USA Politics ![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#1 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
|
This just in neocons: Your 911 juice has run out. We no longer give you a blank check to do whatever you want just because you keep repeating 911. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
|
Nothing would thrill the neocons more than another 9-11 to juice up their Big Brother war machine... which might help explain why they really haven't done anything to reduce the odds. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
If you want to challenge an assertion, do it directly and specifically. Other wise, ad hominem offerings do nothing to substantiate your position. If you can illustrate why an assertion is not legit, do it. If not, you've done nothing of substance ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Bush is so full of crap. He is breaking the f-kin law with his spy tactics and is acting like it's no big deal. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
Bush is so full of crap. He is breaking the f-kin law with his spy tactics and is acting like it's no big deal. I respectfully submit that every US President has broken the law with some action or another and always acted like it was no big deal. Nixon still thinks that the Watergate breakin was 'no big deal'... and a large number of us consider Clinton's blowjob as 'no big deal'. This just in neocons: Your 911 juice has run out. We no longer give you a blank check to do whatever you want just because you keep repeating 911. ![]() My apologies for posting in such a rabidly partisan thread. The thread title misled me to believe that a philosophic argument might be encountered here. |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
With all due respect to a thread that isn't worthy to reply to... |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
|
Uh MM I don't mean to rain on your parade, and frankly do not really disagree with you here, but I do have two points to make. First Nixon assumed room tempurature a while back. I don't think he is thinking anything anymore. Second do you expect that the OP will know what a "cheque" is? As for a "cheque", I refuse to translate my prose into Americanese. Given the spellings I see used by people like sglaine here (amongst others), I'm sure some proper English won't upset too many people. ![]() Indeed, given the OP, what difference would it make if I posted poor English or not? |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
Okay, Nixon believed it up until he expired and his supporters still push it. ![]() Given the spellings I see used by people like sglaine here (amongst others), I'm sure some proper English won't upset too many people. ![]() As for the Nixon item. I don't even know of any Nixon supporters, although I am sure they are lurking about somewhere. |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
|
I resemble/resent that remark. In my defense however I would say that this is not a work document. Oh sure I could type this in word, do a spell check then copy and paste it here (hmm would that violate the rules against copy and paste jobs I wonder), but really what is the point. If this were a work document I would be a little more concerned about spelling. As long as the point is made does it really matter if I misspell a word here or there, or there, or there, well you get my point. But the general sentence structure, complexity of language and frequency and type of spelling errors is always indicative of education levels - not intelligence mind you, only education. ![]() As for Nixon-philes, I've run across a few conservative 'fans' of Nixon on other forums - some of them were otherwise quite rational too! ![]() And just to keep on topic, does the 'end' of quality communication justify the 'means' of thread-jacking? ![]() |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|