I think it’s hilarious to see something like this on a con’s blog.
this is just what happens when a major political movement becomes more about opposing the other side than doing what is best for the country
Indeed.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
That Thing In The Mirror Is You
August 26th, 2006
23 Comments
My god. I can’t believe all these satire proof people!
So you agree that another 9/11 attack on America would be a good thing?
Where were these Conservatives when the PNAC was calling for a ‘New Pearl Harbor’?
I don’t Jay, but clearly the right has enjoyed the first one.
Maybe not enjoyed, but certainly capitalized on it.
Like I said, Hattie, satires on sacar, irony when my shirts is wrinkled.
Dugger, this is for you, buddy.
“I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.” – Abraham Lincoln, from the August 11, 1846 Letter to Allen N. Ford
Wait, did he just…is he…
HAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA HA HAHA HAA
Oh dear God, shame is just an alien concept isn’t it AH HA HA HA HA you goddamned imbecile.
http://www.uploadfile.info/uploads/4521213200.jpg
What’s funny is, the left complains Republicans have politicized terror, when in the process, it is they who have.
duros66,
And do you have one single example where, when Bush said something, you, uniquely among human kind, were able to actually tell what he really knew. What is your one example that now, finally, ends the progressives’shutout on proving Bush lies.
Have at it. I’m ready to accept that, now at long last, duros66 has the provable lie.
And it is????
Again, Dugger inadvertently suggests AWOL George is either a psychopath or a liar by demanding to know what AWOL George thought when he asserted something that was demonstrably false.
Dugger, are you really comfortable with the fact that, to defend Bush’s murderous lies, you effectively have to come up with a formula to demonstrate that no-one has ever provably lied?
Mr Willis, I’ve got to ask: did you read the site you quoted? The writer was protesting the fact that some idiot fine gentleman suggested on the Huffington website that another September 11th attack would be a good thing, if the resulting damage and lives lost tipped the 2006 elections to the Democrats.
Well, I’ll ask you directly: if there were two, and only two options (1 – another terrorist attack, resulting in 3,000 dead and Democrats capturing both Houses of Congress; or 2- No terrorist attack, and the Republicans retaining control of Congress in the 2006 elections), which would you prefer?
Geez, Dana, you make Rob Port sound educated. And that’s no mean feat.
Obviously, you didn’t read the HuffPost article–if you had you’d note the author plainly states, several times, the loss of just one American life would be too many.
I have never really understood people like Dana who actually think people on the left want terror attacks. It should not go unnoticed that most of the blue areas on the map are high population density states, particularly New York and DC, where the 9/11 attacks happened in the first place. I would bet that most New Yorkers are no more than 2 degrees of separation from 9/11 victims. Given this, why logically do you think urbanites would continue to vote Democratic?
I personally would disagree with the author at HuffPo. We did have another terrorist attack, Katrina, in which Bush said to assembled local politicians and tacticians that he would “do all it could” to prevent a catastrophe. Then he went to a guitar lesson in California and a birthday party in Arizona. We don’t need another election cycle to realize that this guy, despite his furrowed brow and serious rhetoric, can and will do nothing to save his fellow Americans.
duros66,
Didn’t catch that lie.
You assert that someone who tells a falsehood and believes it to be true is not lying.
I and others have provided you with suuficient evidence that the President of the United States has uttered falsehoods and believed them to be true.
We are not arguing that the president has lied to himself, if that is the only measure that you use to determine someone’s truthfulness.
Perhaps I don’t know what the president was thinking when he made such claims/falsehoods (my guess is not much), but “I don’t need a compass to see which way the wind shines.”
“I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him.” - Abraham Lincoln, from the August 11, 1846 Letter to Allen N. Ford
duros,
You have not provided me with ’sufficent’ evidence of anything. Its undoubtedly sufficient to a Bush hater – but not for me.
Check out the thread below where Midder thinks Bush lied about the timing of when he saw the airplane crash into the building.
So now your position is that the president has never uttered a falsehood?
How about when he said all NSA wiretapping was warranted when in fact it was not and he knew at the time it was not? Don’t have the quote or the link, but it was back a ways.
You can lead a con to water, but you can’t make him admit that its water.
You know, you never did tell me how one proves perjury, in your view.
“So now your position is that the president has never uttered a falsehood?’
Am I the only serious one here. The above has never been my position.
Perjury is a legal finding. I might think differently, but I could not deny the certification via legal process of lying.
Duros:
Come on, don’t put Dugger “under the spot” like that.
Ok, so it’s only lying if a judge decides it is. Gotcha.