Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > We're all watching the president, right?
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: We're all watching the president, right? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 15th, 2004 07:55 PM
davinxtk
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
1. W. isnt the president of the world (although he is the president of the "free world"), so their opinion doesn't mean all too much in the long run. Last time I checked, stupid little non-important countries weren't suffering from Muslim terrorist attacks.
Once again, the world is way too fucking small for this kind of viewpoint. When there are chemical weapons that can poison the air and water, cause birth defects hundreds of miles away; when there are nuclear (or nucular, if you'd prefer) weapons that could literally level some of these smaller countries; when international economies depend on eachother to such a minute detail; we can't just ignore a worldwide voice of reason. It doesn't fucking work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
2. The last time the world came to an agreement about something, Nazi Germany was steamrolling through Europe and gathering up countries without a shot being fired. Appeasement worked out really well in that case
I'm sorry, a "pre-emptive" strike against a backwater dictator who can't even be bothered to make a martyr of himself when the going gets rough is a hell of a lot different than toppling a psychotic xenophobe bent on the wholesale slaughter of an entire race and the reclassification of an entire continent as "Germany."

Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Davin, a little history about the way the world works: Just because the world says something, that doesnt make it right. By the statement you made, it would seem that you would support the state-sponsored bukkake of teenage girls when they turn 18. After all, the wwwoorrllddd agreed to it!
Don't treat me like I'm some naive little boy who found daddy's computer. I've been living in this world and paying attention since the first time I watched Saddam's face on the TV screen, next to live footage of rockets over Kuwait.
I'm not saying that it's right because the world said it was right. I'm saying that it's right and the fucking planet told him so.
Apr 15th, 2004 04:15 PM
kellychaos The Red Wings were in a play-off game so I watched just enough of W. to piss me off, then I watched just of enough of the (eventual) Red Wing loss to piss me off and then I went to bed ... PISSED OFF!

Side note: Why is everyone making such a big deal out of W. agreeing to send more troops like it's a new issue? The military leaders have been asking for additional troops for months. And from what I hear some (or most) of that "additional" support isn't so much coming from more units coming in as much as not redeploying some of those already over there on their original date. In effect, there won't be so many "new" units but those already present would be bulked up past what is a normal allocation for that particular type of unit as personnel that were supposed to be replacements arrive.
Apr 15th, 2004 02:59 PM
Brandon
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinceZeb
Davin, a little history about the way the world works: Just because the world says something, that doesnt make it right.
Wow, Vince. I agree completely.
Apr 15th, 2004 02:57 PM
Zebra 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinth
1. W. isnt the president of the world (although he is the president of the "free world"),...
- That's leader of the free world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinth
2. The last time the world came to an agreement about something, Nazi Germany was steamrolling through Europe and gathering up countries without a shot being fired. Appeasement worked out really well in that case
- You're an idiot.
Apr 15th, 2004 09:08 AM
Pub Lover OMG! I HAVE THE SAME VIEWPOINT AS VINTH! :O

Except I do support the state-sponsored bukkake of teenage girls when they turn 18. :/
Apr 15th, 2004 08:57 AM
VinceZeb
Quote:
Originally Posted by davinxtk
Short of citing the war in Iraq specifically as a mistake, can I instead cite his complete failure to adhere to the will of America and the world in the spring of 2003?
I believe signs in protest of the war immediately after the fact read something along the lines of "THE WORLD SAID NO..

1. W. isnt the president of the world (although he is the president of the "free world"), so their opinion doesn't mean all too much in the long run. Last time I checked, stupid little non-important countries weren't suffering from Muslim terrorist attacks.

2. The last time the world came to an agreement about something, Nazi Germany was steamrolling through Europe and gathering up countries without a shot being fired. Appeasement worked out really well in that case

Davin, a little history about the way the world works: Just because the world says something, that doesnt make it right. By the statement you made, it would seem that you would support the state-sponsored bukkake of teenage girls when they turn 18. After all, the wwwoorrllddd agreed to it!
Apr 15th, 2004 08:44 AM
Pub Lover
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davin
...this planet is definitely too small for any government to take that kind of stance...
It's a good thing I'm not in control of any form of Government then.
Apr 14th, 2004 10:15 PM
davinxtk
Quote:
Originally Posted by BombsBurstingInAir
I rest my case.
Wherewhat? You had a case?
I don't think you proved much of a point... anywhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pub Lover
He's not elected by the world, so our opinion is irrelevent.
I do hope you're joking. This planet is definitely too small for any government to take that kind of stance on such an international affair, especially considering the (very slim) possibility that WMD may have been used as a direct result of our actions.
Apr 14th, 2004 09:34 PM
Abcdxxxx GA makes an interesting point... the 9/11 investigation has shifted to being all about this intelligence gathering pointing fingers at the agencies thing without adressing some real questions I think we all want to know... like who authorized the Saudi planes and why. It's like that's become a side topic to question in passing, without it being the focus it should be. It would also help if GW stopped smirking so much.
Apr 14th, 2004 04:56 PM
Brandon I must say, though, that it was very smart of Bush to avoid the "apology" trap the reporters had set.
Apr 14th, 2004 04:11 PM
sspadowsky
Quote:
Originally Posted by BombsBurstingInAir
I must also add that the references to all the terrorist actions against U.S. intrests, that occured in the past, was a nice touch. I think it helps to put things in perspective.
I must also add that your glib, non-specific, one- to three-sentence posts never add anything to any discussion, and kind of make me want to bludgeon you with an olive loaf.
Apr 14th, 2004 03:49 PM
GAsux
Um, no.

No not so much really. You made no case. Anywhere.
Apr 14th, 2004 03:41 PM
BombsBurstingInAir I rest my case.
Apr 14th, 2004 02:39 PM
Zebra 3 - American Idiol was rescheduled because of the moron's press conference.
Apr 14th, 2004 01:40 PM
Pub Lover
Quote:
Originally Posted by davinxtk
...his complete failure to adhere to the will of... ...the world in the spring of 2003...
He's not elected by the world, so our opinion is irrelevent.
Apr 14th, 2004 01:18 PM
davinxtk Short of citing the war in Iraq specifically as a mistake, can I instead cite his complete failure to adhere to the will of America and the world in the spring of 2003?
I believe signs in protest of the war immediately after the fact read something along the lines of "THE WORLD SAID NO."

Or perhaps the mistake his administration made in drastically cutting back our attentiveness to terrorism even up to 9/10/2001?

Maybe the "miscommunication" (which, in this case, is the gentle way of saying "bold-faced lie") that American soldiers would be greeted as liberators by the Iraqi people?

Or I could mean the misdeed of wilfully acting pre-emptively on shoddy intelligence that had been questioned by the international community.

No president is perfect, and many presidents apologize. This administration simply refuses to admit that they are ever wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BombsBurstingInAir
I must also add that the references to all the terrorist actions against U.S. intrests, that occured in the past, was a nice touch. I think it helps to put things in perspective.
Are you kidding me? That's hyping, scare-mongering, and focusing on measly losses to inflate the cause in the eyes of a vengeful (or mourning) American public. I don't want to sound like Max's parrot, but more people die in car accidents every year than terrorist attacks. Wake the fuck up, you're being manipulated.
Apr 14th, 2004 10:00 AM
BombsBurstingInAir I must also add that the references to all the terrorist actions against U.S. intrests, that occured in the past, was a nice touch. I think it helps to put things in perspective.
Apr 14th, 2004 09:58 AM
BombsBurstingInAir
Quote:
Or he could admit to his mistakes, miscommunications, and misdeeds and perhaps save a little bit of face in the eyes and minds of people who are paying attention, instead of depending on those who aren't to follow him like lemmings, provided he doesn't directly admit wrongdoing.
Be specific, what mistake?? What miscommunication???What Misdeeds???

Was invading Iraq a mistake? It could be, in your opinion. But that is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe the President, like myself and others, do not think it was a mistake.
Apr 14th, 2004 12:13 AM
Jeanette X I started to watch, but the bile kept rising in my throat so I had to turn it off.
Apr 13th, 2004 11:19 PM
davinxtk Or he could admit to his mistakes, miscommunications, and misdeeds and perhaps save a little bit of face in the eyes and minds of people who are paying attention, instead of depending on those who aren't to follow him like lemmings, provided he doesn't directly admit wrongdoing.
Apr 13th, 2004 11:12 PM
El Blanco So, he was just supposed to walk into a question thatwas a trap? He is a politician for crying out loud.
Apr 13th, 2004 10:46 PM
Brandon Roughly every answer came back to "we're going to stay the course in Iraq," even if the question was completely unrelated.
Apr 13th, 2004 10:44 PM
davinxtk Who's david?

He was asked the yes-or-no question of "Do you think you've failed as a communicator?" and he responded with "We're going to let the American voters decide that in November."
He was asked if he thinks he and/or his administration owe apologies to the American people for 9/11 and without saying "yes" or "no," went into rhetoric and blame-placing without addressing the question head-on.

He kept coming back to the same tired points, mentioning a "turkey farm with 50 tons of mustard gas" multiple times.
Apr 13th, 2004 10:39 PM
El Blanco I didn't catch it, so david, please cite specific examples of him dodging question and talking in circles.
Apr 13th, 2004 10:29 PM
davinxtk The shot that summarized the night for me was him walking away with his back to the microphone.

He dodged questions, contradicted himself, and talked in circles.

He made sense for the first 10 seconds that I caught, but that's about as long as I think he'll ever last.
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:57 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.