If I were a terrorist...

[Dudeskey]

............................

[Spider]

Pretty good ....... but dont let W*GS see this , he thinks everything is hunky dory here

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Urinal_Cake

............................

Hammer, nail, f*@king head!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Spider

....... but dont let W*GS see this , he thinks everything is hunky dory here

Yep.

I think it's what they call "the psychology of previous investment."

W*GS has invested so much of his time and energy in covering Bush's flank over the last eight years that he simply can't resist the compulsion to deny and minimize the damage Bush has done.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Urinal_Cake

............................

Ding, ding, ding!


He forgot developing shows like American Idol to keep the sheep occupied while the "shepheard" opens the gate for the wolves.

[Breaker]

If I were a terrorist I would vote for a Democrat, it would make my mission far easier.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Breaker

If I were a terrorist I would vote for a Democrat, it would make my mission far easier.

Looks like Breaker has trouble with basic arithmetic, i.e., the difference between the number of Americans killed by terrorism on Republican presidents' watches vs. their Democratic counterparts.

(But I guess you needn't trouble yourself with such inconvenient facts and figures when you can just blame Clinton, eh?)

[Spider]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Looks like Breaker has trouble with basic arithmetic, i.e., the difference between the number of Americans killed by terrorism on Republican presidents' watches vs. their Democratic counterparts.

(But I guess you needn't trouble yourself with such inconvenient facts and figures when you can just blame Clinton, eh?)

it is Breaker after all , he still hasnt told me why Americans worked before 1996 .....

[TailgateNut]

Originally Posted by Breaker

If I were a terrorist I would vote for a Democrat, it would make my mission far easier.

What do you mean by " IF I were a terrorist", you are a republican, aren't you?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

W*GS has invested so much of his time and energy in covering Bush's flank over the last eight years that he simply can't resist the compulsion to deny and minimize the damage Bush has done.

Give me a list of posts - even just one will do - that fulfill your "deny and minimize" criteria above.

Otherwise, apologize, retract the lie, and shut the **** up.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LMAO @ W*GS denying the long hours he's spent deflecting criticism of Bush's policies and changing the subject to Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

He must really think we all have short memories.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

What do you mean by " IF I were a terrorist", you are a republican, aren't you?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

LMAO @ W*GS denying the long hours he's spent deflecting criticism of Bush's policies and changing the subject to Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

He must really think we all have short memories.

You can't find a single post of mine defending Bush or any of his policies, so you have to change your criteria to "deflection" (which means that I don't play your "Bush is the first and only President to ever do such horrible thing X"), or "changing the subject" (see same translation as previously).

But the truth and the facts have never stood in your way when you've attacked me. You and Karl Rove have a lot in common. Nothing like cheap shots, slurs, innuendos, and smears, eh?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Simply amazing!

Whenever Bush's policies come under fire, W*GS is almost always right there attacking the critic and taking the opposing position.

And he doesn't call that defending Bush's policies?

This kind of denial would be amusing were it not so disturbing.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Whenever Bush's policies come under fire, W*GS is almost always right there attacking the critic and taking the opposing position.

I attack the critic when their criticism has no basis in fact. That does not mean "taking the opposing position".

For some reason, you seem to think that attacking you means defending Bush.

Why?