I want to hear a liberal say... [Archive]

View Full Version : I want to hear a liberal say...

Murphy

11-15-2005, 07:37 PM

I want to hear a liberal say that they'd rather have George W. Bush as their president than Saddam Hussein, I CHALLENGE THEM TO SAY IT I DARE THEM!

Oh, Gee!!

11-15-2005, 07:40 PM

Don't blame me, I voted for Kerry

mookie2001

11-15-2005, 07:49 PM

murphy i want you to say what the point of that question is

mookie2001

11-15-2005, 07:50 PM

if you want to prove that bush is better than saddam than congrats

rushmore here he comes

Guru of Nothing

11-15-2005, 08:11 PM

I want to hear a liberal say that they'd rather have George W. Bush as their president than Saddam Hussein, I CHALLENGE THEM TO SAY IT I DARE THEM!

That's like asking President Bush if he is happy that people like you support him.

Oh, Gee!!

11-15-2005, 08:17 PM

http://members.cox.net/alanzia/images/happy.jpg

exstatic

11-15-2005, 08:18 PM

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 11:03 PM

murphy i want you to say what the point of that question is

Who asked a question?

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 11:05 PM

Invades countries without cause:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Promotes the use of torture:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Used Abuh Graib for a prison and torture chamber:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Enriched himself by looting Iraq:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Despised as a bully by the world:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

I don't know if Bush is better, but he's at least as good.

My God! What the hell happened! Was the manure at Moonbat Cave the trigger to this pathetic post.

Guru of Nothing

11-15-2005, 11:09 PM

Who asked a question?

Who is on first, MORON.

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 11:15 PM

I want to hear a liberal say that they'd rather have George W. Bush as their president than Saddam Hussein, I CHALLENGE THEM TO SAY IT I DARE THEM!

^^Is that a question? I don't think he was asking, he was demanding. Do you and Mookie need a grammar course? Funny how one plants one Douchebait and miraculously catches two douchebags at the same time.

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 11:18 PM

Guru of Nothing...Australian for Sultan of Stupidity.

Ocotillo

11-15-2005, 11:22 PM

Will conservatives say.......they would rather have Hillary as their president than Saddam?

Guru of Nothing

11-15-2005, 11:24 PM

^^Is that a question? I don't think he was asking, he was demanding. Do you and Mookie need a grammar course? Funny how one plants one Douchebait and miraculously catches two douchebags at the same time.

Once upon a time, I thought democrats were the biggest joke on the block.

Then I met you ... then I met you.

gtownspur

11-15-2005, 11:57 PM

^^^"Then i met you.... then i met you....then i met you.....":lol you going crazy yet?

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 12:03 AM

Oh, and if Hillary vs Saddaam. I'd go Hillary. I'm not that kind of traitorous moonbat trash who would equate one to sadaam.

exstatic

11-16-2005, 08:21 AM

My God! What the hell happened! Was the manure at Moonbat Cave the trigger to this pathetic post.

Do you have anything to really add to this forum, chickenhawk, or are you just going to hang off of Yoni's nutsack, and be the second best name caller here?

The problem is that our society does not see freedom as worthy of dying for. I mean, i myself am not in the army and i feel guilty not serving. But if there were a draft i sure as hell wouldnt puss out. I respect our soldiers who have more guts and wewos than myself for having to protect us.

This gem can be found here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29046), unless he goes and edits it, which you'll know by the edit timestamp being later than this original post time.
:fro

JoeChalupa

11-16-2005, 08:31 AM

Invades countries without cause:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Promotes the use of torture:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Used Abuh Graib for a prison and torture chamber:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Enriched himself by looting Iraq:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Despised as a bully by the world:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

I don't know if Bush is better, but he's at least as good.

:lol

I'll say it......I'd rather have Bush as President than Saddam.

Thank God for term limits.

Extra Stout

11-16-2005, 09:22 AM

Invades countries without cause:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Promotes the use of torture:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Used Abuh Graib for a prison and torture chamber:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Enriched himself by looting Iraq:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

Despised as a bully by the world:
Saddam - check
Bush - check

I don't know if Bush is better, but he's at least as good.

