Jump to content

Why do they call this a Confirmation Hearing??


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yawn. I guess it would be kind of hard explaining Bush's actions.

211581[/snapback]

 

Doesn't matter. Any explanation you were given you would label insufficient before even hearing it.

 

I don't recall seeing you around here much, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you've not aware that I don't support many of the administration's policies including (especially) in regards to Iraq. Just as you don't. The difference is that my opinion is much more informed on the subject, whereas you're just a soundbyte-driven reactionary idiot who's much more "opinion" than "informed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter.  Any explanation you were given you would label insufficient before even hearing it. 

 

I don't recall seeing you around here much, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in assuming that you've not aware that I don't support many of the administration's policies including (especially) in regards to Iraq.  Just as you don't.  The difference is that my opinion is much more informed on the subject, whereas you're just a soundbyte-driven reactionary idiot who's much more "opinion" than "informed".

211692[/snapback]

 

Look bud. You lay some smackdown on me don't expect a bunch of roses for a reply. And for you numbnuts that think you are more "informed", I'm still waiting for you to respond where exactly Bush and Condi have been on top of things. The slamming has only begun for this monkey administration. My only purpose in joining in today was to underline that this trend will continue as long as he's screwing things up. BTW, don't assume since you frequent this forum that you've cornered the market on political information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, don't assume since you frequent this forum that you've cornered the market on political information.

211711[/snapback]

 

No, but at least he has proven the capacity to bring something more than tired soundbites to the table. If you want intelligent responses, you need to prove that you are capable of understanding them. There is no point in anyone wasting their time when, so far, you have brought nothing of substance. Just parroting of soundbites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me put it in terms all Bills fans can understand:

 

Condi Rice as secretary of state is to a large minority of the country, what Drew Bledsoe returnig to the Bills as the starter in 2005, is to a vocal majority of Bills fans!  <_<

211789[/snapback]

 

So the small majority approves? Great analogy man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More than that, it's a problem with the system.  The executive branch tends to breed yes-men at higher levels.  From what I've read, Clinton's administration was little different...

211397[/snapback]

 

Do you really mean to imply that Condi is a "yes man"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You want a loser just check out your avatar. He lost the Iraq war because he failed to provide the neccessary man power, equipment and strategy to do the job right.

211188[/snapback]

 

"I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look bud. You lay some smackdown on me don't expect a bunch of roses for a reply. And for you numbnuts that think you are more "informed", I'm still waiting for you to respond where exactly Bush and Condi have been on top of things. The slamming has only begun for this monkey administration. My only purpose in joining in today was to underline that this trend will continue as long as he's screwing things up. BTW, don't assume since you frequent this forum that you've cornered the market on political information.

211711[/snapback]

 

Don't assume because you don't that you've cornered it, either. Particularly when you fail to provide any. You think "Bush is foolish because 2000 soldiers are dead" is somehow an intelligent commentary on Iraq policy?

 

My response to the question "When have Bush and Condi been on top of things" is the same as it was a few posts ago: you've already dismissed any possible answer that disagrees with your mal-informed point of view that can be given. You need to do your homework before anyone can even begin to answer that question for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't assume because you don't that you've cornered it, either.  Particularly when you fail to provide any.  You think "Bush is foolish because 2000 soldiers are dead" is somehow an intelligent commentary on Iraq policy?

211845[/snapback]

 

Sometimes, especially late at night, that seems a whole hell of a lot more intelligent than someone who chimes in to say 1,300 of our soldiers have died to get the Ding-Dong out of the Do-Da..... <shrug>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't assume because you don't that you've cornered it, either.  Particularly when you fail to provide any.  You think "Bush is foolish because 2000 soldiers are dead" is somehow an intelligent commentary on Iraq policy?

 

My response to the question "When have Bush and Condi been on top of things" is the same as it was a few posts ago: you've already dismissed any possible answer that disagrees with your mal-informed point of view that can be given.  You need to do your homework before anyone can even begin to answer that question for you.

211845[/snapback]

 

No, I think Bush is foolish because he gave the Medal of Freedom to the man who headed the organization that provided false information leading us into a war in which US soldiers were killed. If you're going to be high and mighty and cut me down at ever turn at least read my post correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...