ClanKiller.com
https://forums.plasmasky.com/

Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
https://forums.plasmasky.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1474		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Thu Oct 13, 2005 7:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
Quote:
It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/13/D8D7EMNG0.html


...what a joke. I dont know whats worse, having a president who threw his war medals away and called his fellow soldiers baby killers, or having a president who has to stage a interview with his troops.

TO: America
FROM: 11b
SUBJECT: WTF?
MESSAGE: CAN WE PLEASE GET OUR SHIT TOGETHER?

Yours Truly,
11b
Image
Author:  Satis [ Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
lol...that's pretty gay.

Addendum to letter by Satis

PS. Please send taquitos. Camel burgers suck.
Author:  derf [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 5:32 am ]
Post subject: 
TO: America
FROM: derf
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION
MESSAGE: ASSASSINATE BUSH

Yours Truly,
derf
Author:  Satis [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 
Derf's gonna end up in Guantanamo Bay.
Author:  Mole [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:04 am ]
Post subject: 
To be fair, I don't see what's so shocking (or stupid/odd/illegal whatever point you are making etc) about this.

Of course it was staged. What do you expect?
Author:  pevil [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 12:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
lol i'm with mole on this. Though I'm not exactly into all the conspiracy theory, I'm incredibly cynical of humans anyway, and especially those in power.

I know how many people will like to get out of minor trouble, I'm quite sure if its something as big as this whole situation, they wouldn't have any qualms with making things look good ;)
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:54 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mole wrote:
To be fair, I don't see what's so shocking (or stupid/odd/illegal whatever point you are making etc) about this.

Of course it was staged. What do you expect?


gee, i dont know. Maybe for it NOT to be stage? Call me crazy.
Author:  Mole [ Fri Oct 14, 2005 2:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
If you believe it wouldn't be staged, you ARE crazy.

Why the heck would he let him self in to such a frickin' trap? I mean, psh!

Everything the president does is written for him, pre-planned or otherwise.
Author:  derf [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 5:06 am ]
Post subject: 
Well, firstly Mole, its lying. Its saying: 'hey this is a genuine interview' when quite clearly its not. Its the same when Bill Clinton lied about his affairs with 'that woman'. Lying to the people is bad because a liar cant be trusted.

I dont have a major problem leaders being unspontaneous. My beef is with those who lie about it.
Author:  pevil [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 8:58 am ]
Post subject: 
which is my beef with leaders in general.

Problem is, the kinda person you want in power (i.e. actually does try to do whats right, doesn't lie etc) is either a: going to find they like the power and do whatever they can to keep it or b: not try to get the power in the first place.

Ideal world, I'd happily believe anything a president/prime minister said to me. In this world... no. I'm sure they do tell the truth plenty. But not all the time. and if you aint gonna be truthful all the time, you wont get respect from me. Problem is, unless you're 'inside' how can you tell which ones are lies?
Author:  Pig [ Sat Oct 15, 2005 1:46 pm ]
Post subject: 
In an ideal world, I would use my connections to get Satis elected to president, and use him like a puppet to accomplish my goals.
Author:  derf [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:19 am ]
Post subject: 
Pig wrote:
In an ideal world, I would use my connections to get Satis elected to president, and use him like a puppet to accomplish my goals.


So like all the other presidents? :wink:

@ Pevil. Considering how to detect which ones are lies without being an insider, is not easy. Firstly, one muist have good all-round knowledge of politics, law and ethics. Secondly, you need to be pretty politcially neutral so that you dont have a biased view, e.g. Tony is a Saint!
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:27 am ]
Post subject: 
derf wrote:
Well, firstly Mole, its lying. Its saying: 'hey this is a genuine interview' when quite clearly its not. Its the same when Bill Clinton lied about his affairs with 'that woman'. Lying to the people is bad because a liar cant be trusted.

I dont have a major problem leaders being unspontaneous. My beef is with those who lie about it.


yes and no.


Yes its lie
No its not the same because Clinton lied "under oath". Bush just tried to trick us.
Author:  Arathorn [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:37 am ]
Post subject: 
How much value do you attach to the oath? After all, Bush tricking us into Iraq affects more people then Clinton cheating his wife, but just because Clinton was under oath makes him worse?
Author:  ElevenBravo [ Sun Oct 16, 2005 7:46 am ]
Post subject: 
Arathorn wrote:
How much value do you attach to the oath?


A lot. If you cant tell the truth under oath, nothing you say can be trusted. Answering questing under oath the the only time we can expect people will tell the truth.

I mean people lie all the time. But when your under oath you expect the truth.

Kind of like, when Satis goes to the doctor and the doc tells him he has vaginal warts. You would except the doctor to tell you the truth, that Satis has vaginal warts.

a lie under oath is more about the character of the person not the context of the lie.

Im not saying Bush lieing to the world about Iraq WMD is less a lie that Clinton based on the context of the lie.

Im talking about the character of the individual.

Yes, I agree the context of the lie between Bush and Clinton is huge, but Bush didnt lie under oath either...."yet"
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/