KSUFans Archives

Fan Life => The Endzone Dive => Topic started by: AzCat on June 12, 2008, 12:50:16 PM

Title: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 12, 2008, 12:50:16 PM
Read it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html) and weep lefty 'tards.  Bullet-points for the lazy:

Quote
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."
 
Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

And for this The Obamination has promised to prosecute Bush for war crimes?  Laughable, utterly laughable ... for all but the most retarded among us.  :popcorn:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 12, 2008, 04:53:43 PM
Yeah I know, after years of lefty howling to the contrary it kind of leaves me speechless too.   :billypopcorn:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: rundown87 on June 13, 2008, 02:51:15 PM
Yeah I know, after years of lefty howling to the contrary it kind of leaves me speechless too.   :billypopcorn:

are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 13, 2008, 02:52:37 PM
are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?

Somes it up pretty good imo   :lol:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: Chingon on June 13, 2008, 02:53:10 PM
I'm a rightwing fag, can I hang with you guys? :-*
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 13, 2008, 02:54:32 PM
I'm a libertarian...which sex do I like  :confused:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: Chingon on June 13, 2008, 02:55:53 PM
I'm a libertarian...which sex do I like  :confused:

The kind without conversation...
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: rundown87 on June 13, 2008, 02:57:10 PM
are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?

Somes it up pretty good imo   :lol:

i don't get it, I didn't think you lived in lawrence. . .
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 13, 2008, 02:59:59 PM
are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?

Somes it up pretty good imo   :lol:

i don't get it, I didn't think you lived in lawrence. . .

It's stuff like this that give KSU the reputation I wish it didn't deserve. 
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: rundown87 on June 13, 2008, 03:03:22 PM
are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?

Somes it up pretty good imo   :lol:

i don't get it, I didn't think you lived in lawrence. . .

It's stuff like this that give KSU the reputation I wish it didn't deserve. 

what? not wanting to ruin the country with nazi/women presidents? or not wanting to ruin the country with muslim/terrorist presidents?  Or not allowing gays to live. . .at all
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: Kat Kid on June 13, 2008, 03:04:38 PM
are we the only non left-wing/fags on the board?

Somes it up pretty good imo   :lol:

i don't get it, I didn't think you lived in lawrence. . .

It's stuff like this that give KSU the reputation I wish it didn't deserve. 

what? not wanting to ruin the country with nazi/women presidents? or not wanting to ruin the country with muslim/terrorist presidents?  Or not allowing gays to live. . .at all

yeah, pretty much.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 13, 2008, 03:19:56 PM
I'm a rightwing fag, can I hang with you guys? :-*

You're one of them there ox-morons aren't you?   :popcorn:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: kstate16 on June 13, 2008, 07:06:05 PM
i'd say i'm on the conservative side of the spectrum. i have very conservative views when it comes to economics and world affairs.  but also have a few moderate to liberal views, mostly social. i'm not afraid to say it, i am and always was a bush supporter. Clinton about ruined our f*cking country. Cut our military spending SUBSTANTIALLY, so no wonder he was able to help the economy. the world saw us as vulnerable, and the terrorists realized it.  seriously, if i could get my hands on that dumbass clinton, i swear to god.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: kstate16 on June 13, 2008, 07:10:25 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: rundown87 on June 13, 2008, 08:28:43 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

I know, i was just saying that to piss them off.  I'm in college, and I hate the political views of people my age. . .pro choice. . .you've got to be kidding me.  Abortion is just wayy too extremely wrong, and gay marraige is technically an oxymoron because it just doesn't make any sense.  but jesus christ their views on our economic situation and how to fix it are just plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: mjrod on June 13, 2008, 08:47:13 PM
Rockefeller was leading the charge before Bush came into office from the Senate Intelligence committee during Clinton's tenure to do something about the threat Saddam posed.

Funny.  When Bush DID something, he complained and followed lock-step with party talking points.  If it weren't for Rush Limbaugh, he'd probably have never had to admit anything he said during the Clinton presidency.


Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 13, 2008, 09:01:57 PM
Good lord  :flush:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: mjrod on June 13, 2008, 09:50:46 PM
Good lord  :flush:

QFT..  You really need to start following what your democrat leaders were saying 10 years ago.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: Rick Daris on June 13, 2008, 11:23:17 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

I know, i was just saying that to piss them off.  I'm in college, and I hate the political views of people my age. . .pro choice. . .you've got to be kidding me.  Abortion is just wayy too extremely wrong, and gay marraige is technically an oxymoron because it just doesn't make any sense.   but jesus christ their views on our economic situation and how to fix it are just plain ridiculous.

Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much? Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 14, 2008, 12:43:17 AM
Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much?

Because they're fags.  Duh.

Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA

Doesn't everyone?  I mean lefties have been known to be minions of Satan for centuries.   :billypopcorn:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 14, 2008, 12:45:06 AM
Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much?

Because they're fags.  Duh.

Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA

Doesn't everyone?  I mean lefties have been known to be minions of Satan for centuries.   :billypopcorn:

Satire of satire....well played
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: PCR on June 14, 2008, 01:55:02 AM
Good lord  :flush:

QFT..  You really need to start following what your democrat leaders were saying 10 years ago.


Democrat is a noun, not an adjective. 
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: dohminator on June 14, 2008, 02:18:04 AM
I don't know, it seems that the biggest part here is that administration in its desire to go to war against Iraq did not pursue actual good intelligence.  Instead when Cheney is involved in writing the NIE in 2002 it lends some credence to the idea that maybe he was influencing what was put into that report.  The fact that they more or less sold us a war against an enemy that wasn't much of an actual threat to us is a pretty good reason to be pissed.  Especially when it has cost the lives of thousands of American soldiers on the battlefield and through increased rates of suicide.  When we consider that the people of Iraq are actually worse off now than they were 5 years ago.  I don't know, but when the president says we need to go to war, he had better be right about it.  He had better have a plan for actually succeeding in rebuilding the country after it is over. 


Quote
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
 
Ø      Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
 
Ø      Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
 
Ø      Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
 
Ø      Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
 
Ø      The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
 
Ø      The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=298775
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: dohminator on June 14, 2008, 02:27:24 AM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

Actually, people tend to keep their party affiliation throughout their lives.  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2747568
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: dohminator on June 14, 2008, 02:56:44 AM
Good lord  :flush:

QFT..  You really need to start following what your democrat leaders were saying 10 years ago.


You should probably do the same for the Republicans as well.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY&feature=related

Edit: This was good for a late night waste of time after the bars. 
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: rundown87 on June 14, 2008, 03:09:47 AM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

I know, i was just saying that to piss them off.  I'm in college, and I hate the political views of people my age. . .pro choice. . .you've got to be kidding me.  Abortion is just wayy too extremely wrong, and gay marraige is technically an oxymoron because it just doesn't make any sense.   but jesus christ their views on our economic situation and how to fix it are just plain ridiculous.

Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much? Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA

I never said I hated gays (which I do, but I hadn't said it yet. . .) I just said that technically they can't get married, so I don't know why they fight it so much. . .instead of planning a gay wedding, they should spend their time turning themselves straight.

And I don't hate redheads, but I do hate lefties. . .
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 14, 2008, 03:31:53 AM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

I know, i was just saying that to piss them off.  I'm in college, and I hate the political views of people my age. . .pro choice. . .you've got to be kidding me.  Abortion is just wayy too extremely wrong, and gay marraige is technically an oxymoron because it just doesn't make any sense.   but jesus christ their views on our economic situation and how to fix it are just plain ridiculous.

Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much? Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA

I never said I hated gays (which I do, but I hadn't said it yet. . .) I just said that technically they can't get married, so I don't know why they fight it so much. . .instead of planning a gay wedding, they should spend their time turning themselves straight.

And I don't hate redheads, but I do hate lefties. . .

Good lord  :flush:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 14, 2008, 10:32:13 AM
Why do hate guys who are attracted to guys so much?

Because they're fags.  Duh.

Also, do you hate people who are left handed or who have red hair? TIA

Doesn't everyone?  I mean lefties have been known to be minions of Satan for centuries.   :billypopcorn:

Satire of satire....well played

Satire?  Pretty much every culture on Earth agrees: lefties are evil.

Quote
In Hebrew, as well as in other ancient Semitic and Mesopotamian languages, the term "hand" was a symbol of power or custody.[15] The left hand symbolized the power to shame society, and was used as a metaphor for misfortune, natural evil, or punishment from the gods. This metaphor survived ancient culture and was integrated into mainstream Christianity by early Catholic theologians as Ambrose of Milan[16] to modern Protestant theologians such as Karl Barth[17] to attribute natural evil to God in explaining God's omnipotence over the universe.

Meanings evolved from use of these terms in the ancient languages. In many European languages, "right" is not only a synonym for correctness, but also stands for authority and justice: German and Dutch recht, French droit, Spanish derecho; in most Slavic languages the root prav is used in words carrying meanings of correctness or justice. Being right-handed has also historically been thought of as being skillful: the Latin word for right-handed is dexter, as in dexterity; indeed, the Spanish term diestro and the Italian's destro, mean both "right-handed" and "skillful". In Irish, "deas" means "right side" and "nice". "Ciotóg" is the left hand and is related to "ciotach" meaning "awkward"[18]; in French, "gauche" means "left" and is also a synonym of "maladroit", meaning "clumsy". Same for the Italian "maldestro" and the Dutch word "links".

Meanwhile, the English word sinister comes from the Latin word sinister, which originally meant "left" but took on meanings of "evil" or "unlucky" by the Classical Latin era. Alternatively, sinister comes from the Latin word sinus meaning "pocket": a traditional Roman toga had only one pocket, located on the left side for the convenience of a right-handed wearer.[citation needed] The contemporary Italian word sinistra has both meanings of sinister and left. The Spanish siniestra has both, too, although the 'left' meaning is less common and is usually expressed by izquierda,[19] a Basque word. In Portuguese, the most common word for left-handed person, canhoto, was once used to identify the devil, and canhestro, a related word, means "clumsy".

The left side is often associated with awkwardness and clumsiness. The Dutch expression "twee linkerhanden hebben" and the Bulgarian expression "dve levi ratse" ("to have two left hands") both mean being clumsy. The English phrase, to have "two left feet" means to be bad at dancing. As these are all very old words/phrases, they support theories indicating that the predominance of right-handedness is an extremely old phenomenon.

In ancient China, the left has been the "bad" side. The adjective "left" (左 Mandarin: zuǒ) means "improper" or "out of accord". For instance, the phrase "left path" (左道 Mandarin: zuǒdao) stands for illegal or immoral means.

In Norwegian, the expression venstrehåndsarbeid (left-hand work) means "something that is done in a sloppy or unsatisfactory way". Additionally, one of the Norwegian words for left-handed, "keivhendt", comes from Norwegian words meaning wrong handed or not straight handed.

The Hungarian word balfácán means twit. (Bal means left and fácán is for pheasant.) Other synonyms are balfék and balek. However all these are euphemistic versions of the original vulgar word balfasz, combining "bal" and the vulgar name of the male genitals fasz.

In Ireland left handedness is called a "ciotógach" (kitt-oog) which is Irish for left-handed. It is frequently used amongst native Irish people, e.g. "she gave him a slap of the ciotógach after he insulted her at the bar" the word ciotógach is not derogatory and is held with affection amongst left-handed people.

In some parts of the English-speaking world 'cack-handed' is slang for left-handed. The origin of this term is disputed, but some suggest it is derived from the Latin cacare, in reference to the habit of performing ablutions with the left hand, leaving the right hand 'clean'.[20] However, other source suggest that it is derived from the Old Norse word keikr, meaning "bent backwards".[21]

The common Australian slang for a left-handed individual is the term Molly-Dooker, whose origins cannot be ascertained for certain, but whose intention is overwhelming clear.

Amongst Muslims, and in some societies including India, it is customary to use the left hand for cleaning oneself with water after defecating. The right hand is commonly known in contradistinction from the left, as the hand used for eating.

Even the word "ambidexterity" reflects the bias. Its intended meaning is, "skillful on both sides". However, since it keeps the Latin root "dexter", which means "right", it ends up conveying the idea of being "right-handed at both sides". This bias is also apparent in the lesser-known antonym "ambisinistrous", which means "clumsy on both sides" and derives from the Latin root "sinister."[22]

In Russian, "to stray left" is a euphemism for being unfaithful to a spouse or partner.


Quite deserving of hate wouldn't you say?   :billypopcorn:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: kstate16 on June 14, 2008, 03:07:42 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

Actually, people tend to keep their party affiliation throughout their lives.  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2747568
won't let me look at the article. give me another source.
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: AzCat on June 14, 2008, 03:21:44 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

Actually, people tend to keep their party affiliation throughout their lives.  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2747568
won't let me look at the article. give me another source.

Second source: AzCat, "It's true."   :runaway:
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: dohminator on June 14, 2008, 03:26:28 PM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

Actually, people tend to keep their party affiliation throughout their lives.  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2747568
won't let me look at the article. give me another source.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: kstate16 on June 20, 2008, 09:02:47 AM
and rundown:

although you sound like an ignorant dumbass, i'll try explaining something.  a lot of people on this board are either in college or a couple years out, and generally speaking, the student population is more moderate to liberal.  as some of these posters get older and realize what kind of taxes they could be spending with a liberal in office, then they become more conservative.

in lamens, most people on this board are either in college or quite young, making it more likely they have more liberal views.

Actually, people tend to keep their party affiliation throughout their lives.  http://www.jstor.org/pss/2747568
won't let me look at the article. give me another source.

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/813/gen-dems
58% of people aged 19-28 are considered libs.  like i said, younger people, NOW, are more liberal
Title: Re: Sen John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) sez, "Bush didn't lie!"
Post by: steve dave on June 20, 2008, 09:06:53 AM
I hate old people.  prolly should have some sort of "Logan's Run" type thing to get rid of them after they've served their purpose.  You wouldn't keep a beta-max player just because you have some good beta-max movies.  Just have the movies converted to DIVX and throw the pos away.