Coward chickens out of speech to PARLIAMENT

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Witling

Golden Member
Jul 30, 2003
1,448
0
0
ShinerBurke, you said "It's because I'm sick and tired of all the Iraq was for the oil references. Just once....only once I would like someone to prove that was the case instead of just stating it as fact. The burden is on your side my friend....not mine."

In case you haven't noticed, the burden of proof has shifted. Iraq had to prove that it didn't have weapons of mass destruction. The administration in the form of Colin Powell is now demanding that Iran prove that they don't have weapons. Futhermore, we know the proof has broken down on the side that wrongly insisted that: (1) There were weapons of mass destruction; (2) Sadaam associated with Al Queda; and (3) The Iraqis will welcome us. Just once .....only once I would like someone to prove that we went in to establish a democracy. On a subject that is related, Georgia (the former Soviet Union state) is starting to boil over. This threatens the oil supply in the Caspian basin. We've sent a junior secretary of state over there to handle it.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
Mindless, shrill, low SNR, red-faced rant by leader of the YACS.

Yawn.

BTW the boil on my ass is offended after being compared to Bowfinger.
I've apparently hurt UQ's feelings somewhere along the line. He's been like this ever since he returned.
I don't suffer fools and YACS. You're their leader, you bear the brunt.

 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
Bowfinger has the gist of it right. Have you people ever seen the British parliament? During the summer Blair was *gasp* there, answering questions, responding to allegations, defending his stance. He didn't hide behind a horde of PR idiots and press secretaries. I guess Bush just doens't feel confortable unless his audience is carefully selected and he is suitably isolated from them.

Frankly, I am suprised Bush even considered giving a speech there.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I suspect that actually seeing protesters or getting heckled by British MP's just might set Dubya's brain in motion, something his handlers obviously dread. God only knows what might happen if he started to question any of the spoon-fed information received, or the motives of those holding the spoons.
lol that's awsome :D

"Bring em' on" comes to mind... way to trivialize the sacrafice of our nations DEFENDERS, champ. Unless of course he really meant that he intended to challenge Sadam to a slap fight or something.

 

Lucky

Lifer
Nov 26, 2000
13,126
1
0
Are all british newspapers so violently biased and slanted? Between that piece of trash and the guardian, what newspapers in the UK are actually respectable enough to maintain a sembleance of impartiality?
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Ditto that! Those violently biased and slanted Brits must need a dose of that "no-spin-zone" and obtain a semblance of impartiality.
 

Corn

Diamond Member
Nov 12, 1999
6,389
29
91
They were anything but mindless.
Sorry, but they are the epitome of mindless. Merely words that have been regurgitated ad nauseum at the instruction of your handlers, and not an original syllable in the bunch. Blah blah blah..........

So our tongue tied President doesn't wish to verbally spar with obnoxious hecklers who would greet him with the same contempt you show here, I can't really say I'd blame him for that. Of course I don't have your sensibilities and have trouble waxing indignant over something so trivial.

Mindless words clothed in typical "progressive" hypocrisy: I give Bush more credit than you, at least he doesn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet while shouting "coward" at the likes of you.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
George W. Bush has provided strong leadership and taken decisive action in the age of terrorism. He is the elected President and will be til 2004 or maybe 2008. The United States is a republic and as such we elect a leader and he then makes the decision.

It makes me proud that we have such a President that doesn't coward to the opinions of other nations but instead leads a battle agianst tryanny.
 

PainTrain

Member
Jun 22, 2003
170
2
0
Cower is a strong word, your right. Perhaps "avoids direct conversation at all costs at the urging of his 'handlers'" or "doesn't really give sh1t anways" is a bit more sensitive.
 

Mrburns2007

Platinum Member
Jun 14, 2001
2,595
0
0
Originally posted by: PainTrain
Cower is a strong word, your right. Perhaps "avoids direct conversation at all costs at the urging of his 'handlers'" or "doesn't really give sh1t anways" is a bit more sensitive.
What's the point of engaging in conversation with some rabid bed wetting liberal, there never going to convince the President he is wrong anymore then the President could convince the rabid bed wetting liberal he/she is wrong.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
George W. Bush has provided strong leadership and taken decisive action in the age of terrorism. He is the elected President and will be til 2004 or maybe 2008. The United States is a republic and as such we elect a leader and he then makes the decision.

It makes me proud that we have such a President that doesn't coward to the opinions of other nations but instead leads a battle agianst tryanny.
i agree with your opinion, ofcourse, but i would add that i still envy the british for putting their leaders on the public grill. watching tony
blair field and parry all those questions on cspan is very exciting. he can't hide. he's forced to develop and defend his reasoning against
open rhetorical bombardment.
 

dpm

Golden Member
Apr 24, 2002
1,513
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Originally posted by: PainTrain Cower is a strong word, your right. Perhaps "avoids direct conversation at all costs at the urging of his 'handlers'" or "doesn't really give sh1t anways" is a bit more sensitive.
What's the point of engaging in conversation with some rabid bed wetting liberal, there never going to convince the President he is wrong anymore then the President could convince the rabid bed wetting liberal he/she is wrong.
Well, here in Britain we've got this little thing called 'accountability' Because we are a democracy, and our Prime Minister is our 'elected representative' we believe that he should, from time to time, explain and defend his decisions to either his peers, or the people he represents.

This is why we have things like Prime Ministers Questions, when MPs can question him directly (some of those MPs you would no doubt classify so elegantly as "rabid bed wetting liberal"s) or television programmes like Question Time, when audience members can question the guests (always MPs, sometimes the PM) themselves.

Now, George W isn't the directly elected representative of the British people, so he's under no obligation to answer to our electorate. Nevertheless, it does look a bit odd to British people, when he seems to be under no obligation to answer to the American electorate, either. If we had a Prime Minister who would only answer to the people that elected him through pre-written speeches on tv, straight from his desk, or through press conferences with pre-selected questions, - well, he wouldn't last very long.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Mrburns2007
Bush-lite is contemptible, cowardly slime. He lacks the integrity to be challenged about his actions, let alone be held accountable for them. He is the antithesis of open, participative, free democracy. George W. Bush is an embarrassment to the United States of America and to all Americans.
George W. Bush has provided strong leadership and taken decisive action in the age of terrorism. He is the elected President and will be til 2004 or maybe 2008. The United States is a republic and as such we elect a leader and he then makes the decision.

It makes me proud that we have such a President that doesn't coward to the opinions of other nations but instead leads a battle agianst tryanny.
And **Gasp** most British agree!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
Interesting reference, Alchemize. Also misleading, as is most uber-right propaganda, in the equation of pro-americanism as pro-Bush. Nothing is further from the truth. GWB Inc. is an aberration and an abomination, a blight on our soul that will take decades to erase. The Brits know it well.
 

dabuddha

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
19,579
16
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting reference, Alchemize. Also misleading, as is most uber-right propaganda, in the equation of pro-americanism as pro-Bush. Nothing is further from the truth. GWB Inc. is an aberration and an abomination, a blight on our soul that will take decades to erase. The Brits know it well.
lol good one! I do hope that is a joke because if not,
;)
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Interesting reference, Alchemize. Also misleading, as is most uber-right propaganda, in the equation of pro-americanism as pro-Bush. Nothing is further from the truth. GWB Inc. is an aberration and an abomination, a blight on our soul that will take decades to erase. The Brits know it well.
Oh yah that Guardian is such a right-wing source



I'll ignore the rest of your gibber.
 

bigdog1218

Golden Member
Mar 7, 2001
1,674
1
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: Zebo
PS shinner/// The "Shell Oil" comes from her "Shell Transport and Trading Company" while the Royal Dutch comes from her cousins stake in the netherlands. They merged a long time ago..
Ok....first off....Shell was founded in London, but was a private venture, not owned or controlled by the Royal Family. In the early 1900's Shell and Royal Dutch merged with Royal Dutch being the majority partner. If you want the full history just let me know. My mother worked for Shell from 1965 until her retirement in 1994. I can give you all sorts of fun facts about the company if you REALLY want to know.

Secondly....prove to me that the Royal Family owns 1/2 of Shell. Or were you just talking out of your ass?

Thirdly....prove in any way shape or form that the war in Iraq was about oil. Either do that or STFU.
How can anyone prove the war was about oil when the president can't even prove there are WMD, which was the orginal reason for going to war. How about you prove there were WMD, or STFU.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Bowfinger has the gist of it right. Have you people ever seen the British parliament? During the summer Blair was *gasp* there, answering questions, responding to allegations, defending his stance. He didn't hide behind a horde of PR idiots and press secretaries. I guess Bush just doens't feel confortable unless his audience is carefully selected and he is suitably isolated from them.

Frankly, I am suprised Bush even considered giving a speech there.
Blair hasn't answered a question in PMQ's for a long time. He's didged and retorted, but not actually given a straight answer I can recall.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,681
5,151
126
The Britts haven't been brainwashed with billions of dollars on pro American propaganda from the time they were born and have a slightly different form of government. Naturally they can see things we cannot. The last thing a fish notices is water. One can go to Marine World to see seals clap and bark. If you want to understand why people clap and bark study training with fish. This message was brought to you by the Moonbeam program.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
In my opinion, your comment is "mindless". Mine were certainly derogatory, disagreeable to many, inflammatory to some, but they are on-topic and far from mindless. I am absolutely disgusted at the spectacle of Bush-lite avoiding any possible exposure to dissenting opinion. It is cowardly; name one other American president who so doggedly insulated himself from dissent. Even the rabid right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton, wasn't afraid to go out in public, answer questions, and face people who disagreed with him.

Never mind Presidents, name any other world leader who has acted like this. The only comparable examples I can come up with are totalitarian leaders who suppressed all dissent, leaders in countries like the USSR and China and Iraq. I cannot think of any democratic leaders who behaved like this.


The rest of my comments follow from this observation. Bush is not showing the integrity to accept challenges to his actions. He is certainly not willing to be held accountable for them. This behavior is contrary to the principles and values of open, participative democracy. Given that the United States has always held itself to be world's role model for freedom and democracy, Bush's shunning of these principles and values is an embarassment.

My comments were short. They were pointed. They were highly critical. They were anything but mindless. If you disagree with my thoughts, at least offer credible criticisms instead of mindless attacks.

Thanks
Anyone? Besides George W. Bush, what other world leaders have gone to such lengths to avoid any exposure to dissent?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
69,681
5,151
126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
In my opinion, your comment is "mindless". Mine were certainly derogatory, disagreeable to many, inflammatory to some, but they are on-topic and far from mindless. I am absolutely disgusted at the spectacle of Bush-lite avoiding any possible exposure to dissenting opinion. It is cowardly; name one other American president who so doggedly insulated himself from dissent. Even the rabid right's favorite whipping boy, Bill Clinton, wasn't afraid to go out in public, answer questions, and face people who disagreed with him.

Never mind Presidents, name any other world leader who has acted like this. The only comparable examples I can come up with are totalitarian leaders who suppressed all dissent, leaders in countries like the USSR and China and Iraq. I cannot think of any democratic leaders who behaved like this.


The rest of my comments follow from this observation. Bush is not showing the integrity to accept challenges to his actions. He is certainly not willing to be held accountable for them. This behavior is contrary to the principles and values of open, participative democracy. Given that the United States has always held itself to be world's role model for freedom and democracy, Bush's shunning of these principles and values is an embarassment.


My comments were short. They were pointed. They were highly critical. They were anything but mindless. If you disagree with my thoughts, at least offer credible criticisms instead of mindless attacks.

Thanks
Anyone? Besides George W. Bush, what other world leaders have gone to such lengths to avoid any exposure to dissent?
Somebody once said, 'Give them cake.'

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,676
136
It was your reference that I referred to as misleading, Alchemize, not the article itself. 43% favoring a Bush visit isn't a majority, is it? The article doesn't even address the issue of the war itself or how Brits feel about Bush, now does it?

I'd expect 60-70% of Brits to be pro-American, that doesn't mean they're pro-Bush. Hell, not even most Americans are pro-Bush, he's one of a very few Presidents who didn't win the popular vote and the electoral college...
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
I can't really blame the guy. He can barely read a speech without massacring half the words. Hell, he can barely form a coherent sentence unless someone helps him out. It would be a national embarrassment seeing Bush in front of Parliament getting ripped a new asshole. He would look like the monkey he is with no one to protect him. Even I don't have the heart to wish that upon him. BTW, I shed a tear when I read Corn's patriotic and heart felt account of his pride for our Commander in Chief. Very touching indeed.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY