General discussion



By maxwell edison ·

Okay all you "Bush Lied" liars. Prove it and win the $500 reward. Otherwise, stop repeating your own lies.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

26 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by Gryfon In reply to $500 REWARD

I thought this site was for technical information, not an American Presidential debate forum. It gets really boring for us non-americans to have to keep wading through this crap all the time.

Max, ALL politicians are liars. Get used to it.

Collapse -


by Oz_Media In reply to Hmm...

When you go to the Discussions HOME PAGE, just click the topic of choice.

Then you won't feel complled to reply to off-topic discussions from the Miscellaneous Discussion group (which incedentally is EXACTLY where this post belongs and was most likely posted to).

There is a filter on the site for people such as yourself who choose to only discuss IT, in fact SPECIFIC IT topics can be selected.

This is a NEW Discussion, but the filter will clean up the results for you to browse at your leisure.


Collapse -

Ah, okay

by Gryfon In reply to Gryton

So this technical forum does support off-topic postings? I find that so odd.

Anyways, I was looking through the NEW postings to see if there was a topic I could help with, and had to wade through so many US Election ones I was getting a little annoyed. Excuse my frustration.

Enjoy your politician-bashing! :-D

ps, they're all liars

Collapse -

Yes they all lie, if you were looking to HELP someone...

by Oz_Media In reply to Ah, okay

Yuo should visit the sites Technical Q&A section, you will gt awarded points by the question poster if it helps. There are TONNES of people you can help with issues and it's great practice to keep you sharp. This section is just dicsussions, not so much questions.

No need to get frustrated, ALL technical Q&A's are absent of politics! :)

Have fun with it.

Collapse -

I've looked

by Gryfon In reply to Yes they all lie, if you ...

Most things in there are either miles over my head, stuff I'm not interested in, or are too difficult to explain in text and would be easier dealt with in the repair shop. I've also found a lot of the folks who post questions don't give enough detail or explain what they mean adequately enough to help with a diagnosis.

I'll keep trying, and thanks you both for being polite and friendly when you could've been mean (as many boards can end up being).


Collapse -

NO prob

by Oz_Media In reply to I've looked

Tech Q&A has good days and bad days. They have been making lots of upgrades here lately, edit feature, better searching and discusison tracking etc. It's a farily proactive site and is always getting better I find.

Lots of flames, I have been on both ends of that spectrum many times, but for the most part a fairly good bunch and a TONNE of knowledge on tap!

Collapse -

Hey Gryfon

by maxwell edison In reply to Ah, okay

You're right, these political discussions are getting to be rather tiresome, and especially redundant - even for a regular contributor such as myself. But we affectionately call these kinds of discussions "water-cooler" talk. You know, you need a break from the Microsoft security patches, the new virus that snuck in, the I don't remember which RAM to use, and so on.

But wait till after the election, the one GWB will win 338 to 200, and they will, most likely, be fewer to deal with.

Hey, welcome to TechRepublic. This is an absolutely fantastic Technical site. Don't let the tangents give you a false impression.

Collapse -

Water Cooler discussions

by Gryfon In reply to Hey Gryfon

I try to avoid those as my views are so different from most folks' they just don't know what to do with themselves. There's those odd silences, shuffling of feet, then they change the subject to something more comfortable that doesn't challenge their current status-quo or way of viewing the world.


Anyways, what do you find to be the most interesting technical discussions on the board currently?


Collapse -

Intelligent IT people in here

I have investigated many of the threads in here, and have found some great technicians with a lot of good ideas - KEEP THEM COMING!

And,like most of us, I LOVE taking a break and entering a thread with which I can 'purge my mind' and 'take a break', and have some fun - sometimes it even resorts to political humor...

I find it stimulating, and refreshing. (After all, most of us do our work, day after day, without receiving much notoriety.)

I offer the following email I received tonight and hope it gets a laugh from some of you overworked, underappreciated IT guys like me:
BTW, no offense to the Irish, since I am Irish LOL
Shamus and Murphy fancied a pint or two but didn't have a lot of money between them, they could only raise the staggering sum of 50 pence.

Murphy said, "Hang on, I have an idea."

He went next door to the butcher's shop and came out with one large sausage.

Shamus said, "Are you crazy? Now we don't have any money left at all."

Murphy replied, "Don't worry - just follow me."

He went into the pub where he immediately ordered two pints of Guinness and two glasses of Jamieson whisky.

Shamus said, "Now you've lost it. Do you know how much trouble we will be in? We haven't got any money!!"

Murphy replied with a smile, "Don't worry, I have a plan. Cheers!" They downed their drinks.

Murphy said, "OK, I'll stick the sausage through my zipper and you go on your knees and put it in your mouth."

The barman noticed them, went berserk and threw them out.

They continued this, pub after pub, getting more and more drunk all for free.

At the tenth pub, Shamus said, "Murphy, me knees are killin' me, I don't think I can do any more o'this.!"

Murphy said, "How do you think I feel? I lost the sausage in the third pub."

Collapse -

good one Max

by Oz_Media In reply to $500 REWARD

First of all, I think that is has been made clear to everyone here that Bush didn't say 'imminent' himself.

The threat he IMPLIED was much mroe than imminent though, it was an emergency, just look at how your fellow citizens ran around for almost a year saying how they are only protecting thier country and families from this man who MOST DEFINITELY has WMD.

Actually, the guy who WROTE that speech was on TV last week, speaking out against his required duties. He wrote it without ever meeting Bush, or meeting WITH him about the speech.
He says he was told to write what he THOUGHT Bush MAY say, based on his character and faith.

what it ended up as was a well written, evasive speech full of predetermined conclusions based on implication. It was clever and much better than Bush could hae EVER done by himself, for just such an occasion.

Out of Africa- another great play on words truly in political BS style! Although some buy it, others se it as a pretty weak speech.
GWB had ordered a CIA oprative to investigate the POSSIBILTY that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa. The agent returned to say there was no possible way or link that he could find and the information could not be confirmed and he highly doubted by conferring with various members of Saddam's regime that it was at all possible. This was ALL left out of GWB's speech, by the SAME speechwrier, who claims he was told NOT to mention the CIA ivestigations and to just explain that it was from British intelligence. Again, at this point the speechwriter had neither met nor conferred with Bush on his thoughts, it was a predertimined outcome again.

Fair enough though, Bush did say it was British intelligence, but why omit alternate PROOF when speaking of it?

Holding BACK information from the people is JUST as bad as telling them the wrong information.

PLUS, in light of the speech implying that there was a grave danger that must be stopped before it atacked America, this just fanned the fire a little more in people and made them even more confused and angry, especially so soon after 9/11, and with the constant question of the links betwen the two.

Mission Accomplished: I agree wholly on this one, the war contains MANY missions and while some are unsucessful, others are very successful. Therefore, upon completeing 'A' mission, a mission accomplished banner was flown on the carrier.
Unfortunately, it was never explained at THAT time WHY Mission Accomplished was being displayed on international TV channels around the world, with the press and his photo op.

Again, IMPLICATIONS from a man who is supposed to be VERY clear in his goals and objectives at least to his own citizens. The way it was played out DID imply he figured it was a done deal. Wasn't it RICE who even said under oath that Bush looked very smug in the oval office one day and said something very similar to "casualties? We won't have any casualties" When discussing the Iraqi invasion?

He wants to imply success because he can hear and see the doubt in people, when your own people doubt your actions, you must be somewhat cunning and sly in your speeches so as to imply but not be quoted.

WMD- The entire nation, make that entire world, INCLUDING REPUBLICANS ALL OVER AMERICA, KNEW Saddam had WMD.

They also knew Saddam was a grave danger and a threat to thir lives. I think the world will automatically put two and two together and WHO's responsibility is it to ensure that people do NOT get the wrong impression? GWB.

Who went on international TV to clear up the misunderstanding due to these two topics being discussed nearly at the same time and thus creating such a fright in America? Nobody.

Who failed to inform his people and ensure they were clear on these events? GWB.

Who is responsible? Bush.

Who failed his people? Bush.

Who made the speeches? Bush.

Who corrected the micommunication and simple misunderstanding? NOBODY.

Who SHOULD have placed his people at ease and explained that while Saddam is a threat to the world, he is not a DIRECT or IMMINENT threat to America at this time? Bush, even though allies had said just that and decided it was the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." (had to quote Kerry on that one).
Who did? Nobody

For questioning Bush's dire need to instantly remove weapons inspectors and invade Iraq on the premise that Weapons inspections were not going successfully, his allies were called every name under the sun and chastized for not rushing to your side.

At this point Americans STILL thought Saddam was an imminent threat and would use WMD on the USA.
Bush had STILL not cleared up the mass hysteria forming within his own country.

Bush did not live up to his expectations nor his duty as president to ensure that his citizens are well informed of the country's actions.
Now if it was ONLY Democrats who thought these things, then I would be somewhat skeptical. But in actuality, it was MAINLY Republicans who were defending the right for America to rid this man of WMD and protect thier families from attack. So even those who follow GWB 'religiously', were mislead, misinformed or simply let down by thier president's inability to tell the news as it was.

As for the $500.00, judging by the page provided and the shown intellect of the person who wrote it.

I would also say that this same person ALSO believed in WMD and imminent threats until he needed to defend against it as an accusation against his own beliefs or in order to defend GWB, just as many have done. It's not clever, it's obvious, or else the person hasn't actually realized his flip-lop himself.

It's a Republican flip-flop. They won't mention how they also believed it and were completely fooled by the wording and even went as far as to sew it repeatedly as a reason to justify the war. They will just use it against people who claim Bush lied by letting them down and misinforming them.

I would be shocked as ****, if this guy actually doled out $500.00 if he was proven wrong anyway (that's if he can muster $500.00).
He has done exactly what many Republicans have, taken a minor issue and dwelled on the wording and not the intent of it.

The Republican angle is not hard to see, it is very much like legal speak, carefully worded statements that imply doom if they are not heeded yet remove blame of implication from the speaker. This is a way of having leading questions admissible in court, without actuallly leading the question.

In the same respect I see some radical lefties that are no different in thier implications either.

This page hardly proves or explains anything though, other than Bush's speechwriter was able to imply without implicating the president, this is comletely rhetorical at this point in time.

Say what you will Max, I don't buy it and I certainly doubt many other people do.

Bush let down America, he withheld infomation and didn't clear up any OBVIOUS questions and misunderstandings that US citizens and most other people in the world had.

now this in itself deems him unworthy as a leader, if he has a communication issue, how can he possibly lead 300 million people and consult a global community? He can't and shouldn't be allowed to.

but the repubs can giggle all the way to the toll booths and reelect this nutbag if they want, just don't expect your country to be much when he's done with using you.

Back to Community Forum
26 total posts (Page 1 of 3)   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums