My favorite Bushisms | Page 6 | TigerFan.com

MiketheTiger69 · Feb 28, 2004

Originally posted by G_MAN113
That's pretty funny coming from a Teamster, I must admit.
Click to expand...

GMan, what the hell do you know about the Teamsters? Were you ever in the union? Probably all you know is whatever lies you've heard from big business. I doubt seriously if you even know who the Teamsters or any other union are.
I was in it for 15 yrs. and damn proud to call myself a Teamster.

:geaux: :helmet: :lsug: :helmet: :geaux:

tygertail · Feb 28, 2004

Re: NICELY DONE!

Outstanding choice. Probably the high point of the Dubya presidency.
What isn't widely known is that the gifted writer who crafted that speech for his boss, president Bush was a 36-year-old speach writer from St. Louis named Michael Gerson. I say, nice work, Michael!

U [/B]
Click to expand...

Name me 3 poiliticians in the past 30 years that wrote their own speeches

dallastigers · Feb 28, 2004

Originally posted by phatcat
<Published in July and does not become a big issue until Sep/Oct. Why the delayed outrage? Could it be because Wilson's comments in July about Bush did not have the desired effect so he decided to use another tactic? Could it be because Wilson's comments in July about Bush did not have the desired effect so he decided to use another tactic? Who is Wilson supporting in 2004? Who did he support in 2000?

-Who did he support in 2000?>

Come on, sweetpea, are you suggesting that I take you on to be educated as well as to be raised? Oh, OK, you poor frightened little cuddlebunny, don't be skeered. I'll answer each of your questions in turn as well as raise a few to you of my own. Think of them as homework to begin to develop your atrophied ability to think for yourself and do research on your own behalf. Deal?

<Could it be because Wilson's comments in July about Bush did not have the desired effect so he decided to use another tactic?>

Maybe, but I doubt it. You see, the Bush administration named his wife as a CIA operative to the press to be exposed for all the world to see. I know that if you found yourself in the same situation, you would have simply laughed it off good naturedly and said something intelligent like, "Aw, Dubya, you scamp you." Maybe Wilson is more easily upset than you, I don't know. Maybe he expected that since a federal statute had been broken that some legal action would be initiated. When nothing was done after what seemed to be a reasonable length of time, maybe he just got kinda pissed off. You think?

<Who is Wilson supporting in 2004?>

I can't answer this question with any degree of certainty, but I'm guessin it ain't Bush.

<Who did he support in 2000?>

Once again, how should I know who he voted for in 2000? I don't know whether he is a republican or a democrat. What does that have to do with anything? Someone high up in the Bush administration broke a law punishable by up to 10 years in a federal pen by endangering his wife's life in addition to the highly classified work she does, ostensibly because he told the truth and called Dubya on one of his myriad of lies. What I do know is that Wilson served w/in the GHW Bush administration and received praise for his work from GHW himself.

Now for your questions:

1) Why do you suppose the Bush administration is working so hard to conceal information from those investigating the cause of 9/11?

2) Why have we chosen to invade Iraq rather than focus our military on bringing the actual perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 to justice?
Click to expand...

Ok waiter boy I mean film maker you have selective memory when it does not fit you fiction. You know who Wilson supported and supports now. It is kind of funny that a forty something year old theatre major that is still waiting tables and being someone's b*tch in hollywood is going to question others education. If I am not educated than considering we went to the same school what does that make you?

As for concealment I have seen nothing that supports that anything is being concealed. I am sure you can make up a story if you like instead of educated us with actual links.

We have not stopped fighting Osama. I guess you missed that part on your homepage/news.

People here have offered link after link and all you do is type your fiction. Can you at least attempt to offer something constructive to this forum?

BRETT · Feb 28, 2004

Enough name-calling and insults. This goes for every thread.

phatcat · Feb 28, 2004

Open your eyes

<As for concealment I have seen nothing that supports that anything is being concealed. I am sure you can make up a story if you like instead of educated us with actual links. >

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s902644.htm

http://www.amics21.com/911/oculta.html

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20030804&s=dcorn

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074678

There, get back to me after you wade through those and IÕll give you plenty more.

<We have not stopped fighting Osama. I guess you missed that part on your homepage/news.>

Wait a minute... you've probably been out of touch havenÕt you? Have you read yet about how our president has sent over 100,000 ground troops to Iraq? I'm guessin that somebody forgot to tell him that Osama ainÕt there.

The best guess is that Osama and his al Qaeda henchmen are in the area of Afghanistan. From what I can tell there are currently about 15,000 ground troops there now with about 8,500 of them being American. Supposedly there are not even enough forces there to provide security for the planned election, much less enough troops to relentlessly track down the still at large criminal of the century.

I don't know... is it just me or does seem odd to you too?

We're supposedly out to catch or kill the terrorist mastermind who is responsible for the greatest terrorist atrocity ever perpetuated against this nation either here or abroad, and we send our army on what President Prevarication evidently believes to be a more important mission.

The Saudis, who actually provided the pilots for the suicide planes used on 9/11 mind you, don't like us housing troops in their country so they have ordered their lap dog, Dubya, to carve out a new niche for those troops in Iraq.

Now, just reiterate for the sake of clarity, not only are Saudis committing terrorist attacks against this country, but as long as Bush is in the white house, they are also calling the shots on U.S. foreign policy.

dallastigers · Feb 28, 2004

The closest thing to a news site that you have posted - Slate (helped in its start by the left part of Crossfire would still make it questionable), and it is a negative article from 11/27/2002 about Kissinger and his past actions in the context of trying to explain why he should not head up the 09/11 commission, which is even funnier since Tom Kean is now the Chairman. I do not think Kissinger is even on the commission now.

I did not know it was this hard to prove your theories. It is like you are just pasting stuff from these homepages no matter when it was written and posting it here without checking to see if the links still make sense in the present.

Wait a minute... you've probably been out of touch havenÕt you? Have you read yet about how our president has sent over 100,000 ground troops to Iraq? I'm guessin that somebody forgot to tell him that Osama ainÕt there.

The best guess is that Osama and his al Qaeda henchmen are in the area of Afghanistan. From what I can tell there are currently about 15,000 ground troops there now with about 8,500 of them being American. Supposedly there are not even enough forces there to provide security for the planned election, much less enough troops to relentlessly track down the still at large criminal of the century.
Click to expand...

Do you even know the differences between these two wars in regards to military strategy, execution, terrain, local help, and so forth? You are sinking even deeper.

phatcat · Feb 28, 2004

<Do you even know the differences between these two wars in regards to military strategy, execution, terrain, local help, and so forth? You are sinking even deeper.>

Due to the fact that 9/11 only validates one of them, and the other is a favor we are doing for the Saudis in order to keep them happy after they financed, planned, and executed, the strikes on the aforementioned date, I can't say I really know why we are spending billions of dollars and losing American lives on a daily basis in Iraq with no end in sight. Would you be so kind as to explain in your own words why we are there?

dallastigers · Feb 28, 2004

Originally posted by phatcat
<Do you even know the differences between these two wars in regards to military strategy, execution, terrain, local help, and so forth? You are sinking even deeper.>

Due to the fact that 9/11 only validates one of them, and the other is a favor we are doing for the Saudis in order to keep them happy after they financed, planned, and executed, the strikes on the aforementioned date, I can't say I really know why we are spending billions of dollars and losing American lives on a daily basis in Iraq with no end in sight. Would you be so kind as to explain in your own words why we are there?
Click to expand...

I guess you do not. The homepage does not go over this (except for your Saudi X-Files theory of course)? You are 50 and have lived through a half a century of various military actions, and you cannot answer this.

phatcat · Feb 28, 2004

<I guess you do not. The homepage does not go over this (except for your Saudi X-Files theory of course)? You are 50 and have lived through a half a century of various military actions, and you cannot answer this.>

Hey pal, I know that you have had your head buried in your terrorist proof bomb shelter for some time now, but come on out and look around. The whole world is wondering why Dubya invaded Iraq.

dallastigers · Feb 28, 2004

Again you go off subject and avoid answering the question. Film Maker, just think back to your post about the difference between numbers in troops between the two places.

No answer for your Slate post. That is another you went off subject on again. This forum is cluttered with examples of you doing this.