Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1.    #1  
    WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- General Wesley Clark released the following statement today:

    "Today George W. Bush made a very compelling and thoughtful argument for why he should not be reelected. In his own words, he told the American people that "...a political candidate who jumps to conclusions without knowing the facts is not a person you want as your Commander in Chief."

    "President Bush couldn't be more right. He jumped to conclusions about any connection between Saddam Hussein and 911. He jumped to conclusions about weapons of mass destruction. He jumped to conclusions about the mission being accomplished. He jumped to conclusions about how we had enough troops on the ground to win the peace. And because he jumped to conclusions, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq may very well have their hands on powerful explosives to attack our troops, we are stuck in Iraq without a plan to win the peace, and Americans are less safe both at home and abroad."

    "By doing all these things, he broke faith with our men and women in uniform. He has let them down. George W. Bush is unfit to be our Commander in Chief."
  2. #2  
    The topic should not be "Bush tells why" it should be "Clark tells why." It is his opinion, picking and choosing words and actions of Bush, but it is Clark's opinion.
  3. #3  
    Dont the complainers also make uneducated remarks about 7 mins being way too long to respond? I know I have heard Kerry make both arguments. Its way too easy to criticize after the fact.
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    The topic should not be "Bush tells why" it should be "Clark tells why." It is his opinion, picking and choosing words and actions of Bush, but it is Clark's opinion.
    Bush himself described the qualities of a candidate you should reject, and they apply to him. It was not Clark's words and qualifications. He merely demonstrated that they applied to Bush.

    Regardless of of your semantic disagreement, the context and logic is sound.
  5. #5  
    GW took over a year to carefully study and evaluate his options after 9/11, formulate plans and put them into action. You can argue that his conclusions or actions were wrong but you cannot argue that he jumped to conclusions.

    John Kerry took an unsubstantiated news report and within hours, without vetting the report, concluded it was George Bush's fault, and used it to attack GW. That is a clear example of jumping to conclusions.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    GW took over a year to carefully study and evaluate his options after 9/11, formulate plans and put them into action.
    He took over a year and still got it wrong?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Bush himself described the qualities of a candidate you should reject, and they apply to him. It was not Clark's words and qualifications. He merely demonstrated that they applied to Bush.

    Regardless of of your semantic disagreement, the context and logic is sound.
    Bush is not explaining why he should not be reelected. He made some comments that some people think imply he shouldn't be. Your topic is an outright lie. If I say "the earth is flat" you cannot say "KRamsauer admits he's a liar." It is simply not the same.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    Bush is not explaining why he should not be reelected. He made some comments that some people think imply he shouldn't be. Your topic is an outright lie. If I say "the earth is flat" you cannot say "KRamsauer admits he's a liar." It is simply not the same.
    Of course we can!

    This forum proves anyone can say anything (well, almost) they want, true or not.

    Don't you just love America! I do.
    << My command as we escape Palm HQ with a new Pre 3>>.

    Treo 300 >> Treo 600 >> Treo 650 >> Treo 755 >> Instinct >> Pre- >> TouchPad
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    He took over a year and still got it wrong?
    It is impossible to discuss an issue when one side does not want to stay on topic. The topic was not whether anyone was right or wrong it was whether certain person's jumped to conclusions. You should not be confused at all.

    Topic under discussion - Jumping to conclusions

    I say GW no, JK yes and explain why I say that.

    clulup responds by saying OK but GW came to wrong conclusion and expresses confusion that it took him so long to do so. If I try to counter against the wrong conclusion comment I am diverted from making my point about jumping to conclusions. So I won't counter but instead get back to the topic under discussion and conclude that clulup agrees with my assessment that JK jumps to conclusions and GW does not. Thank you very much. Case closed.

    Now did GW come to the wrong conclusions. I say no, clulp says yes, but that is the subject of another discussion.
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    It is impossible to discuss an issue when one side does not want to stay on topic. The topic was not whether anyone was right or wrong it was whether certain person's jumped to conclusions. You should not be confused at all.

    Topic under discussion - Jumping to conclusions

    I say GW no, JK yes and explain why I say that.

    clulup responds by saying OK but GW came to wrong conclusion and expresses confusion that it took him so long to do so. If I try to counter against the wrong conclusion comment I am diverted from making my point about jumping to conclusions. So I won't counter but instead get back to the topic under discussion and conclude that clulup agrees with my assessment that JK jumps to conclusions and GW does not. Thank you very much. Case closed.

    Now did GW come to the wrong conclusions. I say no, clulp says yes, but that is the subject of another discussion.
    Amen!!

    These tactics are typical though. Every time I watch Kerry speak, I can almost see the "Elimidate Balloon" that counts down to the next stupid comment.

    I remember listening to Kerry attack Bush because he didn't send 200,000 more troops to Iraq in order to "win the peace". In less than five minutes he attacked him for our military being over extended in Iraq, thus allowing other countries to improve their weapons of mass destruction.

    Doesn't over extended still mean using too much of a given resource?

    Can you imagine an ***** like that trying to "better" our country?
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Dont the complainers also make uneducated remarks about 7 mins being way too long to respond? I know I have heard Kerry make both arguments. Its way too easy to criticize after the fact.
    this should be said for nearly everything kerry has been saying.

    dems, its so easy to have all the answers after the game is over, isnt it?
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg
    Amen!!

    These tactics are typical though. Every time I watch Kerry speak, I can almost see the "Elimidate Balloon" that counts down to the next stupid comment.

    I remember listening to Kerry attack Bush because he didn't send 200,000 more troops to Iraq in order to "win the peace". In less than five minutes he attacked him for our military being over extended in Iraq, thus allowing other countries to improve their weapons of mass destruction.

    Doesn't over extended still mean using too much of a given resource?

    Can you imagine an ***** like that trying to "better" our country?
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overextended

    o·ver·ex·tend Audio pronunciation of "overextended" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vr-k-stnd)
    tr.v. o·ver·ex·tend·ed, o·ver·ex·tend·ing, o·ver·ex·tends

    1. To expand or disperse beyond a safe or reasonable limit: overextended their defenses.
    2. To obligate (oneself) beyond a limit, especially a financial one.
    Palm III > HS Visor > Treo 600 > Treo 650 > Treo 750 > Treo Pro > PrePlus GSM

    "95% of all software issues are due to USER ERROR."
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by scottymomo
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=overextended

    o·ver·ex·tend Audio pronunciation of "overextended" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vr-k-stnd)
    tr.v. o·ver·ex·tend·ed, o·ver·ex·tend·ing, o·ver·ex·tends

    1. To expand or disperse beyond a safe or reasonable limit: overextended their defenses.
    2. To obligate (oneself) beyond a limit, especially a financial one.

    Exactly my point!
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    GW took over a year to carefully study and evaluate his options after 9/11, formulate plans and put them into action. You can argue that his conclusions or actions were wrong but you cannot argue that he jumped to conclusions.
    Weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of WMDs.

    GW stated that their failure to find them was PROOF that Saddam was hiding them.

    He prematurely withdrew the weapons inspectors, invaded Iraq, found no WMDs and blamed it on faulty intellegence.

    "careful study and evaluation".. "not jumping to conclusions.."

    Do you agree that if we had let the weapons inspectors continue we might have avoided this war? or was it inevitable, for the OIL!!!?
  15. #15  
    Here we go again...

    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Weapons inspectors were finding no evidence of WMDs.
    GW stated that their failure to find them was PROOF that Saddam was hiding them.
    No. Inspectors were being hindered by Saddam by not cooperating with them. After umpteen UN Resolutions and I think 9 years and a terrorist attack that killed 3000 at home, GW said enough is enough. Quit playing games and either show the inspectors where they are or show us evidence that you destroyed them or where they went. If you don't we we have no choice but to come in and find out for ourselves by force. if Saddam did have them and he showed the inspectors where they were, we would not have invaded. If he didn't have them all he had to do was show us what he did with what we know he did have.

    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    He prematurely withdrew the weapons inspectors, invaded Iraq, found no WMDs and blamed it on faulty intellegence.
    There was nothing premature about it. How can it be premature after 9 years of inspections and 12 resolutions. If he waited 100 years you would still have said he was premature. Really, how many years and resolutions would it take for you to say it was time to take action.

    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    "careful study and evaluation".. "not jumping to conclusions.."
    Yes!

    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    Do you agree that if we had let the weapons inspectors continue we might have avoided this war?
    N0! If we had continued I have no doubt that Saddam would given refuge to the terrorists fleeing from Afgahnastan, and, if he wasn't already doing so, help them financially and materially to attack us again. We would have lost a few thousand again and maybe again until even you would say enough is enough. The difference is that instead of less than 100 casualties we would have suffered thousands because Saddam would have had time to better prepare for an invasion.


    Quote Originally Posted by nudist
    or was it inevitable, for the OIL!!!?
    OK when are we going to see all that oil you think this war was fought for. This is such an illogical argument it's embarrassing to have to argue it. It would have been much easier to just lift the sanctions on Iraq. Did GW think he was going to be able to get all that Iraqi Oil for himself? Perhaps he thought invading Iraq would give us a free supply of oil. Wait a minute we still have to buy the oil from Iraq. Isn't that the same thing we would be doing if there were no sanctions and Saddam was still in power?

    Nudist, please tell me how you think invading Iraq was supposed to benefit the US or GW in terms of Oil????? What exactly was GW's diabolical plan when it came to oil and when will we see the fruits of that plan.

    I really don't know why I bother arguing. You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what anyone says or how illogical you conclusions can be shown to be.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbdh
    I really don't know why I bother arguing. You are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what anyone says or how illogical you conclusions can be shown to be.
    A truer statement has not be made on this forum....no matter what side your on.

    If we could harness the emotional energy people waste in these discussions we could make the Statue of Liberty walk down 42nd street.
    Last edited by ACDriver; 10/29/2004 at 07:07 AM.
    "Do the Chickens have large talons?" Napoleon Dynamite
  17. #17  
    Wait a minute,
    Bush took a year to weigh his options???
    Thats not what his appointed Secretary of the Treasury O'Neil said..

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/

    Maybe a year BEFORE 9/11...
    Last edited by TrySpammingMe; 10/30/2004 at 09:51 PM. Reason: sp
  18. #18  
    And here is 94 more Reasons He should not be Re-elected...

    http://news.neilrogers.com/news/arti...004101606.html
  19. #19  
    Here are a few reasons George Bush should be re-elected:

    He is Pro-Life; He is a strong leader who we can trust; He is not raising taxes; He is against gun control; He is fiscally conservative; He builds peaceful concensus with like-minded nations; He is against one-world government; He is a man of faith and courage;
    He did not ridicule , demonstrate and cause harm to prisoners of war; He is not endorsed by the American Communist Party.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by TrySpammingMe
    And here is 94 more Reasons He should not be Re-elected...

    http://news.neilrogers.com/news/arti...004101606.html
    100 reasons not to vote Kerry,
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop
    Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop Flip Flop


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions