WTF Bush is a moron

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hehehe , You're a card CAD... The celestial ones known by their name..

Ponder yonder wonder grows... and goes... aimlessly amid.. .. what's this... a metorite becons me forth.. to fantasy land the home of pencil man and veggie man and toto you're there too..

dude, put the bong down....

or as Eric Cartman would say "Hippies, hippies everywhere! They wanna save the earth but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad!"

<cough> <cough> <nudge> <nudge> Psssttt - look at the name The other should strut on in here shortly

CkG

It seems you are in the CADamajority and that is fine... I could see you as a fine government worker... a civil servant...

Actually, I have renounced my ties to the Republican party earlier this year, and do not affiliate myself with any major political party. This is how I distinguish myself politically: Republicans vote with their brains alone, Democrats with their hearts, I on the other hand vote using BOTH - what good is a noble feeling from the heart without a brain to think it through? What good is a rational plan without a heart to know how it will affect those in need?

Makes sense to me. I'm surrounded by Conservatives but I don't vote one party or another either... just the bloke who I expect will do what I think is best.. I figure the one place I can be in charge is in the poll booth... Then the folks I voted for go and do whatever they think will get em reelected next time..
What's a bong? and who is that eric person? .. never mind I'll google it..

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Hehehe , You're a card CAD... The celestial ones known by their name..

Ponder yonder wonder grows... and goes... aimlessly amid.. .. what's this... a metorite becons me forth.. to fantasy land the home of pencil man and veggie man and toto you're there too..

dude, put the bong down....

or as Eric Cartman would say "Hippies, hippies everywhere! They wanna save the earth but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad!"

<cough> <cough> <nudge> <nudge> Psssttt - look at the name The other should strut on in here shortly

CkG

It seems you are in the CADamajority and that is fine... I could see you as a fine government worker... a civil servant...

Actually, I have renounced my ties to the Republican party earlier this year, and do not affiliate myself with any major political party. This is how I distinguish myself politically: Republicans vote with their brains alone, Democrats with their hearts, I on the other hand vote using BOTH - what good is a noble feeling from the heart without a brain to think it through? What good is a rational plan without a heart to know how it will affect those in need?

Makes sense to me. I'm surrounded by Conservatives but I don't vote one party or another either... just the bloke who I expect will do what I think is best.. I figure the one place I can be in charge is in the poll booth... Then the folks I voted for go and do whatever they think will get em reelected next time..
What's a bong? and who is that eric person? .. never mind I'll google it..

A bong is an object used to smoke the wacky weed, and Eric Cartman is a cartoon character on South Park.

CkG

 

[Flyermax2k3]

LMAO, I can't believe you don't know what a bong is... Or who Eric Cartman is for that matter. Oh well, that's probably not a bad thing. I wish I didn't know what a bong is Maybe then I wouldn't be 21 years old going back to college for the 3rd time. "Mari-ju-ana's bad, mmmmkay?" - Mr. Mackey

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc Bush isn't a moron . . . he's a tool. The people that voted for him are morons.

Actually, if the other idiot running for president were in office right now, he probably would have gone running like hell with his tail between his legs. I'm glad we have a pres with some balls -even if they're the only method of thinking that he's capable of.

you are exactly the type of person that would kill and ask question rather, no stereotype. u played right into the hands of fear and refuse to think rationally.

running like hell? from what? remember bin laden?

with some balls? for what? chasing tyrant instead of terrorists?

WMD... weapon of mass destruction? no... way of mass distraction

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied?

i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: Gaard
I didn't think that making a statement about Clinton was an indication of living in the past. Would I still be living in the past if I said Nixon was a crook? Oh well. PS - I liked your quote.

actually, it wasn't much of a statement, i think it's called a cheap shot

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3
LMAO, I can't believe you don't know what a bong is... Or who Eric Cartman is for that matter. Oh well, that's probably not a bad thing. I wish I didn't know what a bong is Maybe then I wouldn't be 21 years old going back to college for the 3rd time. "Mari-ju-ana's bad, mmmmkay?" - Mr. Mackey

Well I'm supportive of legalized whatever.. just not in my house... " Bong" It's not a word I'm familiar with... I thought folks used a pipe.. and eric guy... at first I thought I read Clampton.. but, oh well.. I've three grandkids living with me who know I'm out of it.. I'm stuck in the 60's philosophically...where "lets bong" meant something much different.. and in the 1750 - 1830 musically...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard
Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied?

i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: freegeeks

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: jjones

Originally posted by: Sarcasticor

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Bush isn't a moron . . . he's a tool. The people that voted for him are morons.

