Osama Obama

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am tired of debating stupid crap like this with you guys.
Not even sure why I bother.
Go ahead and think that Bush is an idiot, but if that is true then he is an idiot that beat your best and brightest, what does that make Kerry?

I'll stick to topics with a little more subsistence.

Does that mean you'll stay out your own threads?

Yeah, he's gonna stick to threads with mo' betta "Subsistence".

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Red Dawn, can you offer one or two facts whatsoever in the last 15 years to justify that attack? One single drinking embarrassment, one single sexual indiscretion?

If not, back off. The man has changed his behavior and 20 year old attacks are a bit excessive.

Kiss my ass, that fat POS has gotten away with things the average Joe would have done time for just because he's a Kennedy.

So, no, you can't back your comments up with one fact. But you sure did expose him as being overweight, I think, the height of (your) discourse.

You can kiss your own ass, since your lips are right there anyway.

OK you got me, the last one I remember was 15 years ago when he and his nephew William Kennedy Smith went out and about drinking and philandering right before Smith allegedly raped a woman. So I guess he's learned his lesson from multiple instances of being a drunken lout or more than likely learned how to do it out of the public eye

This has exactly ZERO to do with Ted Kennedy.
You take some broad to your uncle's mansion, rape her, it's your Uncle's fault because...well, just because, apparently....

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think this illustrates how petty some of the people are when it comes to the Bush attacks.
Yes, he tends to make verbal gaffes, and for that the left calls him stupid etc.
However, Ted Kennedy makes a gaffe and it gets ignored. Double standard.

Bush has made hundreds if not thousands of gaffe.
Do a search for in google for "Bushism" and click the first link.
http://www.slate.com/id/76886/

How many gaffe has Ted Kennedy made?

Fact still remains...Bush is probably the dumbest person to set foot in the White house.

 

[palehorse]

I wouldnt vote for either one!

oh, wait, this wasnt a poll? doh...

ps: Obama shows some promise... but 2008 is too soon for him. He needs more time to develop alliances and to get his arms around the way that Washington operates. (that way, maybe he can fix it!)

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: judasmachine
People do make mistakes, Mr. Kennedy just happens to make a lot of them.

Get a grip on scale and proportion:

Ted Kennedy -- One death. Mary Jo Kopechne died 38 years ago

George W. Bush -- Nearly 3,000 dead American troops, tens of thousands of American wounded and probably hundreds of thousands of other dead and wounded. As of posting this, 91 American troops died in Iraq, this month alone, and we've still got another week to go.

All that blood on Bush's hands was not due to a "mistake." It was intetional, and every so called reason he's given for starting the war have been proven to be LIES. :| :| :|

WTF d00d, how in the h3ll is making fun of Ted Kennedy support the war?!?!?! I'm a liberal, who just happens to think Kennedy is an idiot. You get a grip man.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: PELarson

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: PELarson
Now... now... Laura Bush is neither a Kennedy, fat, or male. Just because she got away with driving through a stop sign and killing her ex-boyfriend is no reason to bad mouth her!

That's a pretty cheap attack dude. When did Laura run for anything? Can we now did up anything done by a spouse and use it to attack that person?

A cheap shot begets a cheap shot. Lump it!

Kennedy is an elected official, Laura Bush is not. BIG difference.

Which goes back to the original statement made previously in this thread...

Bush is THE President of the United States, Ted Kennedy is not. BIG difference.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wouldnt vote for either one!

oh, wait, this wasnt a poll? doh...

ps: Obama shows some promise... but 2008 is too soon for him. He needs more time to develop alliances and to get his arms around the way that Washington operates. (that way, maybe he can fix it!)

I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that after a certain point more time spent in Washington is not necessarily a good thing...

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
WTF d00d, how in the h3ll is making fun of Ted Kennedy support the war?!?!?!

Sorry you missed my point. I was referring to the difference in the number of deaths for which each of them is responsible. You also referred to Kennedy's "mistakes" so I contrasted that against Bush's intentional acts that are the direct cause of the body count on his hands.

Peace out. 🙂

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Kennedy if a fat drunk who can't keep his pants on. Fortunately he's not in charge of the country, unfortunately that idiot Bush is.

At least Bush didn't leave a woman at the bottom of the river.

So the only thing good you can say about Bush is that he's not as big an asshole as Kennedy? Kennedy did cause the death of one woman, Bush on the other hand has thousands of deaths on his hands.

Oh come on now, those men and women he has sent to their deaths appreciate him for it! Their deaths assure the end of terrorism and the safety of the universe for years and years to come. God bless Bush.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: judasmachine
WTF d00d, how in the h3ll is making fun of Ted Kennedy support the war?!?!?!

Sorry you missed my point. I was referring to the difference in the number of deaths for which each of them is responsible. You also referred to Kennedy's "mistakes" so I contrasted that against Bush's intentional acts that are the direct cause of the body count on his hands.

Peace out. 🙂

I was just talking about how much hot air he blows, no harm done. I agree with you for the most part.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
:Q

Personally I think it's funny, but I doubt Barack does.

Nah, this is funny...

/same old sad story - those with the money can get away with killing someone....

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Get a grip on scale and proportion:

Ted Kennedy -- One death. Mary Jo Kopechne died 38 years ago

George W. Bush -- Nearly 3,000 dead American troops, tens of thousands of American wounded and probably hundreds of thousands of other dead and wounded. As of posting this, 91 American troops died in Iraq, this month alone, and we've still got another week to go.

All that blood on Bush's hands was not due to a "mistake." It was intetional, and every so called reason he's given for starting the war have been proven to be LIES. :| :| :|

And here comes the Kennedy apologist Harvey with his partisan hack lies and excuses.

Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

And no amount of :frown: :frown: :frown: and lies will change that, Harvey.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands of more people than Kennedy did. Its not even clear that the woman could have been saved even if Kennedy had notified the authorities.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands of more people than Kennedy did. Its not even clear that the woman could have been saved even if Kennedy had notified the authorities.

Another apologist.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands of more people than Kennedy did. Its not even clear that the woman could have been saved even if Kennedy had notified the authorities.

Another apologist.

You brush off the deaths of thousands with some stupidass remark like that?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
You brush off the deaths of thousands with some stupidass remark like that?

And you are stupid enough to try and blame the 'deaths of thousands' on GWB?

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: blackllotus
You brush off the deaths of thousands with some stupidass remark like that?

And you are stupid enough to try and blame the 'deaths of thousands' on GWB?

He ordered the invasion of Iraq therefore he is indirectly responsible for all deaths caused by the invasion. All members of congress that voted for the war also share this blame. The real question is whether the ends justify the means. Bush has gotten his hands dirty regardless of whether you support the war action or not.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
And here comes the Kennedy apologist Harvey with his partisan hack lies and excuses.

Where did I say I excuse or apologize for Kennedy's behavior at Chappaquiddick? It was 38 years ago, and whatever the courts, law enforcement and Kennedy did to deal with it has been done. I had no part of it, but just to keep things in perspective, it was one death, not almost 3,000 American troops.

Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

Bush has the blood of every American death in Iraq on his hands. He and his band of blood thirsty chickehawks started the war, and just to make sure you know it, I'll say it again -- EVERY lame excuse Bush offered as an excuse for this war has been proven over and over again to be a LIE. He knew it going it. He knows it now, and so does everyone else on the planet other than a few brain dead sycophants who can't allow reality to bust their dream bubble.

And no amount of :frown: :frown: :frown: and lies will change that, Harvey.

At last, we agree on something. That's why, no matter how many times you repeat your lies, it won't make them anymore true.

If you think anything I've posted is false, take a deep breath, grab your Google button, and prove it. If you can't, take your lies, and STFU! :thumbsdown: :| :thumbsdown:

Another apologist.

