How about this one, to satisfy all parties?
"Rush the pillhead junkie, can't keep a wife
a zeppelin filled to the brim,
with ego, lard, and spite"
"He was on Tee Vee, but he failed to make a dent,
his show was canned, a failure he,
and back to radio he went"
"So much hilljack heroin, they say it made him deaf,
Viagra helped him get it up, and his third wife up and left"
"Rush the Pork-fat zeppelin, damaged the GOP,Comment Posted By Ray On 30.12.2008 @ 11:59
his stupid jokes and race-bait tropes won't bring folks to our party!"
The piece was not even close to a mouth punch. Everything the 'truthers' were telling us were valid questions to ask. The actual debunking involved more suspension of disbelief than the conspiracy theorists.
Instead of tackling serious, almost non-debunkable 9/11 questions like the ISI money link, the war games that morning that simulated planes attacking buildings, the cover-up of the 9/11 report, the Able Danger program, the near-20 nations whose intellegence warned the U.S. of an attack, etc.
It's easy to attempt to debunk physics when there is NO evidence to back it up; but try to debunk the actual paper trail next time.Comment Posted By Ray On 21.08.2007 @ 12:51
"It was Blair who convinced Bush at the beginning of the war to try and get the United Nations on board â€“ a futile effort given the amount of Oil For Food bribery Saddam had spread around the Security Council membership as well as the general anti-American feelings in that body."
The effort was futile because the reasons given for war - that the Iraqis had substantial WMDs that posed a threat to any other nation - were nonsensical. These claims, and the evidence for these claims, were transparent fictions.
Clearly Bush gained some legitimacy with the American people by going to the Security Council. If his case had been based on the facts, instead of the hallucinations of his advisers, he might still have that legitimacy today.
Bush and Blair were wrong - Saddam did not have WMD - and those on the Security Council and elsewhere were right. Blaming anti-Americanism and corruption might be worthwhile if they had been proven right, but they have been throughly discredited. The case for war was a fraud; Bush and Blair were liars.Comment Posted By Ray On 10.05.2007 @ 18:24
What's worse I wonder, being GWB or having your legs blown of by an IED?Comment Posted By Ray On 12.01.2007 @ 10:13
Guys. You know that you'll get your asses kicked eventually if you ever do go into Iran. Sure, there will be that great 'Mission Accomplished' moment, but as sure as eggs is eggs your troops will end up as target practice for IEDs and gunmen.Comment Posted By Ray On 12.01.2007 @ 06:26
Dear me Keith,
How much was spent on your educashun?
If thinking as I do makes one a "wanker", then there are a lot of folk world-wide abusing themselves.
What about some response to the issues? Or that fact that to respond so may require you and others to think and address their prejudices not worth the space?
Finally, I do have a helmet, though not a foil one. It was issued to me and worn on during two years of active service in HM Forces. They even gave me a medal that allows me some right to express a point of view and thereafter to expect some content in a comment about the same, as opposed to nothing like it in your post.Comment Posted By Ray On 10.06.2006 @ 05:14
Well this is one from across the pond!
Death of a hero made in the USA? That's what we think over here!!
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's death is an important development in the history of post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, and it proves the old adage, "Those who live by the sword must die by the sword" - or does it?
Well, who supplied the sword in the first place?
You need look no further than Bush and his crony, Intestine Powell.
Way back in the days before the invasion of Iraq, Bush and his child Bliar were scraping the barrel for a really good excuse to invade a country full of oilâ€¦â€¦ (err, sorry), a country with international terrorist links. The Jordanian Boot Boy Musab al-Zarqawi fitted their scheme (an Arab Muslimand and above all, a nobody with a liking for violence).
The US demonised him, created a hero in the eyes of some, and a sound investment for others such as al-Qaeda who before his rise in popularity, viewed him in much the same way as something theyâ€™d just scraped off the sole of their shoe.
He was the product of a political decision to wage a propaganda war to justify the invasion of another country, and was thrust into the position of being able to do what he did by those with no real reason (other than the projection of US power) to invade a sovereign state.
In light of this, one must ask who was responsible for his foul acts, by way of encouragement and support? Maybe Bush, Bliar and Intestine Powell can give us an answer?
(The intestine joke needs a lot of explaining really - it's a language thing)Comment Posted By Ray On 9.06.2006 @ 18:38
Pages (1) :