| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
04 Sep 2007 09:57:29 AM |
| Object: |
Fred Losers Lie About "Success" In Anbar Province |
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-success-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
....
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made, saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
04 Sep 2007 10:30:42 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made, saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off, why would the Anbar
tribes stick with us?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” - George
Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In AnbarProvince |
04 Sep 2007 04:09:18 PM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made, saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off, why would the Anbar
tribes stick with us?
What do you mean "stick with *us*"? Were the Sunnis not just fighting
for their *own* sake against al-Quaida in Iraq? I'm sure not many of
them cared all that much what the U.S. wanted. After all, these same
tribes were causing the "coalition" troops plenty of grief earlier.
--
655321
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
04 Sep 2007 05:12:37 PM |
|
|
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:cQjDi.5530$z_5.1567@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from
al-Qaida many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000
Marines to Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup
is *SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off, why would
the Anbar tribes stick with us?
What do you mean "stick with *us*"? Were the Sunnis not just fighting
for their *own* sake against al-Quaida in Iraq? I'm sure not many of
them cared all that much what the U.S. wanted. After all, these same
tribes were causing the "coalition" troops plenty of grief earlier.
Yes, they're fighting for their own sake against AQI. What exactly makes
that incompatible with what the US wants? We aren't there as conquerors,
contrary to all the liberal propaganda that gets tossed around here.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” -
George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
04 Sep 2007 09:15:08 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A1B97E4FC71freddybear@216.151.153.34...
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:cQjDi.5530$z_5.1567@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his escalation's success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from
al-Qaida many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000
Marines to Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup
is *SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off, why would
the Anbar tribes stick with us?
What do you mean "stick with *us*"? Were the Sunnis not just fighting
for their *own* sake against al-Quaida in Iraq? I'm sure not many of
them cared all that much what the U.S. wanted. After all, these same
tribes were causing the "coalition" troops plenty of grief earlier.
Yes, they're fighting for their own sake against AQI. What exactly makes
that incompatible with what the US wants? We aren't there as conquerors,
contrary to all the liberal propaganda that gets tossed around here.
The only reason the U.S. is not there as conquerors is the incompetence of
the Bush Administration. MSM points out that you haven't conquered *****,
contrary to what you neo-cons wanted. But still trying to con everyone into
thinking that the U.S. can get everyone to make nice and be an arbitrarily
designated unified country selling oil to the West on favorable terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
05 Sep 2007 08:01:22 AM |
|
|
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:13ds49unlql2p85@corp.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A1B97E4FC71freddybear@216.151.153.34...
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:cQjDi.5530$z_5.1567@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his escalation's success and justification for why the troop
buildup should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from
al-Qaida many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000
Marines to Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop
buildup is *SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off,
why would the Anbar tribes stick with us?
What do you mean "stick with *us*"? Were the Sunnis not just
fighting for their *own* sake against al-Quaida in Iraq? I'm sure
not many of them cared all that much what the U.S. wanted. After
all, these same tribes were causing the "coalition" troops plenty of
grief earlier.
Yes, they're fighting for their own sake against AQI. What exactly
makes that incompatible with what the US wants? We aren't there as
conquerors, contrary to all the liberal propaganda that gets tossed
around here.
The only reason the U.S. is not there as conquerors is the
incompetence of
the Bush Administration. MSM points out that you haven't conquered
*****, contrary to what you neo-cons wanted.
Contrary to what *YOU* dumbass liberals have been lying about all these
years.
But still trying to con
everyone into thinking that the U.S. can get everyone to make nice and
be an arbitrarily designated unified country selling oil to the West
on favorable terms.
You just won't give up your stupid commie propaganda, even when history
has proved you wrong, will you?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” -
George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "ike milligan" |
|
| Title: Re: Yangie-poo Echos AP Confusion About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
06 Sep 2007 09:07:19 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A25BDFB1597freddybear@216.151.153.21...
"ike milligan" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in
news:13ds49unlql2p85@corp.supernews.com:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns99A1B97E4FC71freddybear@216.151.153.34...
