Don't humiliate yourself. It would do you a lot of good to read Hersh's article before forming an opinion on this.
Ooh, what a condescending little turd you are, little boy. It's inane. What bunch of tools you all are, but you especially for writing that garbage. There is no one that I can think of on either side of this manufactured political spectrum that comes close to independent thought. To say the least it bothers me, as I am constantly expecting something better of you, and yet you fail me so ver yoften. I am left with nothing better to say myself. I hope you like the same treatment you just gave me.
Ooh, what a condescending little turd you are, little boy.
Do people actually pay attention to what they write? You are calling someone condescending and then turn around to call that same person a turd and a little boy.
Anyone else find this oh so funny yet oh so pathetic?
Do people actually pay attention to what they write? You are calling someone condescending and then turn around to call that same person a turd and a little boy.
That's the point. Anyway, I figured I'd blow steam in the Stupidest Thread ofthe Day?. Enjoy your evenings.
What I find amazing is that the same crowd here who would advocate impeachment for Bush based off a statement of an aide in England wouldn't advocate impeachment of Clinton when the impeachable statements came directly from his own mouth.
What I find amazing is that the same crowd here who would advocate impeachment for Bush based off a statement of an aide in England wouldn't advocate impeachment of Clinton when the impeachable statements came directly from his own mouth.
Consistancy in reasoning, yep.
Nick
No one is advocating for impeachment based on this article.
No one should equate a blow job with mass murder. Unless you don't get it.
The Clinton impeachment trial was ludicrous. Yes, he lied. About something completely unrelated to his presidency. He's swine for cheating on his wife, hell he was a slimeball anyway. He did deserve to be dis-barred (sp?) but it had nothing to do with his role as President. I'm seeing the same dumb anti-Bush drivel as we had with clinton, but the hypocrisy just stinks to hell, everyone turning coat. Tha'ts why I got condescending before. See how stupid it sounds from the other side? No?
Ugh, I don't know why I torture myself. It just seems that you (meaning everyone) just arbitrarily picks a pigeonhole and squats there and post-rationalizes their psition. We have people posting that one person says something and it's gospel and someone else psts someone from aonther person and it's inherently baseless. People link to stuff like Bush says oil is an important part of Iraq'aseconomy, and suddenly thwe hole war is only about oil. We have people posting that Jaques Chirac once bought grapes from mesopotamia in 1976 and that makes him a defender of Hussein. We have people who don't like Bush's decisions so they have to be Pro-Hussein. We have people piling up stories about GWB not liking brussel sprouts, therefore he wants to cut down the rain forests. We have reports that US soldiers were fired at during a rally in Iraq, and people either assume that the soldiers opened fire without provocation or that the whole crowd was in on the conspiracy. It's maddening. Judging by the people around me every day, that most people don't really think like this, but reading the drivel on these boards gives me doubts.
Don't humiliate yourself. It would do you a lot of good to read Hersh's article before forming an opinion on this.
A naive point at best. I shall now edumicate you in the art of blunt subtlety.
It doesn't matter whether or not the Iraqi's were behind the attempt or not, or even if the attempt never existed, as long as Jr believes it did. Remember, he's Texan an' likely to open a can of whoop-ass on someone he mildly thinks was messing with his family.
After reading this article, I'm left wondering, if it's true, to what extent the president can and should be punished. Impeachment? Treason? Nothing? How and why/why not?
Personally I'd settle for impeachment and a subsequent trial at the Hague. Although our court system could probably find something to convict, impeachment would be 'good enough' if the international community were able to put him on trial. For a domestic issue, like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski ordeal, our own courts should handle it.
That guy and his advisory commission may report to Blair, but it sounds like he isn't even part of Blair's government. He certainly has exactly zero insight into the decision-making of Tony Blair, or into the discussions between Blair and Bush duirng the run-up to war. So he thinks the war was about oil? Good for him. Glad he has an opinion.
No one is advocating for impeachment based on this article.
No one should equate a blow job with mass murder. Unless you don't get it.
No one is advocating for impeachment based off this article? Really I could have swown the name of the thread was, "Is impeachment a possibility?" with a link to said article.
I wasn't equating a blow job with mass murder. I was stating that it was interesting the credibility you give sources based off your political perspecive. Clinton was a primary source for his offense and yet you wouldn't give his actions a thought towards impeachment. You have a source in this article that isn't Bush, isn't someone in his cabinet, isn't even someone in his political party. Yet you give it full credibility. It isn't even a primary nor secondary source. It is no better than gossip. Yet you fully advocate it as truth worthy of action.
I didn't link the acts. I said it is interesting how willingly you would act considering the source and how it agrees with you.
BuonRotto, I'm thinking in the hypothetical. This guy is outside the loop, but if it spurs on a 'deep throat', what do people think? IF THIS IS TRUE, means, well, IF. I'm not sure why some imbeciles have a problem with the word IF, but some imbeciles do seem to have a problem with it.
There is a chance, I'd guess not too remote or full of conspiracitis, that some evidence of this kind could emerge. IF (sorry to you imbeciles who don't understand what that means) that happens, I'm feeling more and more like Bush should burn for it. Based on the dogmatic idiocy I see in this post, anyone willing to defend him against these accusations should burn too.
Don't lie about me. Everyone can read the first post.
So what are you doing then Bunge? The equivelent of a push poll?
If you found out the Democratic candidate for president wanted to double your taxes how would you feel?
If you found out the Democratic candidate for president sentenced innocent people to their death, how should he be treated?
I'm not lying about you. Your politics are plain enough that a 3 year old can figure them out. If this thread were about a Democrat you would be screaming your head off about "What happened to innocent until proven guilty?" or "Give this 5 days until you consider it valid." or even "Give the inspectors, the process and everything else more time..."
Questionable source makes a statement about the president and oil...
Comments
You get a cookie.
Since I know of no Bay of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or Sudanese Aspirin Factory for Washington you win by default.
What a joke.
I've heard thing! I've heard things!
Originally posted by giant
Don't humiliate yourself. It would do you a lot of good to read Hersh's article before forming an opinion on this.
Ooh, what a condescending little turd you are, little boy. It's inane. What bunch of tools you all are, but you especially for writing that garbage. There is no one that I can think of on either side of this manufactured political spectrum that comes close to independent thought. To say the least it bothers me, as I am constantly expecting something better of you, and yet you fail me so ver yoften. I am left with nothing better to say myself. I hope you like the same treatment you just gave me.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Ooh, what a condescending little turd you are, little boy.
Do people actually pay attention to what they write? You are calling someone condescending and then turn around to call that same person a turd and a little boy.
Anyone else find this oh so funny yet oh so pathetic?
Originally posted by BR
Do people actually pay attention to what they write? You are calling someone condescending and then turn around to call that same person a turd and a little boy.
That's the point. Anyway, I figured I'd blow steam in the Stupidest Thread ofthe Day?. Enjoy your evenings.
Consistancy in reasoning, yep.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
What I find amazing is that the same crowd here who would advocate impeachment for Bush based off a statement of an aide in England wouldn't advocate impeachment of Clinton when the impeachable statements came directly from his own mouth.
Consistancy in reasoning, yep.
Nick
No one is advocating for impeachment based on this article.
No one should equate a blow job with mass murder. Unless you don't get it.
Ugh, I don't know why I torture myself. It just seems that you (meaning everyone) just arbitrarily picks a pigeonhole and squats there and post-rationalizes their psition. We have people posting that one person says something and it's gospel and someone else psts someone from aonther person and it's inherently baseless. People link to stuff like Bush says oil is an important part of Iraq'aseconomy, and suddenly thwe hole war is only about oil. We have people posting that Jaques Chirac once bought grapes from mesopotamia in 1976 and that makes him a defender of Hussein. We have people who don't like Bush's decisions so they have to be Pro-Hussein. We have people piling up stories about GWB not liking brussel sprouts, therefore he wants to cut down the rain forests. We have reports that US soldiers were fired at during a rally in Iraq, and people either assume that the soldiers opened fire without provocation or that the whole crowd was in on the conspiracy. It's maddening. Judging by the people around me every day, that most people don't really think like this, but reading the drivel on these boards gives me doubts.
Originally posted by giant
Don't humiliate yourself. It would do you a lot of good to read Hersh's article before forming an opinion on this.
A naive point at best. I shall now edumicate you in the art of blunt subtlety.
It doesn't matter whether or not the Iraqi's were behind the attempt or not, or even if the attempt never existed, as long as Jr believes it did. Remember, he's Texan an' likely to open a can of whoop-ass on someone he mildly thinks was messing with his family.
Originally posted by bunge
After reading this article, I'm left wondering, if it's true, to what extent the president can and should be punished. Impeachment? Treason? Nothing? How and why/why not?
Personally I'd settle for impeachment and a subsequent trial at the Hague. Although our court system could probably find something to convict, impeachment would be 'good enough' if the international community were able to put him on trial. For a domestic issue, like Watergate or the Monica Lewinski ordeal, our own courts should handle it.
Originally posted by bunge
No one is advocating for impeachment based on this article.
No one should equate a blow job with mass murder. Unless you don't get it.
No one is advocating for impeachment based off this article? Really I could have swown the name of the thread was, "Is impeachment a possibility?" with a link to said article.
I wasn't equating a blow job with mass murder. I was stating that it was interesting the credibility you give sources based off your political perspecive. Clinton was a primary source for his offense and yet you wouldn't give his actions a thought towards impeachment. You have a source in this article that isn't Bush, isn't someone in his cabinet, isn't even someone in his political party. Yet you give it full credibility. It isn't even a primary nor secondary source. It is no better than gossip. Yet you fully advocate it as truth worthy of action.
I didn't link the acts. I said it is interesting how willingly you would act considering the source and how it agrees with you.
Nick
Originally posted by mrmister
maybe you should be doing something constructive to see that he doesn't get re-elected if he bugs you so much.
Using the term "re-elected" implies that he was actually elected in the first place.
F YOU!
is is is?
Originally posted by trumptman
Yet you give it full credibility.
Don't lie about me. Everyone can read the first post.
BuonRotto, I'm thinking in the hypothetical. This guy is outside the loop, but if it spurs on a 'deep throat', what do people think? IF THIS IS TRUE, means, well, IF. I'm not sure why some imbeciles have a problem with the word IF, but some imbeciles do seem to have a problem with it.
There is a chance, I'd guess not too remote or full of conspiracitis, that some evidence of this kind could emerge. IF (sorry to you imbeciles who don't understand what that means) that happens, I'm feeling more and more like Bush should burn for it. Based on the dogmatic idiocy I see in this post, anyone willing to defend him against these accusations should burn too.
Damn you people are blind.
Originally posted by bunge
Don't lie about me. Everyone can read the first post.
So what are you doing then Bunge? The equivelent of a push poll?
If you found out the Democratic candidate for president wanted to double your taxes how would you feel?
If you found out the Democratic candidate for president sentenced innocent people to their death, how should he be treated?
I'm not lying about you. Your politics are plain enough that a 3 year old can figure them out. If this thread were about a Democrat you would be screaming your head off about "What happened to innocent until proven guilty?" or "Give this 5 days until you consider it valid." or even "Give the inspectors, the process and everything else more time..."
Questionable source makes a statement about the president and oil...
So what do you guys thing about impeachment?
I can see clearly where you are coming from.
Nick