Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers.


 Religions > Atheism > Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers.

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 5 of 5

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 
Topic: Religions > Atheism
User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
Date: 26 Jan 2005 01:17:35 PM
Object: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers.
Worst fucking president? The numbers don't lie.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1756&e=1&u=/050125/photos_pl/deficit_2005_graphic
And these are the White House's own numbers.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor

A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.

User: "duke"

Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. 29 Jan 2005 08:16:51 AM
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 23:44:59 GMT, Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote:

Of course he can't. It's just another stupid and unfounded statement by a
blueface.
duke

misleading from cheney:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

Common dreams? Wow, there's a biggie.
The point, however strange to an atheist mind such as yours, is whether the
participation was slight or heavy.
Did saddam donate pilots for 911 - no. Did saddam let some planning be done on
Iraqui soil - yes.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.

User: "Fred Stone"

Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. 28 Jan 2005 07:30:26 PM
Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in
news:%7AKd.17586$wZ2.14173@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:



duke wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:11:34 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:


Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:35vf2aF4rlgvaU1@individual.net:


duke wrote:


On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:



The American voter disagrees with you.



Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was
involved with 9/11.



Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's
uncle saddam did not have much to do with 911.


Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still
think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?


Can you give a link to the actual poll questions and the raw
tabulations of responses on that?



Of course he can't. It's just another stupid and unfounded statement
by a blueface.

duke


misleading from cheney:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm

There's nothing misleading in there.

polls:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0701-05.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

You didn't answer my request. I want the actual raw poll and the raw
tabulated answers, not some interpretation by some MSM editorialist.

bush misleading (and dont pretend it was accidental):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

That's just another MSM editorial about how Bush said Saddam and 9/11 in
the same sentences, without even bothering to actually quote the
sentences.

bush says iraq was involved:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html

And this one is yet another editorial, with a unique interpretation of
the word "including".
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Support bacteria! That's all the culture many people will ever have.
.
User: "Sam"

Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. 28 Jan 2005 08:24:45 PM
Fred Stone wrote:

Sam <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in
news:%7AKd.17586$wZ2.14173@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:



duke wrote:


On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 19:11:34 +0000 (UTC), Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> wrote:



Tukla Ratte <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in
news:35vf2aF4rlgvaU1@individual.net:



duke wrote:



On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:17:52 -0600, Tukla Ratte
<tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote:




The American voter disagrees with you.



Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was
involved with 9/11.



Uh, noooooo. We, unlike you, have always recognized that yang's
uncle saddam did not have much to do with 911.


Then why do so many Bush supporters tell pollsters that they still
think that Saddam was involved in 9/11? Are they just stupid?


Can you give a link to the actual poll questions and the raw
tabulations of responses on that?



Of course he can't. It's just another stupid and unfounded statement
by a blueface.

duke


misleading from cheney:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0918-03.htm



There's nothing misleading in there.


polls:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0701-05.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm



You didn't answer my request. I want the actual raw poll and the raw
tabulated answers, not some interpretation by some MSM editorialist.


bush misleading (and dont pretend it was accidental):
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html



That's just another MSM editorial about how Bush said Saddam and 9/11 in
the same sentences, without even bothering to actually quote the
sentences.


bush says iraq was involved:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/000563.html



And this one is yet another editorial, with a unique interpretation of
the word "including".

curses! foiled again! <<twiddling my handlebar mustachio evilly>>
.


User: "jwk"

Title: Re: Damn, it's tough to argue with the numbers. 28 Jan 2005 06:14:33 PM
Tukla Ratte wrote:

duke wrote:

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:44:26 -0600, Vic Sagerquist

<address@withheld.com> wrote:



And these are the White House's own numbers.



Boy, look at the figures fall post Clinton. It's difficult to draw

the

conclusion that Bush is the best thing that ever happened to this

country,

as held by all the drooling neo-con religious half-wits that voted

him in.



The American voter disagrees with you.


Only the gullible voters who *still* believe that Saddam was involved
with 9/11.

I saw one just a week or two ago on the CBS evening news. They were
interviewing two women who had lost their sons in Iraq. The one who
still supported the president pointed out how they had to get Saddam
for what he did to the WTC. What I couldn't believe was that the
interviewer didn't grad her and shake her. Real hard.
jwk
.


  Page 5 of 5

1
 

2
 

3
 

4
 

5
 


Related Articles
 

NEWER
pg.3804     pg.2112     pg.1172     pg.650     pg.360     pg.199     pg.110     pg.61     pg.34     pg.19     pg.11     pg.7     pg.5     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER