that it is disrespectful? That is a very odd proposition.
Fish
Anyone with half a brain knows we don't want them to "bring it on", we want them to go away. Or at least, stop attacking.
The goose-stepping conservatives around here will be the first to boil over with rage the next time there's a major terrorist attack in the country. But where will your "bring it on" sentiments be then? Stuck straight up your collective arse along with the hundreds or perhaps thousands of dead Americans.
Either that, or I expect you goose-stepping brainless trash to come back after the next attack and post great commentary like "Hell yeah! Bring it on Osama! We'll kick your ass again!!!" Of course you won't, like I said, you'll be boiling over with rage in amounts proportionate to your relative lack of intelligence.
Thinking may be painful for some of you, but not as painful as reading some of the thoughtless comments in this thread.
Originally posted by bunge
Anyone with half a brain knows we don't want them to "bring it on", we want them to go away. Or at least, stop attacking.
and I suppose they were going to do this had Bush not said Bring them on
I think if I were the parent or loved one of someone killed by one of these terrorists post-combat, I would be offended by our president saying "hey, we are tough, we can handle it - bring it on!" Clearly, that may apply to us as a nation (and particularly to those of us sitting safely in our offices, oval or otherwise), but it has been proven that we can NOT prevent the tragic loss of life of individual soldiers, no matter how tough we think we are, and I think it shows a lack of respect for those killed (to date and in the near future) to be inviting attacks.
Fish
secondly you have a point fishdoc, but over here its a rallying comment, just like in chief of the military forces is to say. I for one would think it'd be a huge mistake on Bush's part to put his tail between his legs, and just hope they stop attacking...
However as if I say, if judgment were purely left to the actual judges then AO wouldn't exist, there wouldn't be color in flowers, and we'd all have the same haircut.
So it all begins again...
As for earlier the hispanic/food was just satire, I for one cannot see how if bush says "BRING THEM ON" ='s "disresprectful"
Fish
It's all about votes.
...votes that is...
Gah I'm just sick of politics the only reason why I side with Bush on a lot of this is I can't stand the eternal ring of brown-nosing that is the democratic party "all about image, and nothing about action" <- which used to be the opposite entirely.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
only problem with that is Bush Jr.'s unwarranted and childish comments are more likely to get American soldiers killed then the Demo's.
I'd say they were indicative of a much bigger problem on the whole with him.