To quote a very wise poster before me, "You brush off the deaths of thousands with some stupidass remark like that?" :shocked:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You brush off the deaths of thousands with some stupidass remark like that? :shocked:

Your parrot avatar really is fitting.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster
Your parrot avatar really is fitting.

Your ribbon avitar defiles the honor of all those it pretends to honor and the nation they serve. :thumbsdown: 🙁 :thumbsdown:

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I wouldnt vote for either one!

oh, wait, this wasnt a poll? doh...

ps: Obama shows some promise... but 2008 is too soon for him. He needs more time to develop alliances and to get his arms around the way that Washington operates. (that way, maybe he can fix it!)

I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that after a certain point more time spent in Washington is not necessarily a good thing...

I thought the same thing about him.. it's awfully romatic to think that the naive new guy can come in and just lead with his brains and heart.. then, however, reality kicked in and I realized that he'd get eaten alive if he tried to go for it too soon! I know how badly the other side wants change, and like i said, Obama shows promise; but it would be a very bad move to have him blow his proverbial wad too early... i just think it would waste his potential.

Good things (and change) come to those who wait...

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Pabster
Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands of more people than Kennedy did. Its not even clear that the woman could have been saved even if Kennedy had notified the authorities.

The problem is that Kennedy waited for 10 hours after the accident before telling authorities. Also before telling the police he talked with his lawyer. Some very poor decision making on his behalf.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: Pabster
Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

Bush has caused the death of tens of thousands of more people than Kennedy did. Its not even clear that the woman could have been saved even if Kennedy had notified the authorities.

The problem is that Kennedy waited for 10 hours after the accident before telling authorities. Also before telling the police he talked with his lawyer. Some very poor decision making on his behalf.

True. I can understand being nervous in a situation like that however Kennedy's actions were extremely sketchy. To clarify, the part of Pabster's post that got me that got me off was the claim that "Bush has no 'blood on his hands'", not the claim that Kennedy left a woman to die.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Harvey
Get a grip on scale and proportion:

Ted Kennedy -- One death. Mary Jo Kopechne died 38 years ago

George W. Bush -- Nearly 3,000 dead American troops, tens of thousands of American wounded and probably hundreds of thousands of other dead and wounded. As of posting this, 91 American troops died in Iraq, this month alone, and we've still got another week to go.

All that blood on Bush's hands was not due to a "mistake." It was intetional, and every so called reason he's given for starting the war have been proven to be LIES. :| :| :|

And here comes the Kennedy apologist Harvey with his partisan hack lies and excuses.

Bush has no 'blood on his hands'. He didn't leave a woman to die, Kennedy did.

And no amount of :frown: :frown: :frown: and lies will change that, Harvey.

haha.so dramatic. do you have a kerchief in your hand when rant like that.
Here, since you forgot: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Craig234

Red Dawn, can you offer one or two facts whatsoever in the last 15 years to justify that attack? One single drinking embarrassment, one single sexual indiscretion?

If not, back off. The man has changed his behavior and 20 year old attacks are a bit excessive.

Kiss my ass, that fat POS has gotten away with things the average Joe would have done time for just because he's a Kennedy.

So, no, you can't back your comments up with one fact. But you sure did expose him as being overweight, I think, the height of (your) discourse.

You can kiss your own ass, since your lips are right there anyway.

OK you got me, the last one I remember was 15 years ago when he and his nephew William Kennedy Smith went out and about drinking and philandering right before Smith allegedly raped a woman. So I guess he's learned his lesson from multiple instances of being a drunken lout or more than likely learned how to do it out of the public eye

This has exactly ZERO to do with Ted Kennedy.
You take some broad to your uncle's mansion, rape her, it's your Uncle's fault because...well, just because, apparently....

He asked me to point out "offer one or two facts whatsoever in the last 15 years to justify that attack? One single drinking embarrassment," and I did so.