Hey JTF - was that Monday our time, or Monday in the Middle East? 'Cause I’m looking at my watch and it says Tuesday.
Why shouldn’t we trust AJ? Didn’t they run with photos of a GI Joe doll and tell everyone that it was a hostage?
Maybe now you’ll think before you post you tin foil hat garbage. You were wrong. The story you wanted to believe so badly was wrong as well. Ever consider what posting shit like this might do to your credibility?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Aw, now I’m sad Veg. I wanted to be the Perry Mason guy investigating things.
[/quote]
No offense vroom… I think I tend to agree with your views for the most part, but some of your posts do have something of the “You hurt my teenage feelings” vibe. Not that you shouldn’t defend yourself from anyone at any time, but your posts man… c’mon. You’re eating out of their hands.
I must say though, that whoever was “accusing” you of being a member of the democratic party repeatedly despite the fact that you don’t acknowledge being a member of either major US party is an idiot. He really needs only look at your profile to see that you’re Canadian.
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
I must say though, that whoever was “accusing” you of being a member of the democratic party repeatedly despite the fact that you don’t acknowledge being a member of either major US party is an idiot. He really needs only look at your profile to see that you’re Canadian.[/quote]
What? They don’t have liberals and liberal leaners in Canada?
Damn…and here I thought in Canada they had a party for everything…even a Rhino Party and Merry-wanna Party.
I said nothing of “liberal”. It may be that vroom is a member of a liberal party in Canada.
Also, I should say that “idiot” was probably a bit of a strong and undeserved word. Probably “unobservant” would have fit the bill better.
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB.
[quote]vroom wrote:
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Aw, now I’m sad Veg. I wanted to be the Perry Mason guy investigating things.
However, to me, C could be anyone who went to Washington, perhaps having discussions with someone other than Bush, who reported on the substance of the message, rather than talking directly to Bush.
I’m glad you know how the international communications between the US and UK are handled in detail, that makes me feel a lot safer at night.[/quote]
Vroom, then what you are assuming makes even less sense. That would mean the writer of this story, didn’t hear Bush say it, didn’t hear blair say it, but possibly heard it from a person who got the jist of it from blair and wasn’t even in the room with Bush.
Besides the fact that the sentence structure and language of it turns the Britain use of FIX into our use of AFFIX. Discuss this point please and tell me it possibly could mean something else.
V
graphicsMan wrote:
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB."
Make sure to dust off your Yale/Harvard diplomas today.
Oh wait…
JeffR
P.S. I’ll bet I can guess your response has something to do with #41.
[quote]Vroom, then what you are assuming makes even less sense. That would mean the writer of this story, didn’t hear Bush say it, didn’t hear blair say it, but possibly heard it from a person who got the jist of it from blair and wasn’t even in the room with Bush.
Besides the fact that the sentence structure and language of it turns the Britain use of FIX into our use of AFFIX. Discuss this point please and tell me it possibly could mean something else.[/quote]
Veg, I think it was Sasquatch who rightly pointed out that the memo doesn’t really clarify who was involved in what. Now, it might be as complex as you make out, or it might be as simple as you described earlier. Also as Sasquatch rightly pointed out, we don’t have the information to know.
As for the language, it is hard to tell what was meant there. Use of language is a flexible thing. I understand you could argue it’s meaning, but either way, it does sound funny to have to “do something” about the intelligence.
Anyway, Monday is over, and I didn’t hear the explosion that an impeachment process would bring about. So, perhaps it won’t matter in the slightest what the document contains…
[quote]vroom wrote:
Vroom, then what you are assuming makes even less sense. That would mean the writer of this story, didn’t hear Bush say it, didn’t hear blair say it, but possibly heard it from a person who got the jist of it from blair and wasn’t even in the room with Bush.
Besides the fact that the sentence structure and language of it turns the Britain use of FIX into our use of AFFIX. Discuss this point please and tell me it possibly could mean something else.
Veg, I think it was Sasquatch who rightly pointed out that the memo doesn’t really clarify who was involved in what. Now, it might be as complex as you make out, or it might be as simple as you described earlier. Also as Sasquatch rightly pointed out, we don’t have the information to know.
As for the language, it is hard to tell what was meant there. Use of language is a flexible thing. I understand you could argue it’s meaning, but either way, it does sound funny to have to “do something” about the intelligence.
Anyway, Monday is over, and I didn’t hear the explosion that an impeachment process would bring about. So, perhaps it won’t matter in the slightest what the document contains…[/quote]
Fair enough… I just thought we could discuss the context and guts of the very thing this was about instead of going off on tangents and possible other evidence.
V
[quote]JeffR wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB."
Make sure to dust off your Yale/Harvard diplomas today.
Oh wait…
JeffR
P.S. I’ll bet I can guess your response has something to do with #41.
[/quote]
I’m sorry, but these don’t overly impress me. They’re good schools, but for my field of study, the state schools I went/am going to are also quite good. Besides which, I graduated from undergrad with much better than a C average.
I have heard that he was smarter before he used cocaine, but I can’t really see that a C average is all that great to begin with.
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
I said nothing of “liberal”. It may be that vroom is a member of a liberal party in Canada.
Also, I should say that “idiot” was probably a bit of a strong and undeserved word. Probably “unobservant” would have fit the bill better.
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB. [/quote]
I just couldn’t remember anyone calling vroom a democrat. Some have said he supports that side, but mostly we just call him a liberal.
And GWB–Mr. Party-boy–had a higher GP than Mr. Kerry–who is supposed to be a real deep thinker.
Check today’s Boston Globe on-line for details.
Same article, however, says
“It is noteworthy, however, that Kerry received a high honor at Yale despite his mediocre grades: He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker. He delivered a speech questioning the wisdom of the Vietnam War, in which he would soon see combat.”
That being said, I’m not a big John Kerry fan. I would likely be less than satisfied if he were our president as well.
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
I said nothing of “liberal”. It may be that vroom is a member of a liberal party in Canada.
Also, I should say that “idiot” was probably a bit of a strong and undeserved word. Probably “unobservant” would have fit the bill better.
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB. [/quote]
When you go to Harvard and Yale (score as high as John Kerry in college). Become Governor of the largest state in the Union and get elected to the Presidency not once, but twice
and still get called an “idiot” that is some powerful hate!
[quote]graphicsMan wrote:
JeffR wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
“Idiot” should be reserved for real mental giants like GWB."
Make sure to dust off your Yale/Harvard diplomas today.
Oh wait…
JeffR
P.S. I’ll bet I can guess your response has something to do with #41.
I’m sorry, but these don’t overly impress me. They’re good schools, but for my field of study, the state schools I went/am going to are also quite good. Besides which, I graduated from undergrad with much better than a C average.
I have heard that he was smarter before he used cocaine, but I can’t really see that a C average is all that great to begin with.
[/quote]
GREAT! Phew…finally…
We finally have some solid eveidence that President Bush used Cocaine. Alright, now what is it?
Come on I want to hear this, I’ve been hearing about the cocaine rumors for so long from the Bush haters that I have been waiting for a guy like you, to come forward with the goods!
Okay, shoot let’s read the evidence…
Anyone else notice that everytime Kerry gets anyone to stand up for him around here they always have to qualify it: “Don’t get me wrong I hate John Kerry I just think he’s better than Bush…but I’m not a Kerry fan NOOOOOOOO…”
LOL Graphics I hope you stick around…you are funny guy!
Oh, someone else who doesn’t like to entertain additional factors…
Is it just me, or was the theoretical question of whether the democrats would be dumb enough to go forward with only this as evidence an interesting line of thought?
graphicsman,
Come on over to the wonderful post Zeb started about kerry versus Bush.
You ding-dongs and your little slogans!!!
I love it!!!
Just in case you missed it, W. is far more intelligent and involved than your pathetic party acknowledges.
JeffR
[quote]vroom wrote:
Fair enough… I just thought we could discuss the context and guts of the very thing this was about instead of going off on tangents and possible other evidence.
Oh, someone else who doesn’t like to entertain additional factors…
Is it just me, or was the theoretical question of whether the democrats would be dumb enough to go forward with only this as evidence an interesting line of thought?[/quote]
It was just you.--------
That’s also the first time I’ve done that smiley thingy.
Tou are turning me into a regular internet jargon head vroom
graphicsMan wrote:
“That being said, I’m not a big John Kerry fan. I would likely be less than satisfied if he were our president as well.”
You still voted for him?
Sad.
You vote based on how much you hate the other guy.
Cool thinking!!!
JeffR
[quote]ZEB wrote:
GREAT! Phew…finally…
We finally have some solid eveidence that President Bush used Cocaine. Alright, now what is it?
Come on I want to hear this, I’ve been hearing about the cocaine rumors for so long from the Bush haters that I have been waiting for a guy like you, to come forward with the goods!
Okay, shoot let’s read the evidence…
[/quote]
Okay, good point. I have no evidence, other than that Bush wouldn’t deny it. It would still be a pretty amazing act for someone to convince me that he’s not a bumbling idiot, just as it would be futile for me to try to convince some of you that he’s a fool, and that his administration has lied. I think this thread is a dead end at this point. If someone actually impeaches Bush, maybe we’ll have more to discuss.
Ciao.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
graphicsMan wrote:
“That being said, I’m not a big John Kerry fan. I would likely be less than satisfied if he were our president as well.”
You still voted for him?
Sad.
You vote based on how much you hate the other guy.
Cool thinking!!!
JeffR
[/quote]
I don’t hate Bush. I don’t have a single thing personally against the guy. If he were my neighbor, I’m sure we’d get along splendidly. I dislike his political views, and I PERSONALLY find that his mental acuity is less than exemplary, and less than what a president should exhibit. And yep, I did exactly what you said, I voted for the less of two evils. Not going to argue with you there.