Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Maybe he just needs new speechwriters
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Omega: [QB] Jay: Please enlighten me as to what exactly is so bad about this. I see nothing wrong with it. Perhaps he should have said "of bureaucracies" instead of "and bureaucracies", and [i]maybe[/i] "exist" instead of "coexist", but exactly what difference does it make? Here we have the fundamental difference. You attack our cantidate on the basis of extremely minor speech errors. We attack your cantidate on the basis of what he [i]means[/i], and what he proposes. I think we have the advantage here. Again, the reporter (still looking for his name) still applies. Don't judge him by what he mistakenly says. Judge him by his ideas. Jeff: Hate to tell you this, but a number of those were apparently from Quayle, not Gore. The first four are. "Bondage" and "misstatements" are. Not sure about "e pluribus" or "Michael Jackson". Check the snopes website for more. Most of the rest are certainly Gore, though, and I'd place money on the few left. "Any government official who ... lies to the United States Congress will be fired immediately." *L* Guess the leopard really CAN change his stripes. [IMG]http://flare.solareclipse.net/smile.gif[/IMG] And don't forget the made up numbers involving his mother-in-law and dog, his claims that he created the earned-income tax credit and strategic petrolium reserve, both of which were passed a full year before he was even elected, the "Love Story" and Love Canal lies, and the one where he claimed that he was sung to sleep as a child with a union song that wasn't written until he was 27. And I feel like I'm forgeting one... oh, well... Based on the premise that these are untrue claims (which you can't argue against with any credibility), I see four posibilities regarding this man, in no particular order. A: He knows these things aren't true, and simply thinks we're too dumb to notice the lies. Not a good idea to elect someone who thinks you're stupid. B: He knows these things aren't true, and simply can't help himself. Thus he would be a pathological liar. Again, not someone you want to elect. C: He actually [i]believes[/i] all this stuff, and is thus delusional. Yet again, not someone you want to elect. D: He doesn't even know whether he's telling the truth or not, simply reading the speeches he's handed. This would require an extreme mental disability. And yet again, not someone you want to vote for. Anything I missed? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3