Sure. But I'm less prone to take a radical stance on the forums for the sole purpose of getting folks worked up.
Anyway, anyone who'd get worked up over my OP needs to learn how to take a joke. If you can't see the humor in the Onion predicting nearly a year ago that Bush would be publicly eating his "Bring 'em on" words, you need to take the 2x4 out of your ***.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush is a bit behind the times
Bush is a bit behind the timesFollow
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Hah! Kinda reminds me of how SNL did skits in 2000 calling the election "Indecision 2000", then months later, all the networks were calling it the same thing...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Will you Commie-Pinko Radical Libs ever actually be happy about anything?
(was that enough hyperbole to get your attention?)
Anyway, to my point:
First, you take Bush to task because he doesn't admit any mistakes (reference the question asked of him in, I think, the second Presidential Debate).
Now, you assail him for admitting that he might have chosen his words more carefully when he said things such as "Bring them on!" and that he didn't care if we captured Osama 'dead or alive'.
So, in your minds, he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't.
Personally, I got what he was saying in both instances.
In the first instance, he was attempting to motivate the troops by saying he was confident they were capable of dealing with any threat that the Terrorists could initiate. Although the Old Media might have you think otherwise, that's all there was to it.
In the second instance, he was simply mirroring what probably 90% of the American public felt about it not mattering in what condition Osama is captured, so long as he is eventually captured. Again, the Old Media might have you think otherwise, but that's just further evidence of their agenda.
(was that enough hyperbole to get your attention?)
Anyway, to my point:
First, you take Bush to task because he doesn't admit any mistakes (reference the question asked of him in, I think, the second Presidential Debate).
Now, you assail him for admitting that he might have chosen his words more carefully when he said things such as "Bring them on!" and that he didn't care if we captured Osama 'dead or alive'.
So, in your minds, he's damned if he does or damned if he doesn't.
Personally, I got what he was saying in both instances.
In the first instance, he was attempting to motivate the troops by saying he was confident they were capable of dealing with any threat that the Terrorists could initiate. Although the Old Media might have you think otherwise, that's all there was to it.
In the second instance, he was simply mirroring what probably 90% of the American public felt about it not mattering in what condition Osama is captured, so long as he is eventually captured. Again, the Old Media might have you think otherwise, but that's just further evidence of their agenda.
Quote:
Now, you assail him for admitting that he might have chosen his words more carefully when he said things such as "Bring them on!" and that he didn't care if we captured Osama 'dead or alive'.
All I did was post a couple of news stories, one satirical and one depicting actual events. Tell your proctologist to be careful for splinters.
Varrus, no one cares.
Edited, Fri Jan 14 16:53:15 2005 by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
The saddest thing is the hole the media is in now was dug by here own hands. When you report idiocy long enough people start to not care anymore.
Its too bad really.
Its too bad really.
it just goes to show that bush makes a better puppet than an extemporaneous speaker
I'm only feeding the troll but I just noticed this:
So they considered the death of a regional leader who was pivotal in the developments of a part of the world that the rest of the globe places special significance in up until the day he died as more news worthy than the death of someone who left office about two decades ago and hasn't made news since then except to say that he's oblivious to the world due to illness?
Holy crap. You convinced me!
Quote:
Not only that but they place the death of arafat before reagan
Holy crap. You convinced me!
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jarlaxyle the Puissant wrote:
How exactly, did this man get REelected...
I think it involved 100 million rednecks.
Since when does a president write thier own speach? Stop saying stuff with out realizing the possabilities first.
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Sanni wrote:
I know GB loves getting on the "Internets" seriously though when I saw that back when the debates were on I laughed for like 20 minutes.
Dont tell me you never screwed up on a speach, cause thats almost impossable to believe. Calculated its .0016359% of the world population that has never screwed up on a speach. But lol that was funny.
Bringing derailâ„¢ back.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Qui s'estime petit deviendra grand.
Sogoro wrote:
Since when does a president write thier own speach? Stop saying stuff with out realizing the possabilities first.
George W Bush wrote:
Well, it was just an expression that came out. I didn't rehearse it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 322
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (322)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Bush is a bit behind the times
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC