I have an intense dislike of George W Bush.
- Thread starter Msut77
- Start date
Administration Repeatedly Hid True Cost of Medicare Package
Medicare Chief Tom Scully Threatened to Fire Top Actuary if He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservative Republican allies.
Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted it had underestimated the cost by $135 billion, or 35 percent of the cost. At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But Scully and White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger were well aware of the higher estimates.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster was threatened with his job if he told Congress the true cost. "We can't let that out," Foster recalls Scully telling him. Scully was quoted in June 2003 as saying that he would only release the analysis "if I feel like it." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03]
Dont get me started on Iraq.
Technically, the sky isn't blue. It appears to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. The sky actually is composed of colorless gases, water-droplets and dust particles.
Learned that when I was 8 years old, what did you do google that?
Medicare Chief Tom Scully Threatened to Fire Top Actuary if He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservative Republican allies.
Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted it had underestimated the cost by $135 billion, or 35 percent of the cost. At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But Scully and White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger were well aware of the higher estimates.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster was threatened with his job if he told Congress the true cost. "We can't let that out," Foster recalls Scully telling him. Scully was quoted in June 2003 as saying that he would only release the analysis "if I feel like it." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03]
Dont get me started on Iraq.
Technically, the sky isn't blue. It appears to be blue due to Rayleigh scattering. The sky actually is composed of colorless gases, water-droplets and dust particles.
Learned that when I was 8 years old, what did you do google that?
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
Administration Repeatedly Hid True Cost of Medicare Package
Medicare Chief Tom Scully Threatened to Fire Top Actuary if He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservative Republican allies.
Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted it had underestimated the cost by $135 billion, or 35 percent of the cost. At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But Scully and White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger were well aware of the higher estimates.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster was threatened with his job if he told Congress the true cost. "We can't let that out," Foster recalls Scully telling him. Scully was quoted in June 2003 as saying that he would only release the analysis "if I feel like it." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03]
Dont get me started on Iraq.
Seperated from what you are trying to say, this loses all impact.
Anyone can hit google and find some support for some argument, given enough time. You missed the oportunity to actually validate your points by waiting so long to back them up, and actually having to be called on it before you provided anything at all to back up your opinion.
There's plenty of data existing to smear just about any public offical out there... unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption. Isolated instances don't go a long way to establishing that.
If you're going to call a man a liar, that's what you have to prove... not just show one instance where something looks less than truthful.
I mean, it's documented that Clinton lied under oath. That's fact.
Unless you can prove that Bush intentionally lied, you're going to have a hard time proving one of your orginal statements. For all you know, Bush could have been intentionally mislead by members of his cabinet, etc.
Learned that when I was 8 years old, what did you do google that?
Yet you still don't grasp the idea that more exists to a situation/phenomena that what you see. Looking things from the most simplistic point of view rarely works.
Medicare Chief Tom Scully Threatened to Fire Top Actuary if He Revealed True Cost of the Drug Plan. The Bush Administration relied upon the drug benefit's $400 billion price tag to win over skeptical conservative Republican allies.
Within weeks of the bill's passage, the White House admitted it had underestimated the cost by $135 billion, or 35 percent of the cost. At the time, Bush claimed he had first learned of the estimate in early January 2004 based on calculations from the Medicare actuaries. But Scully and White House Senior Health Policy advisor Doug Badger were well aware of the higher estimates.
Medicare chief actuary Richard Foster was threatened with his job if he told Congress the true cost. "We can't let that out," Foster recalls Scully telling him. Scully was quoted in June 2003 as saying that he would only release the analysis "if I feel like it." [Boston Globe, 1/30/04; LA Times, 1/31/04; New York Times, 3/14/04; Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04; AP, 6/26/03]
Dont get me started on Iraq.
Seperated from what you are trying to say, this loses all impact.
Anyone can hit google and find some support for some argument, given enough time. You missed the oportunity to actually validate your points by waiting so long to back them up, and actually having to be called on it before you provided anything at all to back up your opinion.
There's plenty of data existing to smear just about any public offical out there... unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption. Isolated instances don't go a long way to establishing that.
If you're going to call a man a liar, that's what you have to prove... not just show one instance where something looks less than truthful.
I mean, it's documented that Clinton lied under oath. That's fact.
Unless you can prove that Bush intentionally lied, you're going to have a hard time proving one of your orginal statements. For all you know, Bush could have been intentionally mislead by members of his cabinet, etc.
Learned that when I was 8 years old, what did you do google that?
Yet you still don't grasp the idea that more exists to a situation/phenomena that what you see. Looking things from the most simplistic point of view rarely works.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL @ YOU.
I didnt provide proof because I thought everyone with more than one brain cell knew about it. Im sorry if you didnt after you asked I provided proof. What more do you want?
unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption.
I can want to continue?
I didnt provide proof because I thought everyone with more than one brain cell knew about it. Im sorry if you didnt after you asked I provided proof. What more do you want?
unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption.
I can want to continue?
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL @ YOU.
Traditional ad hominem attack. Shows a distinct lack of class and tact.
Also hints towards a concern about the weakness of one's on premises.
I didnt provide proof because I thought everyone with more than one brain cell knew about it.
Another ad hominem attack. You're not doing yourself any favors by conducting yourself in such a manner. You're begining to look rather childish.
Im sorry if you didnt after you asked I provided proof.
You're really not helping yourself with comments like this.
Juvenille behavior doesn't go over very well. Tact and decorum are rather highly prized around here. Behaving in this manner will make you a laughing stock if you insist on continuing in this fashion.
What more do you want?
Justification for your beliefs. Harboring a severe dislike for a person and calling them a liar takes more than just a few single piece of data that don't go toward proving the same point nor properly proving your intial claims.
unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption.
I can want to continue?
Considering what you've posted so far, that's doubtful.
You assume a greater value of the information that you provide than actually exists.
Traditional ad hominem attack. Shows a distinct lack of class and tact.
Also hints towards a concern about the weakness of one's on premises.
I didnt provide proof because I thought everyone with more than one brain cell knew about it.
Another ad hominem attack. You're not doing yourself any favors by conducting yourself in such a manner. You're begining to look rather childish.
Im sorry if you didnt after you asked I provided proof.
You're really not helping yourself with comments like this.
Juvenille behavior doesn't go over very well. Tact and decorum are rather highly prized around here. Behaving in this manner will make you a laughing stock if you insist on continuing in this fashion.
What more do you want?
Justification for your beliefs. Harboring a severe dislike for a person and calling them a liar takes more than just a few single piece of data that don't go toward proving the same point nor properly proving your intial claims.
unless you can establish a clear pattern of obvious deception and corruption.
I can want to continue?
Considering what you've posted so far, that's doubtful.
You assume a greater value of the information that you provide than actually exists.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
This is going into my little list of all time dumbest most inane things ever said.
Ever heard of the saying "too little, to late"? That clearly applies.
You through out some brash claims in your original post.
The fact that you waited until called on it (much, much later) to bother to even establish a basis for it doesn't help your credibility.
Actually maybe this is just your way of deflecting the truth.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it truth.
Considering that I have no great love nor hatred of the sitting president, my opinions are much less open to attack on the basis of bias.
Your posts reek of a particular bias, and it's yet another thing that strains your credibility.
Ever heard of the saying "too little, to late"? That clearly applies.
You through out some brash claims in your original post.
The fact that you waited until called on it (much, much later) to bother to even establish a basis for it doesn't help your credibility.
Actually maybe this is just your way of deflecting the truth.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it truth.
Considering that I have no great love nor hatred of the sitting president, my opinions are much less open to attack on the basis of bias.
Your posts reek of a particular bias, and it's yet another thing that strains your credibility.
[quote name='Msut77']No offesne but would you need me to post a link to something like the sky is blue?
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html[/quote]
Listen, sonny boy, take your rounded point scissors and your glue bottle back to your room to cut and paste since the finger paints have run out. They'll be no messing up the living room tonight. When you're old enough to wipe your own ass, you can stay up after 10:00 and maybe eat dinner at the adult table once in a while too. You've already had your warm milk and a warning, so the next time I cath you out of bed I'm taking away kitty for good.
Leave the thinking to the adults here, please. The next time you crave free distribution of crazy talk, keep it locked up so the world doesn't correlate your idiocy with the rest of the intelligent gaming community. We don't need another example of videogames supressing higher brain functions and promoting non-sensical, even violent behavior. You're already a shining example for abortion on demand, so please stop giving me reasons to give up my position on the right to one's own life.