Would have tortured and murdered your entire family in front of you before torturing and murdering you, for posting that:
Saddam - check
Bush - no

Were you trying to be funny, or do you really just not get it?

xrayzebra

11-16-2005, 10:30 AM

well that guy is one step below bush.

I WILL NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN IN THE NEXT TWO ELECTIONS.....the republicans indicted themselves when after reports of huge profit taking the oil companies dropped prices 30cents........................that means bush=war in iraq=constant chaos in mid-east=oil companies get rich.

FUCK REPUBLICANS...............they need to go. dumb ass bush. how can we let a retard run this country?

Well Flash, read the little article I am posting. Maybe you can learn a little
something about economics.

================================================== =======

Ignoring economics: Part II
By Thomas Sowell

Nov 16, 2005

A newspaper headline -- "Lawmakers Struggle to Define Gasoline Price 'Gouging'" -- shows how phony the current Congressional jihad against the oil companies is. "Price gouging" is one of those phrases that evoke strong emotions but have no definition.

Where particular states have passed laws against "price gouging," their different definitions reveal how slippery and arbitrary the concept is. Kansas attempts to define price gouging as selling at prices more than 25 percent higher than they were before some disaster. Georgia makes it illegal for prices to rise after the state government has declared a state of emergency, unless the seller can prove that his costs have gone up.

What all this boils down to is that prices higher than what observers are used to are called "gouging." In other words, prices under normal conditions are supposed to prevail under abnormal conditions. This completely misunderstands the role of prices.

Why do prices exist at all? To cause things to be produced and made available to the public -- and to cause consumers to limit how much they consume. Why then do prices suddenly shoot up? Because there is either less of a supply available or more of a demand, or both.

When hurricanes knocked out both oil drilling sites and refineries around the Gulf of Mexico, there was suddenly less supply of oil. That meant higher prices and higher profits.

What do higher prices do? Force people to restrain their own purchases more so than usual. What do higher profits do? Cause more money to be invested in producing whatever is earning higher profits, and this in turn expands output. Isn't a larger supply of oil and a reduced consumption of it what we want?

Whenever there have been sharp rises in gasoline prices, whether nationwide or locally in California, Senator Barbara Boxer has loudly demanded an investigation of the oil companies. These repeated investigations over the years have repeatedly failed to turn up anything other than supply and demand.

The real irony is that it has been precisely liberals like Barbara Boxer who have been the chief obstacles to increasing the supply of oil because they are dead set against drilling for oil in more places and against building more refineries.

When you refuse to let supply rise to meet rising demand, why should you be surprised -- much less outraged -- when prices rise?

Yet there was Senator Boxer on nationwide TV, decrying the high salaries of oil company executives, who are making perhaps half of what a number of baseball players make or a tenth of what movie stars make. The insinuation is that their salaries and oil company profits are what drive up gasoline prices. But there were no hard facts to back up either insinuation.

Given the enormous sums of money involved in the production of oil, even if all the oil company CEOs worked for nothing, there is no hard evidence that this would be enough to reduce the price of gasoline by even one cent per gallon. As for oil company profits -- representing "greed," as the Barbara Boxers call it -- these profits per gallon of gas are much less than federal taxes per gallon of gas. But the government is never called "greedy" by liberals.

These political circuses have a cost that can be even greater than the high cost of gasoline.

We went through all this before, back in the 1970s, when oil company executives were also hauled up before Congress and denounced on TV by politicians. Inflammatory but vague and unsubstantiated charges went flying hither and yon in the media.

This demonization of oil companies made it politically inconvenient to remove price controls on oil when other price controls from the Nixon administration years were repealed.

The net result was that the shortages which price controls produce disappeared for other things but remained for gasoline. Motorists had trouble finding gasoline and sometimes spent hours waiting in long lines at filling stations. This was the hidden cost of political demagoguery.

Anyone nostalgic for those days of waiting in gasoline lines, which sometimes reached around the block, can jump on the bandwagon for gasoline price controls or other laws to crack down on "Big Oil." Just be aware that there is a cost. There is no free lunch -- and no free demagoguery.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know if you were around in the 70's, but I was and it wasn't a funtime to travel. Gas was rationed by the station owners to around 5 gals, if they had it, to a person.

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 01:45 PM

I want to hear a liberal say that they'd rather have George W. Bush as their president than Saddam Hussein, I CHALLENGE THEM TO SAY IT I DARE THEM!

I don't think Hussein could be our president, even if he wanted to be. He's not a US citizen.
________
Wong Amat Tower Condos (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 01:48 PM

^^Somebody please tell little bobby w/o letting him down, that it's only make believe, and that sadaam will not run.

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 01:54 PM

^^Somebody please tell little bobby w/o letting him down, that it's only make believe, and that sadaam will not run.

Exactly.
________
Cheap Glass Pipes (http://glasspipes.net/)

Oh, Gee!!

11-16-2005, 01:55 PM

Exactly.

major ownage of pea-brain (err, body) by gtown

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 01:56 PM

^^Somebody please tell little bobby w/o letting him down, that it's only make believe, and that sadaam will not run.

By the way, who the hell is Bobby? :wtf
________
Zoloft Settlement News (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 03:23 PM

FromWayDowntown

11-16-2005, 03:31 PM

The premise of this thread is a joke, though, since nobody would ever be put to the choice presented.

You might as well ask if anyone would prefer Zarlakc the Lesser of Seti Alpha 12 over Saddam -- the point seems to be one of suggesting that Liberals who question the war in Iraq are inherently anti-American, which is a fallacious conclusion.

Asking if someone would choose the lesser of two perceived evils doesn't do anything to prove that their position is inferior or that they are unpatriotic. Any sensible person would pick George Bush over Saddam Hussein. I know I would. But it doesn't follow from that truth that any person who makes that choice thinks Bush is the best possible President for this nation or that Bush is somehow justified in prosecuting a war in Iraq. It just proves that any sensible person would prefer a man who plays by democratic principles over a dictator.

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 03:37 PM

^a joke. You were taking this thread too seriously. you were arguing on the technicalities of wether sadaam could be president. You misunderstood the point and you went above and beyond. I hope you were kidding. Its hard to tell sometimes.

Did I take this thread too seriously or did you take my post too seriously? Think about it.
________
Head Shop (http://headshop.net/)

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 03:52 PM

I never take you seriously. your a joke. and thus i was joking about you.

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 03:55 PM

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 03:56 PM

I never take you seriously. your a joke. and thus i was joking about you.

Ouch. Stand down my good man. Stand down.
________
VanessaVipSquirt (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/VanessaVipSquirt)

Oh, Gee!!

11-16-2005, 03:57 PM

Did you just skip the Exstatic post? He took it way too seriously. the Thread originator was just trying to prove how wacky some posters are in this forum. THis forum was about sadaam and bush. Oh gee and P-booty have made this thread even sillier. But i guess they have to follow me wherever i go.

P-booty :lol :lol :lol

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 03:58 PM

P-booty :lol :lol :lol

It's gold, Jerry!
________
Web shows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 04:06 PM

Honestly PB do you really think GW is worse than Sadaam??

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 04:14 PM

Honestly PB do you really think GW is worse than Sadaam??

I don't think he's worse.

However, if we have to resort to comparing Bush to a brutal tyrant in order to get a favorable response, what does that really say about Bush?

spurster

11-16-2005, 04:19 PM

I'd rather have George W. Bush as my president than Pat Robinson.

Oh, Gee!!

11-16-2005, 04:40 PM

I'd be curious to see who the Iraqis would choose.

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 04:43 PM

I'd be curious to see who the Iraqis would choose.

Do the Iraqis have the same rules requiring Iraqi citizenship before becoming the leader of the country?

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 04:44 PM

^^Peabody.. he was joking. Quit being all technical.

gtownspur

11-16-2005, 04:44 PM

or maybe he's not. Which is even more sadder.

Oh, Gee!!

11-16-2005, 04:44 PM

Do the Iraqis have the same rules requiring Iraqi citizenship before becoming the leader of the country?

I think you can just invade the country and set up shop if you have the army.

Mr. Peabody

11-16-2005, 05:13 PM

I think you can just invade the country and set up shop if you have the army.

It's not "invading the country" :nope it's "spreading democracy" :)

http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco2/images/Starit-5f06.jpg

gtownspur

11-17-2005, 12:36 AM

That's right we should of never invaded Normandy and thus liberated france. after all it was hitler's country and he was their ruler.

DarkReign

11-17-2005, 10:01 AM

That's right we should of never invaded Normandy and thus liberated france. after all it was hitler's country and he was their ruler.

Waaaaaaait a second......where have I heard this before?

spvrs

11-17-2005, 11:22 AM

wow... you've found one of the .00000001% of the worlds population that probably would be a worse president than GW.

Then again if GW could have gotten away with the things Sadam did maybe it would have been a toss up

gtownspur

11-17-2005, 06:18 PM

I think you can just invade the country and set up shop if you have the army.

I'm sorry DR if i cant provide you with fresh material, but my overused comment was followed after this badly used comment.

He was speaking in general terms and i awnsered him in general terms.

Surely your bogus nonpartisan facade would have picked that up.

RandomGuy

11-17-2005, 10:59 PM

OK.

Bush is a better president than Saddam.

Bush is a better president than Pol Pot.

Bush is a better president than Robert Mugabe.

Bush is a better president than Edi Amin.

Not that any of that means much.

"George Bush, NOT a psychopathic waste of skin."

How about a conservative admitting that GW is not a very good president to begin with?

RandomGuy

11-17-2005, 11:11 PM

^yeah right

yet another Liberal who is scared of leadership!

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/VACATION_KING.jpg

gtownspur

11-17-2005, 11:54 PM

^^You certainly have clinton man jam all over your eyes to say that bush takes the most vacations. LEst we forget the Clinton yrs.

This coming from the same guy who believes that the only atrocities ever committed by a democrat administration was to handle vietnam.

JoeChalupa

11-18-2005, 01:57 PM

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/VACATION_KING.jpg

Brahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :lol Whoooooo.

George Gervin's Afro

11-18-2005, 02:03 PM

why don't we just give dumbya to iraq? say for a player to be named later and a bag of potatoes?..well i would settle for a player to be named later..

mookie2001

11-18-2005, 02:09 PM

^ I like the cut of your jib

Mr. Peabody

11-18-2005, 02:15 PM

why don't we just give dumbya to iraq? say for a player to be named later and a bag of potatoes?..well i would settle for a player to be named later..

Could the Spurs get dubya for Rasho? The president's in good shape, has a low salary (by NBA standards) and it'd be nice if we could get something for Rasho.

George Gervin's Afro

11-18-2005, 02:56 PM

Could the Spurs get dubya for Rasho? The president's in good shape, has a low salary (by NBA standards) and it'd be nice if we could get something for Rasho.

no rasho is character guy..Pop prefers that..

gtownspur

11-18-2005, 09:31 PM

why don't we just give dumbya to iraq? say for a player to be named later and a bag of potatoes?..well i would settle for a player to be named later..

i like your suggestion too. But i believe we should ship all the extreme loony like liberals like yourself to Iraq instead. There they don't have to worry about the evil christian right, and maybe their progressive ideas would be appreciated by the "ALLAh AKbar!" crowd. It would be a great idea. mind i say it be the "bomb". We'll be here to take advantage of the booming economy, and everyone of you could take advantage of the booming C4 explosives.<sarcasm>

gtownspur

11-18-2005, 09:36 PM

^ I like the cut of your jib While we're at that we should invade south africa and kill whitey, plant opium and make Luxemberg pay for South africa's debt and universal healthcare.

After that we should take israel and give it back to the oppressed palestinians.The jews should then be wiped from da earrf! boo, and we'll apoint Farra-Genghis-khan president of the United State of Socialist Palestine.
Kampf is Mein, Free Palestine, Kampf is Mein, Free Palestine. :rolleyes