655321 <DipthotDipthot@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote in
news:cQjDi.5530$z_5.1567@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his escalation's success and justification for why the troop
buildup should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from
al-Qaida many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000
Marines to Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop
buildup is *SOLELY* responsible for Anbar. But if we cut them off,
why would the Anbar tribes stick with us?
What do you mean "stick with *us*"? Were the Sunnis not just
fighting for their *own* sake against al-Quaida in Iraq? I'm sure
not many of them cared all that much what the U.S. wanted. After
all, these same tribes were causing the "coalition" troops plenty of
grief earlier.
Yes, they're fighting for their own sake against AQI. What exactly
makes that incompatible with what the US wants? We aren't there as
conquerors, contrary to all the liberal propaganda that gets tossed
around here.
The only reason the U.S. is not there as conquerors is the
incompetence of
the Bush Administration. MSM points out that you haven't conquered
*****, contrary to what you neo-cons wanted.
Contrary to what *YOU* dumbass liberals have been lying about all these
years.
But still trying to con
everyone into thinking that the U.S. can get everyone to make nice and
be an arbitrarily designated unified country selling oil to the West
on favorable terms.
You just won't give up your stupid commie propaganda, even when history
has proved you wrong, will you?
Just because Comrade Kruschov would have agreed with it, doesn't make it
Communist!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Loser Fred Caught Lying About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
04 Sep 2007 11:29:58 PM |
|
|
On 04 Sep 2007 15:30:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made, saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar.
Oh look, a dishonest Fred Strawman.
Bush claims that his surge CAUSED Anbar tribes turning against AQ:
"In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can
come when the Iraqis are more secure. "
When in fact the Anbar tribes turned against AQ BEFORE Bush's failed
surge.
Why are you so dishonest?
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Chicken liberal coward Yangie-poo Lying About Cause And Effect In Anbar Province |
05 Sep 2007 07:59:26 AM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:63csd3h4rpspvfvnfno2bj00l3ubctikl1@4ax.com:
On 04 Sep 2007 15:30:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-
succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup
is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar.
Oh look, a dishonest Fred Strawman.
Bush claims that his surge CAUSED Anbar tribes turning against AQ:
"In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can
come when the Iraqis are more secure. "
That's just the simple truth, Yangie-poo.
When in fact the Anbar tribes turned against AQ BEFORE Bush's failed
surge.
Why are you so dishonest?
Mirror. You. See?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” -
George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Chickenhawk Fred Continue to Lie About Anbar Province |
05 Sep 2007 09:21:22 AM |
|
|
On 05 Sep 2007 12:59:26 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:63csd3h4rpspvfvnfno2bj00l3ubctikl1@4ax.com:
On 04 Sep 2007 15:30:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-
succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop buildup
is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar.
Oh look, a dishonest Fred Strawman.
Bush claims that his surge CAUSED Anbar tribes turning against AQ:
"In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can
come when the Iraqis are more secure. "
That's just the simple truth, Yangie-poo.
Right, so the tribes in Anbar turned against AQ and the insecurity
they brought becuase of the "surge" they didn't know will happen 6
months later.
Why are you so dishonest?
When in fact the Anbar tribes turned against AQ BEFORE Bush's failed
surge.
Why are you so dishonest?
Mirror. You. See?
Projection, thy name is Fred Stone.
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Chickenhawk Fred Continue to Lie About Anbar Province |
05 Sep 2007 02:10:51 PM |
|
|
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:5petd31ni07mi3n6gk8af86v16prkitpan@4ax.com:
On 05 Sep 2007 12:59:26 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:63csd3h4rpspvfvnfno2bj00l3ubctikl1@4ax.com:
On 04 Sep 2007 15:30:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-
succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop
buildup
is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar.
Oh look, a dishonest Fred Strawman.
Bush claims that his surge CAUSED Anbar tribes turning against AQ:
"In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can
come when the Iraqis are more secure. "
That's just the simple truth, Yangie-poo.
Right, so the tribes in Anbar turned against AQ and the insecurity
they brought becuase of the "surge" they didn't know will happen 6
months later.
Where is the "because of" besides your fevered brain, Yangie-poo?
Why are you so dishonest?
When in fact the Anbar tribes turned against AQ BEFORE Bush's failed
surge.
Why are you so dishonest?
Mirror. You. See?
Projection, thy name is Fred Stone.
That's Reflection, as in you see what you are, not me.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"To abjure violence it is necessary to have no experience of it.” -
George Orwell
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c" |
|
| Title: Re: Chickenhawk Fred Continue to Lie About Anbar Province |
06 Sep 2007 09:51:57 AM |
|
|
On 05 Sep 2007 19:10:51 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:5petd31ni07mi3n6gk8af86v16prkitpan@4ax.com:
On 05 Sep 2007 12:59:26 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:63csd3h4rpspvfvnfno2bj00l3ubctikl1@4ax.com:
On 04 Sep 2007 15:30:42 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:
"Yang, AthD (h.c)" <eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote in
news:4isqd3lgtdn009m3k9pao1p6tih72b1lht@4ax.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/03/undercutting-bushs-claims-of-
succes
s-in-anbar/
Today, President Bush held the Anbar province up as an example of
his
escalation’s success and justification for why the troop buildup
should not be cut short:
...
But as the AP points out, "In truth, the progress in Anbar was
initiated by the Iraqis themselves, a point Gates himself made,
saying
the Sunni tribes decided to fight and retake control from al-Qaida
many months BEFORE Bush decided to send an extra 4,000 Marines to
Anbar as part of his troop buildup."
So what's the lie, Yangie-poo? Bush didn't say that the troop
buildup
is
*SOLELY* responsible for Anbar.
Oh look, a dishonest Fred Strawman.
Bush claims that his surge CAUSED Anbar tribes turning against AQ:
"In Anbar you’re seeing firsthand the dramatic differences that can
come when the Iraqis are more secure. "
That's just the simple truth, Yangie-poo.
Right, so the tribes in Anbar turned against AQ and the insecurity
they brought becuase of the "surge" they didn't know will happen 6
months later.
Where is the "because of" besides your fevered brain, Yangie-poo?
Where is this "secure" that Bush was talking about when Anbar tribes
turned against AQ, loser?
Why are you so dishonest?
When in fact the Anbar tribes turned against AQ BEFORE Bush's failed
surge.
Why are you so dishonest?
Mirror. You. See?
Projection, thy name is Fred Stone.
That's Reflection, as in you see what you are, not me.
Oh look, another Fred stone projection
--
Yang
a.a.#28
"I can hardly wait for your head to explode when the Repubs hold onto
both houses of Congress this November. And Yang can quote me on that."
-Fred Stone, 6/14/2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Chickenhawk Fred Continue to Lie About Anbar Province |
06 Sep 2007 11:08:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:21:22 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
Why are you so dishonest?
Dishonesty is the only thing the neocons have. They're in the process
of imploding and are too dishonest to even realize it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Chickenhawk Fred Continue to Lie About Anbar Province |
19 Sep 2007 11:01:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:08:56 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:21:22 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
Why are you so dishonest?
Dishonesty is the only thing the neocons have. They're in the process
of imploding and are too dishonest to even realize it.
And/or too damn ignorant and cowardly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Dumbass Yangie-poos know all about implosion |
22 Sep 2007 01:07:49 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in news:fuh2f3hmodvbe0rq7rl0n928nps7qq32c2
@4ax.com:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:08:56 -0400, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:21:22 GMT, "Yang, AthD (h.c)"
<eacmole@/*AWOLBUSH*/mail.com> wrote:
Why are you so dishonest?
Dishonesty is the only thing the neocons have. They're in the process
of imploding and are too dishonest to even realize it.
And/or too damn ignorant and cowardly.
And/or too smart for a pack of dumbass libruls who can't even figure out
one of Bush's figures of speech.
I bet you idiots thought he meant that Nelson Mandela was killed by
Saddam.
You idiots.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
“The hypocrisy argument is a tactic used by thought fascists who believe
an immutable personal characteristic must dictate – without exception –
the ideological and political state of a person’s mind.”
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