I disagree with many left-leaners on this board, and respectfully so. Unlike you, most of them have more than a sophomoronic knowledge of their own positions and the tenacity to put forth intgelligent thought and ensuing discourse on their opinions. Keep trying kiddo, it may not be too late. You could start applying yourself, studying harder, and doing your homework to catch up with the rest of us. Then again, don't set too lofty a goal, you may just want to start with learning how to form complete thoughts and sentences, or tying your own shoes.
Feel free to retort with a "I know you are but what am I," after you finish crying to your momma, I don't expect much more.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html[/quote]
Listen, sonny boy, take your rounded point scissors and your glue bottle back to your room to cut and paste since the finger paints have run out. They'll be no messing up the living room tonight. When you're old enough to wipe your own ass, you can stay up after 10:00 and maybe eat dinner at the adult table once in a while too. You've already had your warm milk and a warning, so the next time I cath you out of bed I'm taking away kitty for good.
Leave the thinking to the adults here, please. The next time you crave free distribution of crazy talk, keep it locked up so the world doesn't correlate your idiocy with the rest of the intelligent gaming community. We don't need another example of videogames supressing higher brain functions and promoting non-sensical, even violent behavior. You're already a shining example for abortion on demand, so please stop giving me reasons to give up my position on the right to one's own life.
I disagree with many left-leaners on this board, and respectfully so. Unlike you, most of them have more than a sophomoronic knowledge of their own positions and the tenacity to put forth intgelligent thought and ensuing discourse on their opinions. Keep trying kiddo, it may not be too late. You could start applying yourself, studying harder, and doing your homework to catch up with the rest of us. Then again, don't set too lofty a goal, you may just want to start with learning how to form complete thoughts and sentences, or tying your own shoes.
Feel free to retort with a "I know you are but what am I," after you finish crying to your momma, I don't expect much more.
You assume a greater value of the information that you provide than actually exists.
Good thing I can translate this into english.
What you are saying more or less is that there is no amount of information that can change your mind.
Seriously I would have responded sooner to provide the info you asked for, but I ate dinner and hung out with a pal for a little while. Because you waited a little in no way shape or form invalidates the information the fact that you would even say or think that reflects badly on you and whatever mental faculties you may possess.
Good thing I can translate this into english.
What you are saying more or less is that there is no amount of information that can change your mind.
Seriously I would have responded sooner to provide the info you asked for, but I ate dinner and hung out with a pal for a little while. Because you waited a little in no way shape or form invalidates the information the fact that you would even say or think that reflects badly on you and whatever mental faculties you may possess.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So anyway how is it my fault you are either ignorant or to lazy to google. This was pretty famous, or this truly your way of deflecting the truth?[/quote]
It's not my business to prove your claims for you.
That's your duty. Not mine.
Even with what you've posted, you've bearly even established a basis to back up your original claims. Despite what you believe, you're actually arguing from the weak position. The cockiness with which your conducting yourself doesn't behoove your postition.
I'm not sure exactly what drives that cockiness, despite your situation.
Typical reasons for something like that traditionally are things like zealotry, ignorance, or a juvenille mindset.
It's not my business to prove your claims for you.
That's your duty. Not mine.
Even with what you've posted, you've bearly even established a basis to back up your original claims. Despite what you believe, you're actually arguing from the weak position. The cockiness with which your conducting yourself doesn't behoove your postition.
I'm not sure exactly what drives that cockiness, despite your situation.
Typical reasons for something like that traditionally are things like zealotry, ignorance, or a juvenille mindset.
Ad hominem attacks do not help establish your claim.
You leave me with little else since you choose not to show any recognition of the link I provided instead you are chastising me for not showing the alacrity you feel your due in providing it.
You're rapidly shredding any credibility you did have.
Then dont post, go into the garbage pile with others who could not muster an argument.
You leave me with little else since you choose not to show any recognition of the link I provided instead you are chastising me for not showing the alacrity you feel your due in providing it.
You're rapidly shredding any credibility you did have.
Then dont post, go into the garbage pile with others who could not muster an argument.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
You leave me with little else since you choose not to show any recognition of the link I provided instead you are chastising me for not showing the alacrity you feel your due in providing it.
Relying on ad hominem attacks shows a general weakness or immaturity not valued at all in this type of discourse. You aren't doing yourself or your argument any favors by barking out ridiculous ad hominem attacks at just about everyone posting in this thread.
Then dont post, go into the garbage pile with others who could not muster an argument.
I don't need an argument. Yours is weak enough that pointing out some of it's glaring flaws is enough to discredit it.
Even if everyone conceed to you your intial point about the nation debt, you're not very far in your claim. The initial point about the debt is one of the few coherent and defensible parts or your argument. From that point on, your argument begins to implode.
Relying on ad hominem attacks shows a general weakness or immaturity not valued at all in this type of discourse. You aren't doing yourself or your argument any favors by barking out ridiculous ad hominem attacks at just about everyone posting in this thread.
Then dont post, go into the garbage pile with others who could not muster an argument.
I don't need an argument. Yours is weak enough that pointing out some of it's glaring flaws is enough to discredit it.
Even if everyone conceed to you your intial point about the nation debt, you're not very far in your claim. The initial point about the debt is one of the few coherent and defensible parts or your argument. From that point on, your argument begins to implode.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
What's so funny about a SBRHHWCMWT like Msut77 is despite being slammed by every poster on this board; far left, far right and center (Though I don't think we have any true centrists.) he still calls us all, collectively, ignorant and claim we have no credibility because none of us think he's anything more than a talking points liberal.
Your ONE graph? Your ONE link? Your endless ad hominem attacks on a political figure is backed by a deficit graph? OOOOOH, the Annenberg Foundation must be banging down your door begging you to become a fellow for them! Your suppositions are unquestionable!~
Your ONE graph? Your ONE link? Your endless ad hominem attacks on a political figure is backed by a deficit graph? OOOOOH, the Annenberg Foundation must be banging down your door begging you to become a fellow for them! Your suppositions are unquestionable!~
I felt the same way, he's basing his entire argument of hating Bush on a website tallying the national debt. Knowing virtually nothing about politics or the economy, we're supposed to agree with him becuase he had the genius of posting a link. I guess he didn't catch the "cut and paste" allusion in my advice column I previously posted.
Maybe he's right, Bush sucks, he's the cause of it all. Bush lied, ppeople died. No blood for oil. no WMD's ficticious war for ficticious reasons. Now what? We might as well just kill ourselves. Okay, Msut77, you go first.
Maybe he's right, Bush sucks, he's the cause of it all. Bush lied, ppeople died. No blood for oil. no WMD's ficticious war for ficticious reasons. Now what? We might as well just kill ourselves. Okay, Msut77, you go first.
[quote name='Msut77']Want more? And pertaining to what exactly?
And PAD or BMullet did you actually read the link?
And do you honestly believe Bush was truthful concerning Iraq?[/quote]
Yes, I've been to that website many years before you probably have.
And no, I don't believe Bush was completely forthcoming on all aspects pertaining to Iraq. However, he is much more honest about Iraq and the reasons we enforced resolution 1441 than all the liberals who constantly argue that Bush blames 9/11 on Sadam, an outright fabrication.
And PAD or BMullet did you actually read the link?
And do you honestly believe Bush was truthful concerning Iraq?[/quote]
Yes, I've been to that website many years before you probably have.
And no, I don't believe Bush was completely forthcoming on all aspects pertaining to Iraq. However, he is much more honest about Iraq and the reasons we enforced resolution 1441 than all the liberals who constantly argue that Bush blames 9/11 on Sadam, an outright fabrication.
Well Bush's administration then yes.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
And I do know right wing windbag Rush was very very keen on pushing a Saddam 9/11 connection.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/
And I do know right wing windbag Rush was very very keen on pushing a Saddam 9/11 connection.
You realize your link references the Nation Debt, not the deficit, right?
The National Debt and Deficit are connected. But you knew that right?
So does this mean finally after all the above BS you read it?
So all the times you accused me of making ad hominem attacks you hadnt read the link?
The National Debt and Deficit are connected. But you knew that right?
So does this mean finally after all the above BS you read it?
So all the times you accused me of making ad hominem attacks you hadnt read the link?
Too funny, that site actually describes the difference between the debt and the deficit. He STILL doesn't understand the difference. LOL !
Do yourself a favor, boy, read the 9/11 comission report instead of watching so much TV. What does Limbaugh have to do with the fact that liberals consistently try to discredit the Iraq conflict by trumpeting the lack of 9/11 responsibility? Last I checked, Limbaugh was not president. Coming from you, though, I can understand you may be confused by this fact.
Do yourself a favor, boy, read the 9/11 comission report instead of watching so much TV. What does Limbaugh have to do with the fact that liberals consistently try to discredit the Iraq conflict by trumpeting the lack of 9/11 responsibility? Last I checked, Limbaugh was not president. Coming from you, though, I can understand you may be confused by this fact.
Well we have a severe problem in this country when people believe things that are not true. For a long time many many people thought Saddam had a hand in 9/11 part of this is because of people like Limbaugh.
And please please tell me you dont think the National Debt and the deficit are connected. I need the laugh.
And please please tell me you dont think the National Debt and the deficit are connected. I need the laugh.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
The National Debt and Deficit are connected. But you knew that right?
So does this mean finally after all the above BS you read it?
Of course they are. Your information, however, is a trivial treatment of it.
A simple graph doesn't show much. It shows everything without context.
The postions of the United States chance in some very key ways after 9-11. That was an issue that earlier presidents didn't have to deal with.
New programs were created, and spending in other areas that could be allowed to slide had to be bolstered again.
Your data is not of much worth, as it show only spending... not irresponsible spending.
Just because a President had to increase spending does not necessarily mean he's been doing something wrong. Of course, that's not a point you've been arguing. You argument has been a trivial one neglecting all context and external situations.
So all the times you accused me of making ad hominem attacks you hadnt read the link?
I had read the link long before. Being a trivial source, I didn't feel the need to discuss it unless others had as well.
I accused you of ad hominem attack because that is what has been making up the bulk of your posts. You aren't establishing yourself well or doing yourself any favors.
So does this mean finally after all the above BS you read it?
Of course they are. Your information, however, is a trivial treatment of it.
A simple graph doesn't show much. It shows everything without context.
The postions of the United States chance in some very key ways after 9-11. That was an issue that earlier presidents didn't have to deal with.
New programs were created, and spending in other areas that could be allowed to slide had to be bolstered again.
Your data is not of much worth, as it show only spending... not irresponsible spending.
Just because a President had to increase spending does not necessarily mean he's been doing something wrong. Of course, that's not a point you've been arguing. You argument has been a trivial one neglecting all context and external situations.
So all the times you accused me of making ad hominem attacks you hadnt read the link?
I had read the link long before. Being a trivial source, I didn't feel the need to discuss it unless others had as well.
I accused you of ad hominem attack because that is what has been making up the bulk of your posts. You aren't establishing yourself well or doing yourself any favors.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
This is sad. Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with bmulligan on some of the things he's said, I find much more in common with his position than the "liberal" msutt77. Though keep at it, maybe, as he suggested, you will create more support for abortion rights.
So JS is actually making the argument that massive tax cuts and massive spending increases have nothing to do with the deficit and the national debt and furthermore its all luck and happenstance. Lol.
So alonzo care to tell me why? Position on what?
The deficit and the national debt or his intense dislike of me, which pretty much the only thing he has pointed out so far.
So alonzo care to tell me why? Position on what?
The deficit and the national debt or his intense dislike of me, which pretty much the only thing he has pointed out so far.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So JS is actually making the argument that massive tax cuts and massive spending increases have nothing to do with the deficit and the national debt and furthermore its all luck and happenstance. Lol.[/quote]
You just don't understand. This entire time I've been punching holes into the fundamental structure of your argument. You're quibling over weak data. It would be as if I'd shot cannonballs through your ship, which is now taking water and your fixated with fixing a leaky faucet on it.
You just don't understand. This entire time I've been punching holes into the fundamental structure of your argument. You're quibling over weak data. It would be as if I'd shot cannonballs through your ship, which is now taking water and your fixated with fixing a leaky faucet on it.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
You're spending the bulk of your time arguing the most trival point, the one where if you actually searched out USEFUL data, you could have put to rest long ago. You've been trying to arugue your most trivial point with trivial data. So far, your argument has been an exercise in futility, because many of the other regular posters could have established the claim you've been arguing long ago.
You're languishing on the first point of your argument, which as I had stated, is the easiest and most defensible point you have... and so far, you're not doing very well.
You're languishing on the first point of your argument, which as I had stated, is the easiest and most defensible point you have... and so far, you're not doing very well.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So Bmullet did anything involving John Kerry or SS lead to a war that cost billion and left thousands of US soldiers
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there was at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there was at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So again what part of it is weak? And how is it trivial?
Enlighten me.[/quote]
Even if you proved without a shadow of a doubt your first point, it has no bearing what-so-ever on your later points. It's completely trivial to the acceptance of your opinions.
You're using poor souces, which themselves so far have been just trivial treatments of more complex subjects.
Enlighten me.[/quote]
Even if you proved without a shadow of a doubt your first point, it has no bearing what-so-ever on your later points. It's completely trivial to the acceptance of your opinions.
You're using poor souces, which themselves so far have been just trivial treatments of more complex subjects.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Msut77']So far you have pointed out my sources are lacking yet you fail to mention why. Im going to sleep. I do give JS points for a relentless ability to bloviate.[/quote]
triv·i·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trv-l)
adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.
4. Biology. Relating to or designating a species; specific.
5. Mathematics.
a. Of, relating to, or being the solution of an equation in which every
variable is equal to zero.
b. Of, relating to, or being the simplest possible case; self-evident.
triv·i·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trv-l)
adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia.
4. Biology. Relating to or designating a species; specific.
5. Mathematics.
a. Of, relating to, or being the solution of an equation in which every
variable is equal to zero.
b. Of, relating to, or being the simplest possible case; self-evident.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Msut77']So Bmullet did anything involving John Kerry or SS lead to a war that cost billion and left thousands of US soldiers
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.[/quote]
Exactly. Ideologically I have little in common with bmulligan, but at least he is showing some level of intelligence. You just stated your belief as fact and, after being attacked for providing nothing to back up your claims , only then did you you start scrambling around for something to back up your argument, and you even did that poorly.
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.[/quote]
Exactly. Ideologically I have little in common with bmulligan, but at least he is showing some level of intelligence. You just stated your belief as fact and, after being attacked for providing nothing to back up your claims , only then did you you start scrambling around for something to back up your argument, and you even did that poorly.
David85
Banned
[quote name='alonzomourning23'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='Msut77']So Bmullet did anything involving John Kerry or SS lead to a war that cost billion and left thousands of US soldiers
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.[/quote]
Exactly. Ideologically I have little in common with bmulligan, but at least he is showing some level of intelligence. You just stated your belief as fact and, after being attacked for providing nothing to back up your claims , only then did you you start scrambling around for something to back up your argument, and you even did that poorly.[/quote]
I agree.
PAD and his gang are crazy, but they give "facts" to back up the claim, even if it is just some crazy as site it's more than some jackass does.
and civilians dead? What does Alonzo find so damn attractive about your BS?[/quote]
Because there at least the glimmer of logic about it.
He apparently doesn't see that in yours.[/quote]
Exactly. Ideologically I have little in common with bmulligan, but at least he is showing some level of intelligence. You just stated your belief as fact and, after being attacked for providing nothing to back up your claims , only then did you you start scrambling around for something to back up your argument, and you even did that poorly.[/quote]
I agree.
PAD and his gang are crazy, but they give "facts" to back up the claim, even if it is just some crazy as site it's more than some jackass does.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='bmulligan']
Yeah, like John Kerry was a war hero, Sadam was complying with weapons inspections, and Social Security is kept in a lock box.[/quote]
Jackass kerry was a war hero, if u fight for your country and especially if u are wounded in battle, qualifies a person as a war hero. What have u done that was so great that u have to bring down someone else?
Yeah, like John Kerry was a war hero, Sadam was complying with weapons inspections, and Social Security is kept in a lock box.[/quote]
Jackass kerry was a war hero, if u fight for your country and especially if u are wounded in battle, qualifies a person as a war hero. What have u done that was so great that u have to bring down someone else?
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='David85']And then, as a war hero, he came back and made fun of the country and everyone else still fighting over there.[/quote]
I think the only people that really comment on a war is someone who actually fought in it. He had the right to protest the war he fought in it, he saw the horrors, and he can speak his mind.
I think the only people that really comment on a war is someone who actually fought in it. He had the right to protest the war he fought in it, he saw the horrors, and he can speak his mind.
David85
Banned
Yes he can, if he was telling the truth.
He had 10 different stories on what he did. My favorite is he was on Good Morning America and the guy interviewing him was asking about the medals. Kerry said he wasn't throwing them over the fense, while ABC was showing him throwing the medals over the fence.
All polititions lie, get used to it.
He had 10 different stories on what he did. My favorite is he was on Good Morning America and the guy interviewing him was asking about the medals. Kerry said he wasn't throwing them over the fense, while ABC was showing him throwing the medals over the fence.
All polititions lie, get used to it.
bread's done