Actually, if the other idiot running for president were in office right now, he probably would have gone running like hell with his tail between his legs. I'm glad we have a pres with some balls -even if they're the only method of thinking that he's capable of.

The rest of this world points and laughs at the US, and you think that is a good thing?

The rest of the world had been pointing and laughing while Clinton was in office. Now I think they are more pointing and accusing.

When Clinton was in office the rest of the world pointed and laughed at our puritan culture. Our sexual obsession.

In the rest of the world people realize a leader has a personal life. They care more about their leader's public persona,
the one that affects their lives, than they do about crawling around under everyone's bed. As if the Republican's beds
didn't have skeletons under them. Henry Hide for instance. Or Newt Gingrich. I always respect a man who goes all the
way to the hospital to tell his wife who is battling cancer he's going to divorce her. Real humanitarian there. Or Henry Hide with his son he never admitted to having. Another shining example to us all. He called it "youthful indiscretion" only problem was he was over 40 years old at the time.

Yeah, they were laughing. At the repressed obsessed Americans who can't separate private conscentual sex from a leader's public life.

Clinton didn't ruin the economy, lie to start a war and sell the country to the highest bidders. Now Bush, that's a laugh.

amen brotha

Francois Mitterand commited adultery and has a daughter outside his marriage
our own freaking king has a bastard daughter. Do you really think we care about that??

we demand good policies from our politics. Whatever happens in their bedroom is private.

Yes, europeans were laughing but not with Clinton. We were laughing with the puritans.
impeaching a president because he had a bj

the only crime he commited was the fact that lewinsky is butt ugly

only in the USA I guess

Completely true, as a matter of fact right after Clinton was impeached he appeared in front of the UN, every nation (representatives) gave him a standing ovation en masse when he walked in as a show of support.

I understand the roles certain EU political leaders chose and why, everyone tries to protect their interests financially. Although some of their actions are deplorable in this case, you can argue that was their responsibility to their people and country. A certain German politico even admitted using it solely as campaign fodder. But Germany also extended the olive branch first, as did France, Germany, and China. They and Bush understand this event is really not important in the grand scheme of things and have already gotten over it, water under the bridge. Most importantly, they know whose butt to kiss, and they willingly lined up and buried their tongues.......

What happened right after Iraq? The beginning of the road map to peace. A plan devised by the US, the Russians, the EU, and the UN. Who did they choose to be the front man for the effort? Bush, the same man they villified for ruining international diplomacy.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

I don't recall ever saying that Clinton's lies had anything to do with the current issue. Maybe you could point it out to me. And I'm not holding him to standards I wouldn't hold towards anybody else. My beef isn't that he lied (everybody's guilty of it), my beef is he went on TV and lied to every single American citizen and then lied under oath (that, my friend , is a crime).

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

I don't recall ever saying that Clinton's lies had anything to do with the current issue. Maybe you could point it out to me. And I'm not holding him to standards I wouldn't hold towards anybody else. My beef isn't that he lied (everybody's guilty of it), my beef is he went on TV and lied to every single American citizen and then lied under oath (that, my friend , is a crime).

exactly, i don't think this is the clinton/gore administration

perhaps it is me that i miss out the title

 

[BOBDN]

Let me try to explain, McGyver.

Whenever Bush-bitches are confronted with their supreme leader's errors they fall back on Clinton. They cannot defend Bush so they do the only thing they can remember from their Bush-bitch repetoire, blame Clinton.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

I don't recall ever saying that Clinton's lies had anything to do with the current issue. Maybe you could point it out to me. And I'm not holding him to standards I wouldn't hold towards anybody else. My beef isn't that he lied (everybody's guilty of it), my beef is he went on TV and lied to every single American citizen and then lied under oath (that, my friend , is a crime).

exactly, i don't think this is the clinton/gore administration

perhaps it is me that i miss out the title

So out of the eleventy-three posts commenting on Clinton, you decided to single mine out and call "Off Topic!"? Tell me, if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared?

Nevermind. I think I've found the answer.
McGyver - i myself is a dem supporter

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
Let me try to explain, McGyver.

Whenever Bush-bitches are confronted with their supreme leader's errors they fall back on Clinton. They cannot defend Bush so they do the only thing they can remember from their Bush-bitch repetoire, blame Clinton.

BOBDN, are you confused? Do you have this funny idea that I'm a Bush supporter?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

I don't recall ever saying that Clinton's lies had anything to do with the current issue. Maybe you could point it out to me. And I'm not holding him to standards I wouldn't hold towards anybody else. My beef isn't that he lied (everybody's guilty of it), my beef is he went on TV and lied to every single American citizen and then lied under oath (that, my friend , is a crime).

exactly, i don't think this is the clinton/gore administration

perhaps it is me that i miss out the title

So out of the eleventy-three posts commenting on Clinton, you decided to single mine out and call "Off Topic!"? Tell me, if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared?

Nevermind. I think I've found the answer.
McGyver - i myself is a dem supporter

But it isn't a Clinton thread.

 

[McGyver]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: McGyver

Originally posted by: Gaard Clinton has sex with the fat broad = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton is asked if he had sex with fat broad = no problem (it's just a question) Clinton says "yea, so what?" = itty-bitty problem (between him and his wife) Clinton lies and denies everything = itty-bitty problem (so he's a liar. big deal. ain't they all?) Clinton lies to the American public on TV = Big problem. (We put you in office, Jackass. Lie all you want to your wife, but don't fvck with those that put you in office.) Clinton lies under oath = HUGE problem (give him the boot.)

the question now is, have you ever lied? i rest my case, all mighty God..... Buddha.... and also moderator

Yes I have. Your point?

my point is what does clinton's lying has anything to do with the current issue? i'm not even trying to defend his lie. but to expect and set upon standards on somebody else in which we fail miserably doesn't make us saints either, hypocrits rather. even if everybody else lies doesn't make lying the good thing to do. the thing with bush that everybody tended to believe him was his "accountability" that he campaigned to the fullest back in 2000 election. now the question is, is he accountable for his own judgement, particularly in war on terrorism?

I don't recall ever saying that Clinton's lies had anything to do with the current issue. Maybe you could point it out to me. And I'm not holding him to standards I wouldn't hold towards anybody else. My beef isn't that he lied (everybody's guilty of it), my beef is he went on TV and lied to every single American citizen and then lied under oath (that, my friend , is a crime).

exactly, i don't think this is the clinton/gore administration perhaps it is me that i miss out the title

So out of the eleventy-three posts commenting on Clinton, you decided to single mine out and call "Off Topic!"? Tell me, if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared? Nevermind. I think I've found the answer. McGyver - i myself is a dem supporter

it's as if someone would go to a religious forum and suddenly shout out, "listen, i think communism is the answer!" this a classic example of social-miscomprehension in which we fail to put ourselves on par even with our own principles. so, it's always safe to accuse, assume and adopt the idea that i'd have said something about bush "only if" this is a clinton-bashing-topic. maybe, just maybe i might say something like, "gee, he's not even our president... he stole the presidency." you may put me under your scrutiny, i may have said those words that you think i would say; but the fact of the matter is i wouldn't have said them and i won't. invalid reasoning is one thing, being completely ignorant about the topic is another. so what if i'm a democrat?? very funny about the eleventy thing. what? you're running out of words or you're running out of sense of humor?

 

[Gaard]

I must be kind of slow today. I failed to see an answer in your response. I'll just ask it again.

"Tell me, if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared?"

 

[McGyver]

you struck me that not only you fail in logic but also lost your senses as well.

first, you said those because in your mind you'd think people who thought bush sucks would've endorsed clinton's lying. logically, you're either out of place or you were so enthusiast about your knowledge on clinton impeachment you wanna share it with others.

second, all of a sudden you decide to take a stand of "who cares" on your own statement. in real life, you might look cool or maybe you can run away with a shrug. let me tell you something, you look extremely rediculous especially when you say "if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared?" using your own reasoning, why would you care if somebody make a comment about your statement? i can easily slap that right back into your face. so you were saying all those just because you felt like saying them? and honestly you didnt expect somebody to respond? or you weren't responsible enough for your own statement?

so why would you wanna say those in the first place? okay, maybe i get it, who cares?!

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver
you struck me that not only you fail in logic but also lost your senses as well.

first, you said those because in your mind you'd think people who thought bush sucks would've endorsed clinton's lying. logically, you're either out of place or you were so enthusiast about your knowledge on clinton impeachment you wanna share it with others.

second, all of a sudden you decide to take a stand of "who cares" on your own statement. in real life, you might look cool or maybe you can run away with a shrug. let me tell you something, you look extremely rediculous especially when you say "if this were a 'Clinton' thread and somebody made a negative comment about Bush, would you have cared?" using your own reasoning, why would you care if somebody make a comment about your statement? i can easily slap that right back into your face. so you were saying all those just because you felt like saying them? and honestly you didnt expect somebody to respond? or you weren't responsible enough for your own statement?

so why would you wanna say those in the first place? okay, maybe i get it, who cares?!

Wow, all of that and not a single 'yes' or 'no' to be found. Tell me, why is it you refuse to answer the question.


An observation by Gaard - Why is it that if you make a negative statement about a Democrat it's assumed you support the Republicans? And vice-versa. Is it so hard for those who are registered as a D or an R to imagine not belonging to either party, rather belonging to nobody. In this thread, I made a negative comment about Clinton. As a result, a couple of do-dos assumed I was a supporter of Bush. Only those blinded by party loyalties would make such an assumption. Is that such a good thing, BTW? Voting for the leaders of this country, not on their merits, but which party they belong to?

 

[McGyver]

why is it that I refuse to answer your question? cause i've just proved that you're ignorant and stupid. first of all, your question is irrelevant which really shows that you're ignorant of the nature by posting your thoughts in political forums. second of all, you're stupid because, sad to say, obviously i care of what you've said or else why would i be taking my precious time and replying to you right now!

you are exactly the way i said you would to be. i said, "you said those because in your mind you'd think people who thought bush sucks would've endorsed clinton's lying" and in your subsequent reply, "Why is it that if you make a negative statement about a Democrat it's assumed you support the Republicans? And vice-versa. Is it so hard for those who are registered as a D or an R to imagine not <I>belonging</I> to either party, rather <I>belonging</I> to nobody. In this thread, I made a negative comment about Clinton. As a result, a couple of do-dos assumed I was a supporter of Bush" the chain-of-replies turn out that you prove my hypothesis (you posted that reply because you thought bush-haters must be clinton-lovers) is in fact TRUE.

you could probably just admit that what you said were irresponsible cause you were just prolly wanted to show how well-knowledged you were. don't forget accountability my friend. where's yours when you made a statement and you expected that everybody ignore it completely? being incapable of explaining oneself is one thing, but you're absolutely uncertained and have no valid ground on making that statement. accordingly, you're doing what you're doing right now, which is to throw smoke-screen by asking the validity of why i'm questioning your statement.

listen, i have every right to question your statement as you were to make yours in the first place, granted by the freedom of speech.

 

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: Chris A

6. He is about run an election campaign with 250 + million dollars; this is the reason we need campaign finance reform.

Come on it has nothing to do with the $$$ Perhaps if the Dems were to put up someone worth voting for it might be a good excuse but so far all I am seeing is a bunch of whiners...

You're an idiot. It has *everything* to do with money.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver
why is it that I refuse to answer your question? cause i've just proved that you're ignorant and stupid. first of all, your question is irrelevant which really shows that you're ignorant of the nature by posting your thoughts in political forums. second of all, you're stupid because, sad to say, obviously i care of what you've said or else why would i be taking my precious time and replying to you right now!

you are exactly the way i said you would to be. i said, "you said those because in your mind you'd think people who thought bush sucks would've endorsed clinton's lying" and in your subsequent reply, "Why is it that if you make a negative statement about a Democrat it's assumed you support the Republicans? And vice-versa. Is it so hard for those who are registered as a D or an R to imagine not <I>belonging</I> to either party, rather <I>belonging</I> to nobody. In this thread, I made a negative comment about Clinton. As a result, a couple of do-dos assumed I was a supporter of Bush" the chain-of-replies turn out that you prove my hypothesis (you posted that reply because you thought bush-haters must be clinton-lovers) is in fact TRUE.

you could probably just admit that what you said were irresponsible cause you were just prolly wanted to show how well-knowledged you were. don't forget accountability my friend. where's yours when you made a statement and you expected that everybody ignore it completely? being incapable of explaining oneself is one thing, but you're absolutely uncertained and have no valid ground on making that statement. accordingly, you're doing what you're doing right now, which is to throw smoke-screen by asking the validity of why i'm questioning your statement.

listen, i have every right to question your statement as you were to make yours in the first place, granted by the freedom of speech.

<<why is it that I refuse to answer your question? cause i've just proved that you're ignorant and stupid.>>
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. You refuse to answer the question because you've proven I'm ignorant and stupid?


<<(you posted that reply because you thought bush-haters must be clinton-lovers)>>
Obviously, you haven't read many of my posts. Here's some help for you. Go to the SEARCH page and enter GAARD under where it says 'author'. Then do a search in the P&N forum and do some reading.


<<you could probably just admit that what you said were irresponsible cause you were just prolly wanted to show how well-knowledged you were. don't forget accountability my friend.>>
Hpw exactly is posting what I did irresponsible? And what about accountability? What, you want me to admit posting it? Yeah, I admit it. I posted it. Does that cover your accountability?


<< i have every right to question your statement as you were to make yours in the first place, granted by the freedom of speech>>
But, I fail to see anywhere in this thread where you've questioned my statement. Only the reasons for posting it.

You really are coming off as an individual with hurt feelings. I dissed Clinton and you took offense to it and started ranting. First you had a problem with me posting what I did because, as you say, I was being hypocritical. I was accusing him of lying when I have done the same. Apparently that didn't cut it. The next day, you dropped the 'hypocrit' reasoning and went with the 'it's off-topic' reasoning. So which reason has your panties all in a bunch? Something tells me you're just outraged over the fact that I posted negatively about Clinton. Is it heaven or hell being so loyal to a political party that you become red in the face over a post on an online forum?

 

[McGyver]

<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">the differences between you and me are: i stand behind my every and i mean everyone of my statement and you're not; i'm responsible for every state of mind i have in political discussion and you're not; i don't pretend that i'm a saint while you're pretty much a hypocrite in certain issues. yes, my feelings are sadden (not outrage though), not because of the fact that you posted something negative about clinton, but your failure in seeking truth by posting something irrelevant and therefore reflected upon the kind of person you are, which is irresponsible of your own statement, uncertain about what you're going to say and hypocritical about how a perfect being should be. i am loyal to my party? as far as i'm concerned, i am not a member of any political party. i only support democrats certain thoughts for those seem plausible. even "if" i'm a democrat (hence i said dem supporter) doesn't mean that bipartisanship is out of the question. gaard, you're over generalizing. this really look bad on you, gaard. you are using the generalization about democrats are bush-haters in every aspect of his presidency ridicule your thoughts and reasoning. don't judge only because you have stereotype as your only backup reasoning. could you please focus instead of beating around the "bush"es. that could only mean one thing: you were uncertain for that post. you're running away from our discussion; hence your deficiency of commitment to your own statement. truth hurts and i can understand that you don¡¯t want to accept it.

PS: typos in previous posts. I don't intend to correct them because unlike you, i'm responsible for every word i said.</SPAN>

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: McGyver
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">the differences between you and me are: i stand behind my every and i mean everyone of my statement and you're not; i'm responsible for every state of mind i have in political discussion and you're not; i don't pretend that i'm a saint while you're pretty much a hypocrite in certain issues. yes, my feelings are sadden (not outrage though), not because of the fact that you posted something negative about clinton, but your failure in seeking truth by posting something irrelevant and therefore reflected upon the kind of person you are, which is irresponsible of your own statement, uncertain about what you're going to say and hypocritical about how a perfect being should be. i am loyal to my party? as far as i'm concerned, i am not a member of any political party. i only support democrats certain thoughts for those seem plausible. even "if" i'm a democrat (hence i said dem supporter) doesn't mean that bipartisanship is out of the question. gaard, you're over generalizing. this really look bad on you, gaard. you are using the generalization about democrats are bush-haters in every aspect of his presidency ridicule your thoughts and reasoning. don't judge only because you have stereotype as your only backup reasoning. could you please focus instead of beating around the "bush"es. that could only mean one thing: you were uncertain for that post. you're running away from our discussion; hence your deficiency of commitment to your own statement. truth hurts and i can understand that you don¡¯t want to accept it.

PS: typos in previous posts. I don't intend to correct them because unlike you, i'm responsible for every word i said.</SPAN>

<< i stand behind my every and i mean everyone of my statement and you're not;>>
Could you kindly show me where I haven't stood by any statement I've made.


<<i'm responsible for every state of mind i have in political discussion and you're not>>
You're responsible for every state of mind you have? What's that mean? Oh well, could you show me where I'm not...just curious.


<< i don't pretend that i'm a saint while you're pretty much a hypocrite in certain issues>>
When have I pretended to be a saint? And how am I a hypocrite?


<<yes, my feelings are sadden (not outrage though), not because of the fact that you posted something negative about clinton, but your failure in seeking truth by posting something irrelevant and therefore reflected upon the kind of person you are, which is irresponsible of your own statement, uncertain about what you're going to say and hypocritical about how a perfect being should be.>>
I have absolutely no idea what you just said.


<<gaard. you are using the generalization about democrats are bush-haters in every aspect of his presidency ridicule your thoughts and reasoning.>>
Again, McGyver, show me where I said or implied this.


<<could you please focus instead of beating around the "bush"es. that could only mean one thing: you were uncertain for that post. >>
Focus? Beating around the bush? What are you talking about?


<<you're running away from our discussion; hence your deficiency of commitment to your own statement. >>
How am I running away from the discussion. If I recall correctly, I asked you a simple 'yes' or 'no' question and you refuse to answer it. I believe that makes you the one running away.