Ladies and Gentalmen, the hilarious George W. Bush!

[kallend 2,118]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I even went to the dictionary before I asked and tried to find something similar, but couldn't.

That astounds me.

• The only possible pronounciation of the misspelled word ("devignly") according to English rules is EXACTLY the same as the pronounciation of the word it was meant to be: "divinely".
  
• If you type it into dictionary.com, the second suggestion is "divinely".
  
• In my email program, the fourth suggestion is "divinely". The earlier suggestions don't pronounce similarly.
  
• And in my only remaining printed dictionary, the very large "New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, 1989 edition", the place where "devignly" WOULD appear is only two entries away from "divine" which you'd think might give a person of "above average IQ" a decent clue.
  

I'd call it obvious.

Thank you for all the research. Amazing how far people will go to feel superior.

Oh - the irony.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Bergen-Belsen

actually, wearing an identifying mark, located in camps, no showers sounds like most weekends at the DZ

perhaps there is a conspiracy I'm missing here

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I even went to the dictionary before I asked and tried to find something similar, but couldn't.

That astounds me.

• The only possible pronounciation of the misspelled word ("devignly") according to English rules is EXACTLY the same as the pronounciation of the word it was meant to be: "divinely".
  
• If you type it into dictionary.com, the second suggestion is "divinely".
  
• In my email program, the fourth suggestion is "divinely". The earlier suggestions don't pronounce similarly.
  
• And in my only remaining printed dictionary, the very large "New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary, 1989 edition", the place where "devignly" WOULD appear is only two entries away from "divine" which you'd think might give a person of "above average IQ" a decent clue.
  

I'd call it obvious.

Thank you for all the research. Amazing how far people will go to feel superior.

Oh - the irony.

Is there anyone you haven't said this to this week? I do find it less annoying than "Bush Lied."

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

actually, wearing an identifying mark, located in camps, no showers sounds like most weekends at the DZ

Uhmm, the showers weren't for cleaning...well not that type of cleaning...

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Exactly and they waited until a Republican was in office so that they knew their plan would actually work.

Uh thats just crap. The left claims that the right are taking away rights. It would be much easier to attack with a left in office according to that logic.

Plus the WTC 93, USS Cole, Beruit...ect all happend on a Dems watch. So that just shoots your bit to hell.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

pretty scary when right wingers are so caught up in defending their man that they don't recognize bullshit when they read it.....mind you with all the bullshit being floated by your government that may not be a giant surprise....

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Beruit...

BZZZT does not compute... non-sequitur.......Beruit Marine Corp bombing......Ronnie RAYGUN a Democrat....BZZZT http://www.terrorism-victims.org/terrorists/beirut-marine-barracks.html

beirut embassy bombing (april 18, 1983):
Sixty-three people, including the CIA's Middle East director, were killed, and 120 were injured in a 400-pound suicide truck-bomb attack on the U.S. embassy in beirut, lebanon. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Bombing of marine barracks, Beirut, October 23, 1983: Simultaneous suicide truck-bomb attacks were made on American and French compounds in Beirut, Lebanon. A 12,000-pound bomb destroyed the U.S. compound, killing 242 Americans, while 58 French troops were killed when a 400-pound device destroyed a French base. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

BZZZT does not compute... non-sequitur.......Beruit Marine Corp bombing......Ronnie RAYGUN a Democrat....

Sorry I was 10 I think. Anyway please explain WTC 93 and USS cole...Or can you?

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

pretty scary when right wingers are so caught up in defending their man that they don't recognize bullshit when they read it.....mind you with all the bullshit being floated by your government that may not be a giant surprise....

Sir you are the one making BS claims. How about you answer them instead of rant?

WTC 93 and USS cole. Who was in office then? And what proof do you have that they waited for Bush to come into office?

Or are you hot air and no substance?

[Royd 0]

Quote

That's NOT concern for the environment. That's promoting Nuclear Power. WHY is he suddenly looking for an excuse to promote Nuclear Power? Not renewables. Not wind, wave or solar. Nuclear.

Do we have to go down this road again. One of the most consistent sources of wind power is off the Mass. coast. Fat face Kennedy was screaming,"Not in my back yard." What a bunch of hypocrites.
Nuclear is clean and the technology is being improved upon everyday. All you can do is scream,"Three Mile Island."

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

That's NOT concern for the environment. That's promoting Nuclear Power. WHY is he suddenly looking for an excuse to promote Nuclear Power? Not renewables. Not wind, wave or solar. Nuclear.

Do we have to go down this road again. One of the most consistent sources of wind power is off the Mass. coast. Fat face Kennedy was screaming,"Not in my back yard." What a bunch of hypocrites.
Nuclear is clean and the technology is being improved upon everyday. All you can do is scream,"Three Mile Island."

Err... Did you read my post on page 3 of this thread?

I'm not shouting "Three-Mile-Island" or "Chernobyl". Nuclear power is every bit as finite as oil. It only doesn't look finite because we haven't started to seriously use it yet. It's just another poison which we drag out of the earth, refine into something REALLY dangerous, and then wonder what to do with the waste products. The answer is to once again leave the problem to our descendents.

Given that we MUST seek new sources of energy, isn't it more sensible to work on the "sustainables" and Bio-Fuels rather than simply selecting a new & shiny poison to chase, fight over, and dig up?

Given that the foundation of our society is transport, how will Nuclear power move all the trucks, trains, ships & planes involved in delivering our food & goods from where it's made to where we buy it? Will we expect nuclear powered cars? Trucks? Planes? Trains? Ships? Will they never crash?

The answer MUST be in bio fuels and sustainables like wind, wave, tide & direct solar power.

Mike.

PS: Incidentally, how does your absolute promotion of nuclear power square with your hatred of Iranian research into it?

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

BZZZT does not compute... non-sequitur.......Beruit Marine Corp bombing......Ronnie RAYGUN a Democrat....

Sorry I was 10 I think. Anyway please explain WTC 93 and USS cole...Or can you?

93 WTC occurred 4 weeks after Clinton took office... must be his fault. USS Cole was retaliated against in a 1/2 way, but Clinton could have chosen to be in this mess but instead decided to not murder the debt and 2500 of our own.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

His joke about "take off your sunglasses; it's not that bright in here" to a blind reporter was funnier.

Didn't he ask a wheelchair-bound man why he didn't have the courtesy to stand while speaking? Don't forget him waving to the blind black singer..... brain fart, what's his name.....

[billvon 3,090]

>Given that the foundation of our society is transport, how will Nuclear power
>move all the trucks, trains, ships & planes involved in delivering our food
>& goods from where it's made to where we buy it?

HTGR reactors used to drive thermal dissociation of water to create hydrogen; then the Sabatier reaction to create methane from atmospheric CO2 and water. Methane = natural gas.

> Will we expect nuclear powered cars? Trucks? Planes? Trains? Ships?
> Will they never crash?

Electric and methane powered cars/trucks/trains/ships. Heck, we have electric trains now; some countries move most of their goods on electric trains. We already have methane powered ships and cars.

I agree that nuclear power isn't ideal. At best it's better than fossil fuels and can serve as an intermediate step as we get cleaner/more efficient/more sustainable solution. But we do need energy from somewhere, and pure renewables will not fit the bill for decades at least.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The answer MUST be in bio fuels and sustainables like wind, wave, tide & direct solar power.

I'm actually in agreement with you on this, but it must be done in the private sector.
As long as it takes more energy to produce biofuel than you actually make, it won't happen on a massive scale.
If you chose to actually take on such a task, the radical environmentalists would do every thing that they could to stand in your way.

Mike.

Quote

PS: Incidentally, how does your absolute promotion of nuclear power square with your hatred of Iranian research into it?

I've not said anything about Iran, but since you ask; when you have radical Islamist who acts like a nutcase, I surely wouldn't trust him to just produce electricity.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

93 WTC occurred 4 weeks after Clinton took office... must be his fault.

See the difference is *I* am not claiming it was Clintons fault. But others are claiming that the terrorists choose to attack when Bush was in office. I think thats just stupid, and it seems like you think it might be as well. However, you can't say that without trying to drag a Bush bash into the discussion.

Quote

USS Cole was retaliated against in a 1/2 way, but Clinton could have chosen to be in this mess but instead decided to not murder the debt and 2500 of our own.

If Clinton had done something maybe 3,000 people would not have had to die in WTC 01.

So what would YOU have done in Bush's shoes? Ignored it like Clinton, or something else?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

93 WTC occurred 4 weeks after Clinton took office... must be his fault.

See the difference is *I* am not claiming it was Clintons fault. But others are claiming that the terrorists choose to attack when Bush was in office. I think thats just stupid, and it seems like you think it might be as well. However, you can't say that without trying to drag a Bush bash into the discussion.

Quote

USS Cole was retaliated against in a 1/2 way, but Clinton could have chosen to be in this mess but instead decided to not murder the debt and 2500 of our own.

If Clinton had done something maybe 3,000 people would not have had to die in WTC 01.

So what would YOU have done in Bush's shoes? Ignored it like Clinton, or something else?

I agree that terrorists don't usually care who is in office. I recall the idiotic chants of the 1980 Iranian hostage crisis. I don't think they waited for Bush, I think they were just so unorganized that it took them 8 years from the 1st WTC attack to figure out 9/11.

As for the Cole, that's pure specualtion. What isn't speculation is that if we spend 1 billion per week in Iraq and how much domestically????, we will be w/o arabic terrorism but our dollar will fall as it has. SO they win. One strategy to beating an opponent in war is to ruin their dollar by influx of counterfeit money. In this case if we overspend long enough we will be in the same situation and they will have won.

The only way to have peace is to initiate peace. We should say fuck Israel and get out. The Arabs will go away with victory and focus on Israel and each other.

In Bush's shoes I would have focused on finding OBL and AQ and creating peace with all enemies.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sir you are the one making BS claims. How about you answer them instead of rant?

WOW, it still flew over your head.

If you read back to the original exchange of posts there you will see some trollish posts by unformed. I went along with him and posted more bull shit.

Off course they didn't wait for Bush to get in office. Off course it isn't directly Bush's fault that 9/11 happened. Nor is it directly Clinton's fault.

hence, my comment that it is scary that many don't recognize clear bull shit when they read it. You just went on to further prove that point....

[GQ_jumper 4]

Exactly and they waited until a Republican was in office so that they knew their plan would actually work.

Quote

just so you know there were more terrorist attacks on US assets during Clintons time in office than any other pres. in history. and what ever did you see your wonderful democrat do in response? those attacks were easily brushed off because most of the casualties were soldiers, and as everyone knows us soldiers are expendable and it doesn't matter when we die. so Clinton just used a little slick talkin to get past it and not look bad.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[quade 4]

Quote

. . . those attacks were easily brushed off because most of the casualties were soldiers, and as everyone knows us soldiers are expendable and it doesn't matter when we die. so Clinton just used a little slick talkin to get past it and not look bad.

As opposed to what is happening now . . .

Lemme see . . . soldiers killed and maimed . . . slick excuses to make it look not so bad . . . hmmm.

WAIT there IS a difference.

In the first case the President himself didn't put the soldiers at risk.
In the second case, the President is totally responsible for placing the soldiers in harm's way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ltdiver 3]

So would we rather have it brushed under the rug or come out with fists swinging?

Either way the terrorists are there. Should they be ignored or stood up against?

Not a political statement, but a legitimate question.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

So would we rather have it brushed under the rug or come out with fists swinging?

Either way the terrorists are there. Should they be ignored or stood up against?

Not a political statement, but a legitimate question.

ltdiver

They should be exterminated, and a bounty should be placed on all their heads, and let the entire worlds population in on the hunt, then see how long they live exist after that.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

just so you know there were more terrorist attacks on US assets during Clintons time in office than any other pres. in history. and what ever did you see your wonderful democrat do in response? those attacks were easily brushed off because most of the casualties were soldiers, and as everyone knows us soldiers are expendable and it doesn't matter when we die. so Clinton just used a little slick talkin to get past it and not look bad.

1. read the posts above regarding the statement
2. How many American civilians died from terrorists attacks under Clinton and under Bush?
3. How many American soldiers died under Clinton and how many under Bush?

Does Bush just make you feel better cause you got to kill more?

[billvon 3,090]

>They should be exterminated, and a bounty should be placed on
>all their heads, and let the entire worlds population in on the hunt,
>then see how long they live exist after that.

That's what's happening now. So the problem's solved, is it?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

That's what's happening now. So the problem's solved, is it?

Well it was working that way.. UNTIL.... Bush and Company decided to go off half cocked with the PNAC agenda and piss off the whole world with Unilateralism.

Wanna bet there are many countries that will do absolutely nothing to help the US in its goals.. after GeorgieBoy has pissed off/ scared so much of the world away from all the good will they were giving us after 9/11.