1billsfan Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Or your reasoning... 211513[/snapback] Yawn. I guess it would be kind of hard explaining Bush's actions.
KRC Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Yawn. I guess it would be kind of hard explaining Bush's actions. 211581[/snapback] You're not very good at this, are you?
RkFast Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 "Yawn"= "I'm too lazy or lack the capacity to debate this topic any further."
/dev/null Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 i wanna see condi, boxer, or biden get up in the middle of the hearing and start ringing a cowbell
DC Tom Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 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".
1billsfan Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 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.
KRC Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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.
SilverNRed Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 whereas you're just a soundbyte-driven reactionary idiot who's much more "opinion" than "informed". 211692[/snapback] "Soundbyte-driven reactionary idiot" is a damn funny term.
Buftex Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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!
boomerjamhead Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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.
jimshiz Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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"?
jimshiz Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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!"
Buftex Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 So the small majority approves? Great analogy man. 211801[/snapback] Exactly!
boomerjamhead Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Exactly! 211833[/snapback] Whatever retard.
DC Tom Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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.
Buftex Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Whatever retard. 211844[/snapback] Whoa, forgot you were a hostile prick! You do Johnny Cash a great disservice!
UConn James Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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>
1billsfan Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 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.
boomerjamhead Posted January 20, 2005 Posted January 20, 2005 Whoa, forgot you were a hostile prick! You do Johnny Cash a great disservice! 211931[/snapback] Try to keep it in mind next time.
Recommended Posts