The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Bush refers to Australians as Austrians, calls the APEC Conference the OPEC
Conference, tries to leave by the wrong exit, and tells the Aussies we're kicking butt in Iraq.

Meanwhile, it becomes clear his General's report is not just fudged but actually doesn't exist and he never intended to act on it any way.

Chalk one up for General Betrayus.

Here is my pledge. I will actively work against the re-election of any Democrat who cooperates with Bush in any way, including failing to advocate
for his impeachment.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Bush refers to Australians as Austrians, calls the APEC Conference the OPEC
Conference, tries to leave by the wrong exit, and tells the Aussies we're kicking butt in Iraq.

Meanwhile, it becomes clear his General's report is not just fudged but actually doesn't exist and he never intended to act on it any way.

Chalk one up for General Betrayus.

Here is my pledge. I will actively work against the re-election of any Democrat who cooperates with Bush in any way, including failing to advocate
for his impeachment.

Only Howard Dean and a very few other Democrats are actively opposing Bush. If no one votes for Democratic Candidates based upon your logic, we will end up with more Republican candidates who agree with the current policies in effect. Somehow, I can't see how the solution you have chosen changes anything.

GSPODS wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Bush refers to Australians as Austrians, calls the APEC Conference the OPEC
Conference, tries to leave by the wrong exit, and tells the Aussies we're kicking butt in Iraq.

Meanwhile, it becomes clear his General's report is not just fudged but actually doesn't exist and he never intended to act on it any way.

Chalk one up for General Betrayus.

Here is my pledge. I will actively work against the re-election of any Democrat who cooperates with Bush in any way, including failing to advocate
for his impeachment.

Only Howard Dean and a very few other Democrats are actively opposing Bush. If no one votes for Democratic Candidates based upon your logic, we will end up with more Republican candidates who agree with the current policies in effect. Somehow, I can't see how the solution you have chosen changes anything.

I'll vote against current Dem congressmen in the primaries.

crazyhorse1 wrote:

GSPODS wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:Bush refers to Australians as Austrians, calls the APEC Conference the OPEC
Conference, tries to leave by the wrong exit, and tells the Aussies we're kicking butt in Iraq.

Meanwhile, it becomes clear his General's report is not just fudged but actually doesn't exist and he never intended to act on it any way.

Chalk one up for General Betrayus.

Here is my pledge. I will actively work against the re-election of any Democrat who cooperates with Bush in any way, including failing to advocate
for his impeachment.

Only Howard Dean and a very few other Democrats are actively opposing Bush. If no one votes for Democratic Candidates based upon your logic, we will end up with more Republican candidates who agree with the current policies in effect. Somehow, I can't see how the solution you have chosen changes anything.

I'll vote against current Dem congressmen in the primaries.

You dislike the policies of a Republican so your solution is to vote against Democrats. I think I have a headache.

Here is my pledge. I will actively work against the re-election of any Democrat who cooperates with Bush in any way, including failing to advocate
for his impeachment.

Translation: "Any student of mine who even considers voting for one of these traitors to my party may wish to think very carefully... "

you would have to chop my hand off and pull the lever down yourself before I would ever vote for anyone of those tree hugging libs!!!

skins#1fan wrote:you would have to chop my hand off and pull the lever down yourself before I would ever vote for anyone of those tree hugging libs!!!

Speaking of trees being cut down, have you heard of things like global warming. Here's a question or two for you conservative geniuses:

What will happen to human life if we cut down too many trees?

What consequence will destroying rain forests have on medicine?

What might happen if one country (ours) uses nukes on Iran?

Did you know that the two Bush presidents have incurred more national debt than all the other Presidents of the United States combined? Did you know if you add Reagan debt the figure goes up to 70 percent?

The latest survey in Iraq (posted today) indicates that we have killed about 1.2 million Iraqis? Also, you might take a look at the chart of Iraqi deaths and refugee status posted on Democratic Underground today. Who should I believe: Democratic Underground or George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove?

What percentage of Bush supporters do you think are insane?

All the name-calling, sterotypes, labels, and sweeping generalizations being thrown around in this thread is going to solve everything. And when it does, The Evil Straw had better get credit.

GSPODS wrote:All the name-calling, sterotypes, labels, and sweeping generalizations being thrown around in this thread is going to solve everything. And when it does, The Evil Straw will definitely take credit.

GSPODS I fixed your post

1niksder wrote:

GSPODS wrote:All the name-calling, sterotypes, labels, and sweeping generalizations being thrown around in this thread is going to solve everything. And when it does, The Evil Straw will definitely take credit.

GSPODS I fixed your post

And when it does, the Evil Straw will definitely felch the credit.

I have now fixed both of our posts.

Somehow, I sense I have gone too far.

crazyhorse1 wrote:What might happen if one country (ours) uses nukes on Iran?

Wait, I know this one. Hold on, hold on, give me a sec, I got it! More parking for the Mall of America? I think we need a shuttle though, it is a long walk. Maybe instead of nuking Iran we could just cut down more trees closer to the mall.

crazyhorse1 wrote:The latest survey in Iraq (posted today) indicates that we have killed about 1.2 million Iraqis? Also, you might take a look at the chart of Iraqi deaths and refugee status posted on Democratic Underground today. Who should I believe: Democratic Underground or George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove?

What percentage of Bush supporters do you think are insane?

Interesting that no moderate liberals (as opposed to hard left) who like to profess their love of dogs and pizza at views they disagree with or ask why non- left views are not hard left have any questions here.

Actually it's not, more predicable then interesting.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:The latest survey in Iraq (posted today) indicates that we have killed about 1.2 million Iraqis? Also, you might take a look at the chart of Iraqi deaths and refugee status posted on Democratic Underground today. Who should I believe: Democratic Underground or George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove?

What percentage of Bush supporters do you think are insane?

Interesting that no moderate liberals (as opposed to hard left) who like to profess their love of dogs and pizza at views they disagree with or ask why non- left views are not hard left have any questions here.

Actually it's not, more predicable then interesting.

I, honestly, have no idea what that means

Interesting that no moderate liberals (as opposed to hard left) who like to profess their love of dogs and pizza at views they disagree with or ask why non- left views are not hard left have any questions here.

Translation?

Incidentally, the Iraq Body Count can document 72,000 - 80,000 dead. They total published accounts; that means they know that their number is a minimum.

Their website, at http://www.iraqbodycount.org/, has a good discussion of the famous Lancet survey which extrapolated the total dead from those in a sample area. Lancet, of course, estimated a much higher total than IBC...and IBC reminds its readers that the real total should be higher than their count: many deaths are not reported.

See, also, their analysis of the surge:

These charts sometimes indicate a modest improvement in the security situation for ordinary Iraqis post-surge, and this is not disputed. But these charts will tend to under-represent reported violence for the more recent periods, for the reasons stated above. The observed downward trend in these charts will likely become less marked as data still in the pipeline is added (see Recent Events for as yet unprocessed data).

It is important to place the events of 2007 in context. Levels of violence reached an all-time high in the last six months of 2006. Only in comparison to that could the first half of 2007 be regarded as an improvement. Despite any efforts put into the surge, the first six months of 2007 was still the most deadly first six months for civilians of any year since the invasion.

Does this -- the IBC analysis -- relate in any way to President Bush's tendency to mis-speak? No.