• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ellen's gets devasted by a remix of her Bush'splanation

Vern said:
thanks for the chuckle Jack but your "nuh uh" doesn't change the facts. Bush admitted it.
Click to expand...

Bush "admitted it".:lamo

This was Bush's statement...

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change," Bush told a joint news conference in Monterrey, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox. "And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with (enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq) and so we were fashioning policy along those lines."
Click to expand...

It was never any secret that regime change was the preferred outcome. A far cry from your hyperbolic claim that...

Vern said:
Its only "over the top" if you don't know the details of his Bush's lies. we found out from his Treas Sec that bush had a secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

This is why I get a kick out of you, Vern. You have no shame when it comes to presenting hyper-partisan spin as fact.
 
roguenuke said:
Because Bush seems much more congenial, friendly than Trump. You could easily have a beer with Bush and just talk about your life with him. Pretty sure that wouldn't be the case with Trump.
Click to expand...

Congeniality wasn't the argument, though. It was supposedly about "wealthy people protecting their own."
 
Harshaw said:
Congeniality wasn't the argument, though. It was supposedly about "wealthy people protecting their own."
Click to expand...
That was someone else's argument, not mine. There are plenty of people willing to have a drink or coffee with rich people (when they themselves arent) who are friendly, down to earth. Not so much with those like Trump, who are very egotistical. I could be wrong, but I'm willing to bet Ellen is the type that cares about a person's attitude, rather than how rich or poor or in between they are.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Bush "admitted it".:lamo

This was Bush's statement...

It was never any secret that regime change was the preferred outcome. A far cry from your hyperbolic claim that...

This is why I get a kick out of you, Vern. You have no shame when it comes to presenting hyper-partisan spin as fact.
Click to expand...

Oh jack, this is a special day. you're literally posting "Aha Vern! You were right, bush admitted he was planning to invade Iraq on Day 1". Hey remember when your first obedient flail was "nuh uh, I don't have to beweive O'Neill because widdle bushie fired him". Now you trying to pretend not to know that nobody knew Bush was planning to invade Iraq. Yea, it was a secret. thanks to O'Neill (who you an apology to by the way) we learned "“Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” Bush mumbling about "no fly zone and Clinton used the prhase "regime change" doesn't justify Bush's secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. Clinton's cabinet never sat around thinking of excuses to invade Iraq. Clinton's cabinet didn't pour over the maps of the Iraqi oilfields. And jack, O'Neill's revelation was big news when it came out because bush campaigned against "interventionist policies and nation building"

Bush's secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq perfectly explains the non stop lies and ignoring the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. And this is key, he not only ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11, he pushed back at it. Bush and company sounded like every conservative at this board with their "nuh uh, its a trick by al queda to dstract us from our secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq". So the CIA gave him a PDB telling him "THIS IS NOT A TRICK"

Vern said:
The Bush White House Was Deaf to 9/11 Warnings - The New York Times


The U.S. is not the target of a disinformation campaign by Usama Bin Laden,” the daily brief of June 29 read, using the government’s transliteration of Bin Laden’s first name

mmm, why would Bush and company ignore such a strong warning. Oh yea, they had a secret day1 agenda to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Now jack, your first and second flail at Bush's secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq was a fail. don't forget, there are other points I've proven that you haven't obediently flailed at. And jack, you flail at them as if the other lies from bush don't exist. they show a pattern. Anyhoo, don't forget to flail at all of them.
 
Vern said:
Oh jack, this is a special day. you're literally posting "Aha Vern! You were right...
Click to expand...

Totally unsurprised by the fact that you would continue to double down on your idiotic hyper-partisan spin, Vern.

You claimed that "Bush admitted to a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq". That isn't what he said at all. He said that his policy was the same as his predecessors. You and your source are spinning those words to fit a narrative.

You really believe that you can get away with stuff like this without anyone noticing, don't you?




P.S. I only read as far as what I quoted. Pretty safe bet that the rest of it was just as stupid.
 
Those critical of Ellen are showing what scumbags they are...
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Totally unsurprised by the fact that you would continue to double down on your idiotic hyper-partisan spin, Vern.

You claimed that "Bush admitted to a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq". That isn't what he said at all. He said that his policy was the same as his predecessors. You and your source are spinning those words to fit a narrative.
Click to expand...

Oh Jack, you make this fun. President Clinton had no policy to invade Iraq nor did he “map out preparations” to invade Iraq. Bush admitted he was “mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussien as soon as he took office". And his plan was to invade. hence Bush was planning to invade Iraq on Day 1. And Bush told nobody he was planning to invade Iraq on Day 1. Hence it was a secret.
Bush is falsely equating the phrase “regime change” to “invading Iraq”. And for effect, he threw in “no fly zone”. And of course you’re falling for it (or pretending to). Lets review

Clinton had no plan to invade Iraq
Bush started to “map out” the invasion of Iraq on Day 1
Bush didn’t tell anybody he was planning it so it was a secret.

Whining about me doesn’t magically change the facts. But jack, don’t forget to flail at everything on the list you asked for. Surely you can give the obedient (and false) conservative narrative about Powell lying to the UN or Bush ignoring the Sabri intel. “Er uh Clinton used the phrase regime change once” wont cut it for those.

Oh wait, are you doing that thing where you whine about me as an excuse to cowardly cut and run?
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You really believe that you can get away with stuff like this without anyone noticing, don't you?

P.S. I only read as far as what I quoted. Pretty safe bet that the rest of it was just as stupid.
Click to expand...

this dishonesty requires its own post. Jack, read this slowly, you’re at a debate forum. "nuh uh" and "I don't wanna read the facts" are not debate. But your dishonesty allows you to pretend not to see the fact that Bush was pushing back at the 9-11 intel. Which was part of the Bush's dishonesty to implement his secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. Now Jack, why would someone push back at the CIA intel? because they had a secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. And again, don't forget to flail at everything on the list you asked for.
 
Vern said:
Oh Jack, you make this fun. President Clinton had no policy to invade Iraq nor did he “map out preparations” to invade Iraq.
Click to expand...

Again, Bush's statement...

"The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change,"
Click to expand...

Everything you are trying to spin is derived from those words and the biased, one sided "testimony" of a guy who got fired and was trying to pump up his book sales. What you're doing here, I like to call "narrative pimping".
 
Vern said:
this dishonesty requires its own post. Jack, read this slowly, you’re at a debate forum. "nuh uh" and "I don't wanna read the facts" are not debate.
Click to expand...

You're at a debate forum, too, Vern, and what you are doing isn't "debating". In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you actually "debate" anyone here. Instead, you seem to spend most of your time pimping partisan narratives.

To each their own, I guess...
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Again, Bush's statement...
Everything you are trying to spin is derived from those words and the biased, one sided "testimony" of a guy who got fired and was trying to pump up his book sales. What you're doing here, I like to call "narrative pimping".
Click to expand...

oh jack, your original flail was "wah wah widdle bushie fired O'Neill so I don't have to beweive him". Your latest flail is to dishonestly ignore that Clinton had no policy to invade Iraq. "Being for regime change" is not the same as "wanting to invade Iraq". What makes your obedient spin dishonest is I've explained already that Clinton had not policy to to invade Iraq. Bush "starting mapping out his agenda to invade on Day 1". And he started mapping it out Day 1 and in secret.

And Jack, don't think I don't know you're clinging to your obedient and false narrative about Bush's secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq to avoid discussing the other issues you asked about. Its called "cowardly cutting and running from the facts".
 
Acadia said:
The purity test just keeps getting more and more stringent, as the Left becomes less and less tolerant. It's remarkable to see them eat their own and much of the time, I enjoy seeing them devour each other. But not Ellen.
There's a generation of little snot-nosed progressives who don't remember what Ellen was to the gay community in and outside of Hollywood, when she came out. I vividly remember watching her sitcom when she came out as gay. What a monumental thing that was years ago.

Shame of the Left for not practicing what they preach. Ellen is kind to people like GWB, and that's a mortal sin to the Left.

Today it's Ellen. Tomorrow who knows, it might be you.
Click to expand...

It's actually quite funny that Ellen failed the purity test. Shows you how bonkers the left have become. Tolerance should be observed in all cases where someone agrees with you. But, if they step out of line, off with their heads!
 
Moderate Right said:
It's actually quite funny that Ellen failed the purity test. Shows you how bonkers the left have become. Tolerance should be observed in all cases where someone agrees with you. But, if they step out of line, off with their heads!
Click to expand...

Actually, it's informed me quite a bit. Any high-profile person or actor who actually threw shade at Ellen for THIS, is just a lost cause.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You're at a debate forum, too, Vern, and what you are doing isn't "debating". In fact, I don't think I've ever seen you actually "debate" anyone here. Instead, you seem to spend most of your time .

To each their own, I guess...
Click to expand...

oh jack, I'm making clear straightforward points and backing them up with solid factual links. If I'm "pimping partisan narratives" how come you whine about me instead of responding honestly or addressing the other issues on your list. Could you just go ahead and post "wah wah I don't wanna discuss Bush ignoring the clear and repeated warnings about 9-11, bush pushing back on the intel warning about 9-11, bush ignoring the intel that said Iraq had no WMDs, Bush ignoring the UN reports and Bush lying to the UN because I cant think of dishonest narratives to hide behind". It would be your most honest post.
 
Vern said:
oh jack, I'm making clear straightforward points and backing them up with solid factual links.
Click to expand...

You're pimping a narrative and backing it up with "sources" who are pimping the same narrative, Vern.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You're pimping a narrative and backing it up with "sources" who are pimping the same narrative, Vern.
Click to expand...

well jack, I see you’ve settled on the phrase you’ll use to cowardly cut and run from the discussion. congratulations. If was I "pimping a narrative" then you could do more that whine about it. You could point to President Clinton's invasion plans, you could explain bush's non stop lies about WMDs, you could explain why he lied to the UN, why repeatedly ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. Anyhoo, Bush admitted he had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq.

“" President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that he was mapping preparations to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as soon as he took office.”

That alone proves my point. But when you add the context that he campaigned against regime change and repeatedly lied about WMDs and then announced “sure, I was gunning for him from the start”, it was kinda big news and only learned about it because his Treas sec told us. and jack, his secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq agenda perfectly explains the non stop lies about WMDs. sadly it not only explains why he ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11, it also explains why he pushed back at the intel.

See how I don't have to hide behind simple narratives as an excuse to cut and run.

and don’t forget to address the other items on your list. Oh, is that why you cowardly and dishonestly deflect?
 
Vern said:
well jack, I see you’ve settled on the phrase you’ll use to cowardly cut and run from the discussion. congratulations. If was I "pimping a narrative" then you could do more that whine about it.
Click to expand...
You're so funny sometimes, Vern.

The narrative that you're pimping ("Bush had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq") is a flimsily constructed bit of partisan spin rooted in a statement made by Bush ("My administration's policy toward Saddam is the same as the previous administration's") and the words of a disgruntled ex employee trying to sell a book.

But keep doing "the little engine that could" thing with it. It's cheap entertainment for me, if nothing else.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
You're so funny sometimes, Vern.

The narrative that you're pimping ("Bush had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq") is a flimsily constructed bit of partisan spin rooted in a statement made by Bush ("My administration's policy toward Saddam is the same as the previous administration's") and the words of a disgruntled ex employee trying to sell a book.

But keep doing "the little engine that could" thing with it. It's cheap entertainment for me, if nothing else.
Click to expand...

Jack,thank you for finally attempting to debate somewhat but you’re not getting the simple facts right. My statements are not “rooted” in bush’s admission. Its rooted in O’Neill telling us Bush was gunning for saddam day 1 and then bush admitting it. The part you’re not getting is that Bush is not denying O’Neil’s claims, he’s trying to downplay them. You can call it “spin” but I call it a lie because, again, Clinton had no plans to invade Iraq.

And you’re still not getting that this was big news when it came out because, again, he campaigned against regime change. And the only reason we found out is because O’Neill told us. And we found out in 2004. So again, bush had a secret day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. Again, “so did Clinton” is a lie.

And again, you seem to be reluctant to discuss things you asked about. When you look at them in the context that bush’s agenda was to invade Iraq, it all makes sense. His secret Day 1 agenda is why lied non-stop about WMDs, ignored our intel saying no WMDs, ignored the UN reports, ignored the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11 and (this is key) pushed back at the clear and repeated warnings of 9-11. Something tells me this is why you refuse to acknowledge Bush’s secret Day 1 agenda to invade Iraq. You have nothing to explain Bush’s subsequent actions so you'll continue to pretend not to understand the facts and hide behind insults.
 
Vern said:
Jack,thank you for finally attempting to debate somewhat but you’re not getting the simple facts right. My statements are not “rooted” in bush’s admission. Its rooted in O’Neill telling us Bush was gunning for saddam day 1 and then bush admitting it.
Click to expand...

The simple facts are this, Vern. "My administration has the same policy regarding Saddam as the previous administration -regime change." This statement by Bush is what you are calling "Bush admitting it".

The other relevant "simple fact" is that you are using the words of a the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was fired by Bush, really butt-hurt about it, and trying to pump up his book sales, as the authoritative source in all of this.

This is the foundation of the narrative you are trying to pimp.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
The simple facts are this, Vern. "My administration has the same policy regarding Saddam as the previous administration -regime change." This statement by Bush is what you are calling "Bush admitting it".

The other relevant "simple fact" is that you are using the words of a the former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil, who was fired by Bush, really butt-hurt about it, and trying to pump up his book sales, as the authoritative source in all of this.

This is the foundation of the narrative you are trying to pimp.
Click to expand...

Jack, again, it was big news when O'Neil's comments came out precisely because of O'Neill's credibility and Bush campaigned against regime change. Again, Bush is not denying it. He's trying to downplay it but he's lying. The lie that I've pointed out to you numerous times seems to be the part that you're just not getting. Read this slowly and as many times as necessary: Clinton had no plans to invade.

But I see the facts are starting to penetrate your little bubble because you feel the need to attack O'Neil some more. And of course like all conservatives, when you need a narrative, you simply make it up. It wasn't O'Neill's book. he simply supplied his notes and memos to Suskind's book.

"O'Neill readily agreed to tell his story to the book's author Ron Suskind – and he adds that he's taking no money for his part in the book.
Suskind says he interviewed hundreds of people for the book – including several cabinet members. "....
Not only did O'Neill give Suskind his time, he gave him 19,000 internal documents.
"Everything's there: Memoranda to the President, handwritten "thank you" notes, 100-page documents. Stuff that's sensitive," says Suskind, adding that in some cases, it included transcripts of private, high-level National Security Council meetings. "You don't get higher than that."

And you hilariously posted he was "butt hurt". How do you describe someone who posts wishful thinking and lies because the facts upset him?
 
Re: Ellen gets devasted by a remix of her Bush'splanation

Ikari said:
WTF is the matter with her having hung out with Bush? I don't get it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with it... what is wrong is the idiots that think in such a polarized and divisive fashion criticizing her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom