|
|
#13
09-12-2004, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: I Viteloni
There are those who believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror and those that don't. You don't, I do. My guy is in power so the war is fought in the manner in which I agree. I suggest you try to get someone in power that believes the war should be fought in the manner in which you agree. This is what irritates you so and I do so enjoy it as well. John Kerry ..... what an absolute embarassment he is ..... he doesn't even run his own party and he certainly can't run his own campaign.
|
|
#14
09-12-2004, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
So pick \'em
"The author [of the article] has no concept of either corporations or of macro economic principles."
I hope we can agree that macro-economic theory does NOT concern itself at all with corporations! The metaphor given by that college professor (Bush as corporate CEO) is not a matter of macro-economics. And, by the way, I recall a thread, not too long ago, about whether one should hire Bush as a CEO to a company. Since the posts were generally applauding Dubya (I said I'd hire him for my cafeteria), there was no objection to the concept. I guess you guys don't take kindly to dissent, huh? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] If, on the other hand, Utah wanted to comment on the metaphor itself and claimed that, macro-economically, the huge deficits brought upon the American economy by Bush are, well, not important, then this would run immediately smack against the very holiest of mantras of every self-respecting Republican (or fiscal conservative) voter: Less spending, less government spending, less government, less, less, LESS! So, which's it gonna be, boys? Your Dubya would make for a lousy CEO who soaked his corporation in red ink --or-- Your President is a traitor to the conservative ideal of fiscal austerity? Your pick. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
|
|
#15
09-12-2004, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Encora uno vitelone de la campagna
"There are those who believe that Iraq is part of the war on terror and those that don't. My guy is in power so the war is fought in the manner in which I agree. This is what irritates you so and I do so enjoy it as well."
So do you also enjoy the fact that more than a thousand American soldiers have died for "your guy"? That would be a relatively novel perversion. Could you elaborate, please? For science's sake.
|
|
#18
09-12-2004, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Apertura
You want to change the subject from the economy (a <font color="red">red ocean </font> of ink!) to the war against Iraq? Alright -- for only a moment...
Explain to me, then, HOW exactly did "your guy" wage that successful war against Iraq? I'm saying "did" because I heard him say that "major hostilities were over", a few weeks (was it?) ago. Right? I mean, this IS a successful li'l war, right? Innit? A thousand dead is a small price to pay for ...what exactly didja say? Speak up, please, while I turn the TV down, they have another report about a coupla stupid grunts buying the farm, jeez.
|
|
#20
09-12-2004, 08:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Ma no capito niente?
"Why do hold these courageous individuals in such contempt?"
I feel nothing but sorrow for them. It is you and "your guy" that hold those soldiers' lives "in contempt"! The names I call them describe the contemptuous way your "guys" treat them like. Like so much cannon fodder to serve God knows what purpose. So where were we? Ah yes, you gotta explain to me why and how is the war against Iraq a "resounding success", the way "your guy" has been waging it (one year and more after "major hostilities are over")! You seem to get a kick out of how good "your guy" is doing in this war. So enlighten me, please, what good is the United States getting that's worthy of the ultimate sacrifice of so many young men and women? Not to mention some hundred billion smackers going down the drain, per year!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
