Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: JasonH on August 29, 2006, 06:33:02 AM
-
Just been hearing the the Iranian president has challenged George W Bush to a live TV debate. ::)
Me thinks it ain't gonna happen. However, I wouldn't mind seeing them face off in a no-holds barred steel cage match. :)
-
Just been hearing the the Iranian president has challenged George W Bush to a live TV debate. ::)
Me thinks it ain't gonna happen. However, I wouldn't mind seeing them face off in a no-holds barred steel cage match. :)
:o Do you have a death wish for your president? Cause either scenario would result in a crushing defeat.
-
Question #1... Mr President, would you be willing to allow a second 911 investigation?
-
:o Do you have a death wish for your president? Cause either scenario would result in a crushing defeat.
Neither of them are my president - we have good ol Tony Blair - Bush's lap-dog!
-
I don't know, I think George could take him in a fight?
(http://www.eadshome.com/images/foundingfathers/bush%20in%20flight%20suit.jpg)
(http://img.timeinc.net/time/personoftheyear/2005/people/photos/ahmadinejad.jpg)
Saddam would kick both of there ass's...
(http://images.scotsman.com/2005/12/06/saddam.jpg)
(http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/graphics/2003/spring/dickey/dickey02.jpg)
-
Neither of them are my president - we have good ol Tony Blair - Bush's lap-dog!
1) 7/7 was faked, homie.
2) The debate is a great idea to get all the facts on the table. And no way will Bush garner national, much less international support for a war in Iran, if he is still refusing to even talk to the guy he's abotu to bomb.
-
Neither of them are my president - we have good ol Tony Blair - Bush's lap-dog!
Oh, ...well in that case, ...I suppose Blair could lick his wounds afterwards. ;D
-
I don't know, I think George could take him in a fight?
I hate muslim fundamentalists just an ounce less than I hate leaders who detonate towers full of their own people.
-
I hate muslim fundamentalists just an ounce less than I hate leaders who detonate towers full of their own people.
Oh yeah, I agree, just saying Bush is a buff dude... ;D
-
It would be truly interesting.
And it would never happen.
Ahmedinejad is an intellectual, and I think he was a professor in engineering in the past.
Bush has the best speech writers I've seen, he's great when he doesn't have to face anyone. But he wouldn't last a minute in a debate.
A debate wouldn't serve any real purpose either.
YIP
Zack
-
A debate wouldn't serve any real purpose either.
I think quite the opposite. Bush wouldn't be able to create a false-flag attack and bomb the hell out of Iraq if he has the guy begging for a chance to get all the info on the table.
On the conspiracy boards out there, they're viewing this as halting Bush's ability to do another self-attack then blame them.
-
1) 7/7 was faked, homie.
2) The debate is a great idea to get all the facts on the table. And no way will Bush garner national, much less international support for a war in Iran, if he is still refusing to even talk to the guy he's abotu to bomb.
Haha, obcessive conpulsive disorder 240. :-X
What act of terrorism do you believe wasn't fabricated by the goverments of the world?
-
I think quite the opposite. Bush wouldn't be able to create a false-flag attack and bomb the hell out of Iraq if he has the guy begging for a chance to get all the info on the table.
On the conspiracy boards out there, they're viewing this as halting Bush's ability to do another self-attack then blame them.
Iraq?
Ahmadinejad is president in Iran.
Big difference.
Iran's real leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei BTW.
My point is, that a live debate wouldn't lead to any agreement between Iran and USA, it would only serve to humiliate the president of USA.
Perhaps funny, but bad for USA, and even worse for Iran. If Bush gets humiliated, it would lock the positions.
Better to work with diplomacy. Perhaps not as spectacular, but more effective.
Never humiliate your opponent.
YIP
Zack
-
Suddam offered to debate Bush as well.
-
No need to insult, zack. I know it's iran. It's 10 am here and i'm up way earlier than usual.
Bush is determined to attack Iraq before he leaves office. This guy, instead of hiding and waiting for it like sadaam, is trying to delate the bushco war maching first.
Mood in America is way different than it was after 911. Even with another staged attack here, I seriously doubt Bush would have 95% war support again.
-
Anyone watch CSPAN this mourning? LOTS and lots of callers that are outraged about whats going on in America. The tides are turning.
-
No need to insult, zack. I know it's iran. It's 10 am here and i'm up way earlier than usual.
Bush is determined to attack Iraq before he leaves office. This guy, instead of hiding and waiting for it like sadaam, is trying to delate the bushco war maching first.
Mood in America is way different than it was after 911. Even with another staged attack here, I seriously doubt Bush would have 95% war support again.
I apologize. Unnecessary on my part.
My analysis of Bush's take on Iran is similar with yours I guess. I believe he's looking to do some kind of attack of Iran, since Iran has become a powerhouse in the region.
YIP
Zack
-
I apologize. Unnecessary on my part.
Don't apologise for being right you liberal cunt. What the fuck is the world coming to? :-\
-
Iraq?
Ahmadinejad is president in Iran.
Big difference.
Iran's real leader is the Ayatollah Khamenei BTW.
If that's the case, ...there's a chance for diplomacy, ...cause Ahmadinejad is more hardcore than even the Ayotollahs.
My point is, that a live debate wouldn't lead to any agreement between Iran and USA, it would only serve to humiliate the president of USA.
It wouldn't have to be a humiliation, ...but I concede even if one weren't trying to humiliate him, ...it would be kind of hard not to. What it would do would be to open up the eyes of an American populace that was unaware of the true nature of the relationship between both states. And I'm sure that the negotiated settlement that Bush Sr was party to, whereby the US government agreed to pay Iran billions of dollars in restitution for the wrongdoing on the part of the US is not something they want coming out to the American public.
Perhaps funny, but bad for USA, and even worse for Iran. If Bush gets humiliated, it would lock the positions.
It might piss off Bush, and other PNAC warhawks, but there is no way the American people would be so childish and so petty as to let their country go to war over Bush's bruised ego. Not today, ...not with so many already dead soldiers from a series of premeditated murders & lies.
Bush getting thoroughly pwned infront of the American audience could be one of the best things to happen to the USA in the last 6 years! There is no way the American public would be stupid enough to elect anyone of his cabinet after that, ...and that would be a good thing for America, ...and the rest of the world. Bruised egos are always recoverable, ...but dead bodies of military personnel and civilians remain dead.
Better to work with diplomacy. Perhaps not as spectacular, but more effective.
Never humiliate your opponent.
YIP
Zack
I agree. Diplomacy works, ...but in order to have diplomacy, ...you need communication.
-
If that's the case, ...there's a chance for diplomacy, ...cause Ahmadinejad is more hardcore than even the Ayotollahs.
It wouldn't have to be a humiliation, ...but I concede even if one weren't trying to humiliate him, ...it would be kind of hard not to. What it would do would be to open up the eyes of an American populace that was unaware of the true nature of the relationship between both states. And I'm sure that the negotiated settlement that Bush Sr was party to, whereby the US government agreed to pay Iran billions of dollars in restitution for the wrongdoing on the part of the US is not something they want coming out to the American public.
It might piss off Bush, and other PNAC warhawks, but there is no way the American people would be so childish and so petty as to let their country go to war over Bush's bruised ego. Not today, ...not with so many already dead soldiers from a series of premeditated murders & lies.
Bush getting thoroughly pwned infront of the American audience could be one of the best things to happen to the USA in the last 6 years! oThere is no way the American public would be stupid enough to elect anyone of his cabinet after that, ...and that would be a good thing for America, ...and the rest of the wrld. Bruised egos are always recoverable, ...but dead bodies of military personnel and civilians remain dead.
Bush would get absolutely killed in a debate.
It wouldn't help to better the relations between Iran and the rest of the world.
That's more important than pwning of a president that pretty much everyone disapproves of these days.
I would guess that most Republicans and all Democrats would like another president right now.
YIP
Zack
-
Just been hearing the the Iranian president has challenged George W Bush to a live TV debate. ::)
www.bumfights.com
-
He basically made Mike Wallace look like a bumbling, stuttering fool on 60 minutes. Ahmadinejad may be short and funny looking, but he's got that thing about him that makes you not want to underestimate him.
-
bush couldnt debate his way out of a wet paper bag. he is the worst speaking president this nation has ever had. funny, everything about bush was perfectly clear (to me anyways) when all these dumbasses voted him into office(twice ::))
-
It's amazing that the President of the US has an opportunity to ask the leader of a dangerous, developing nation, any questions he wishes. He has a chance to debate the points of democracy for the world to see. He has the chance to stand up and face this evil he's been trying to bash for the American people for the last 6 years.
And he's going to just pass on this chance and bomb the hell out of them instead.
Reasonable?
-
Agree totally. Bush is a fool and not once have I heard him speak in a debate in all the years he's been in office. Even Tony Blair faces the music at least once a week when Prime Minister's Questions gets aired every Wednesday. As much as I dislike Ahmadinejad, you can't help but feel he'd destroy Bush in a face to face.
-
Bush would get absolutely killed in a debate.
{LOL}
At first I thought you meant that figuratively ...but when I think about it, I realize you mean it literally.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if those who plopped him in office to begin with put a sniper in the TV studio, just to make sure they can hang onto what's left of the Republican voter base. {lol}
It wouldn't help to better the relations between Iran and the rest of the world.
Actually I think the rest of the world would be grateful that he would expose Bush for the few who still can't see him for what he is. I'm sure world leaders wouldn't like it very much... since afterall, they've been dealing with him, throwing their support behind him, and largely covering up for his shortcomings. Can you picture how other world leaders must be ripping their hair out just trying to have any sort of a discussion with that man? Even his own staff chafes at the idea.
Tell me the truth, ...wouldn't you just love to be a fly on the wall being able to hear what other world leaders really think of Bush when they're talking in private... ;D
That's more important than pwning of a president that pretty much everyone disapproves of these days.
I would guess that most Republicans and all Democrats would like another president right now.
YIP
Zack
I'll say! ...especially if that president would be required to debate!
-
It would be truly interesting.
It would bring tears to my eye, ...only thing is I don't know if they'd be tears of joy, or tears of sympathy for Bush.
Bush has the best speech writers I've seen, he's great when he doesn't have to face anyone.
Are you kidding me? ??? Ya, I'll admit he has some fabulous speech writers, but he can't even deliver his lines when he's on the podium in a room full of supporters! All he's gotta do is learn the bloody lines. "America's BREAST & brightest"? "OB-GYN's can't even practice their love for women", "working hard to put food on your family" {ROTLMAO} Oh brother! ::) ...wait, i think I just figured it out. They would be tears from laughing so bloody hard. I'm laughing so hard now just picturing it!
Now if the Democrats were smart, they'd hammer away at the president to debate him.
Or better yet, let Hilary debate him. She'd rip his nuts off, and perhaps having a smart woman verbally castrate him might cause him to meltdown and lose it enough for her to win the debate.
-
It would bring tears to my eye, ...only thing is I don't know if they'd be tears of joy, or tears of sympathy for Bush.
Are you kidding me? ??? Ya, I'll admit he has some fabulous speech writers, but he can't even deliver his lines when he's on the podium in a room full of supporters! All he's gotta do is learn the bloody lines. "America's BREAST & brightest"? "OB-GYN's can't even practice their love for women", "working hard to put food on your family" {ROTLMAO} Oh brother! ::) ...wait, i think I just figured it out. They would be tears from laughing so bloody hard. I'm laughing so hard now just picturing it!
Now if the Democrats were smart, they'd hammer away at the president to debate him.
Or better yet, let Hilary debate him. She'd rip his nuts off, and perhaps having a smart woman verbally castrate him might cause him to meltdown and lose it enough for her to win the debate.
Your understanding of the media and the political field is different than mine.
Quite different.
My opinion is that the Democrats would be foolish to bring their prime candidate even near Bush. Bush is doing a great job of fcuking up any chance for a Republican president. If the Democrats would try to debate a lame duck (term for president leaving office), they would come off as petty and small.
Right now, Hillary Clinton and her staff has done everything right. They've been moving to the political midfield. If she would start hammering on Bush, sure, it would humiliate him.
But it would also make her look un-statemanlike.
I understand that you want someone to really kick Bush's ass in a debate, give him some payback for whatever.
But that ain't gonna happen.
It serves no purpose.
It's definitely not in the interest of the USA.
YIP
Zack
-
Your understanding of the media and the political field is different than mine.
Quite different.
My opinion is that the Democrats would be foolish to bring their prime candidate even near Bush. Bush is doing a great job of fcuking up any chance for a Republican president. If the Democrats would try to debate a lame duck (term for president leaving office), they would come off as petty and small.
Right now, Hillary Clinton and her staff has done everything right. They've been moving to the political midfield. If she would start hammering on Bush, sure, it would humiliate him.
But it would also make her look un-statemanlike.
I understand that you want someone to really kick Bush's ass in a debate, give him some payback for whatever.
But that ain't gonna happen.
It serves no purpose.
It's definitely not in the interest of the USA.
YIP
Zack
No I wasn't thinking Hilary debating Bush, ...it's a given she'd mop up the floor with him.
I'm talking about Hilary taking Bush's place in a debate with the president of Iran.
It's just wishful thinking on my part. protocol wouldn't allow it. she's not the head of state ...yet. ;)
-
would churchill debate hitler? of course not, there is no point. One is cunning as a fox and lies so easily and with skill.
-
would churchill debate hitler? of course not, there is no point. One is cunning as a fox and lies so easily and with skill.
If Ahmed lies, then Bush can present evidence that he is lying and he will be pwned for the world to see.
There's a reason that the man wants no censorship when speaking to the American people.
Bush is afraid that iran's leader is gonna drop that little secret...
-
If Ahmed lies, then Bush can present evidence that he is lying and he will be pwned for the world to see.
There's a reason that the man wants no censorship when speaking to the American people.
Bush is afraid that iran's leader is gonna drop that little secret...
{ROTFLMAO} Which one? there's quite a few of 'em!
-
{ROTFLMAO} Which one? there's quite a few of 'em!
My guess is that the man who runs iran has a lot of information on what all we've been doing over there. If he were to have the ear of the people, and deliver some statements - with complete evidence - and CNN wasn't able to sanitize it, Bush might be in some serious shit.
-
My guess is that the man who runs iran has a lot of information on what all we've been doing over there. If he were to have the ear of the people, and deliver some statements - with complete evidence - and CNN wasn't able to sanitize it, Bush might be in some serious shit.
Not just Bush Jr., but Bush Sr., Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice etc. etc. etc. No one in his cabinet would be spared. These are the same guys who negotiated with Iran to stall the release of the American embassy hostages during the Carter administration to ensure the Republicans won the election, and then release the hostages AFTER Reagan took office to solidify his image as a tough cowboy who could lead America back to prosperity ...the same ones who were running things under Reagan & Bush, back when the Iran / Iraq war was going on, ...the same ones who secretly supplied Iraq, while at the same time supplied Iran, exascerbating & prolonging the battle, ...and they are the same ones who ratified the payments of billions & billions of dollars to Iran in restitution for alot of their shenanigans over there. Restitution paid by American taxpayer dollars (although I understand they're a little behind on the payments).
Why do you suppose the Skull & Crossbones society use that as an emblem, sleep in coffins, and meet in a windowless tomb? Hmmm... could it be because they've got too many damned skeletons in the closet? :D
-
Now if the Democrats were smart, they'd hammer away at the president to debate him.
Or better yet, let Hilary debate him. She'd rip his nuts off, and perhaps having a smart woman verbally castrate him might cause him to meltdown and lose it enough for her to win the debate.
Not only are you delusional, your about one micro-cell above my ex when it comes to intelligence!!
Hope this helps!
-
would churchill debate hitler? of course not, there is no point.
Cav, I have thought about this one for a bit. i realized something.
If Churchill *had* debated Hitler over the radio for the world to hear, it could have prevented WWII. Consider this:
Suppose they had debated. Hitler would have made all sorts of racist claims, threats, and lies, right? Then, Churchill would have responded, refuting Hitler's points and making him look like an ass for the world. you agree so far?
Okay. The people of the world are listening, right? The people who live in Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, as well as their leaders, all hear Hitler and determine that he is an ass and he is a fool. They would not believe in his message if Churchill could disprove it.
And, as a result, the countries of Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania might not have became Hitler's allies in WWII. And without allies, he couldn't have invaded countries as he did.
So you see, an open exchange of ideas, for the world to hear, allows other nations to see a leaders' true colors. A psycho exposed will gain no allies.
-
Cav, I have thought about this one for a bit. i realized something.
If Churchill *had* debated Hitler over the radio for the world to hear, it could have prevented WWII. Consider this:
Suppose they had debated. Hitler would have made all sorts of racist claims, threats, and lies, right? Then, Churchill would have responded, refuting Hitler's points and making him look like an ass for the world. you agree so far?
No.
Most likely, Hitler would've brought up the tough financial times in Britain, in Germany, and all over the world. He would even get Churchill to admit to some of these things. Then Hitler would paint a horrible possible future, use very strong words, still without mentioning any Jews. Because if it's bad, it could get worse.
And then he would slowly point out a reason for the hard times of the world, a Jewish conspiracy and how Jews were the cause of all this. He would give examples of Jewish misconduct, and then he would offer a solution to the hard times of the world. A good life.
I think you're completely misjudging who Hitler was 240 or Bust. The man was one of the greatest rhetorics ever. The problem when we see his speeches, is that we only get to see the last part, we're he's all fired up, looking like a madman. But view an entire speech of Hitler sometime, and you'll see what I mean. He was a rhetoric genius.
Okay. The people of the world are listening, right? The people who live in Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, as well as their leaders, all hear Hitler and determine that he is an ass and he is a fool. They would not believe in his message if Churchill could disprove it.
And, as a result, the countries of Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania might not have became Hitler's allies in WWII. And without allies, he couldn't have invaded countries as he did.
So you see, an open exchange of ideas, for the world to hear, allows other nations to see a leaders' true colors. A psycho exposed will gain no allies.
These people don't understand English, some of them understand German, but very few English.
And Churchill would never be able to disprove Hitler's claims.
Just because Hitler had crazy ideas doesn't make him incompetent.
YIP
Zack
-
I understand what you're saying about the rhetoric.
But I really want to know what he wants to tell Americans.
Chances are, our media isn't touching it. And when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace, he nearly converted him to a supporter. I find it hard to believe that a lifetime media guy would 1) fall for the BS, and 2) make himself a potential joke by admitting it.
I want to hear the dirt he has on our govt, and proof he has of this.
-
I understand what you're saying about the rhetoric.
But I really want to know what he wants to tell Americans.
Chances are, our media isn't touching it. And when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace, he nearly converted him to a supporter. I find it hard to believe that a lifetime media guy would 1) fall for the BS, and 2) make himself a potential joke by admitting it.
I want to hear the dirt he has on our govt, and proof he has of this.
Sure. I am all for that. Put him with a good reporter next time, a reporter who's done his homework.
And no bullshit "tough questions". Argumentative stuff will get you nowhere.
After the interview, offer Bush to comment on the stuff Ahmadinejad claims, but only Bush himself.
With that stuff, try to get Ahmadinejad set up for one more interview, where he can respond to the comments.
Edit the shit and put it out on youtube ;D
YIP
Zack
-
I understand what you're saying about the rhetoric.
But I really want to know what he wants to tell Americans.
Chances are, our media isn't touching it. And when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace, he nearly converted him to a supporter. I find it hard to believe that a lifetime media guy would 1) fall for the BS, and 2) make himself a potential joke by admitting it.
I want to hear the dirt he has on our govt, and proof he has of this.
Wasn't it Mike Wallace who on 9/11, as the twin towers were coming down on national television, proclaimed:
:o "Wow, that looks just like controlled demolition"?
-
Wasn't it Mike Wallace who on 9/11, as the twin towers were coming down on national television, proclaimed:
:o "Wow, that looks just like controlled demolition"?
Well that alone proves it....Mike Wallace was in on it, he knew about it all along..LOL!
-
you guys should check out some of the 'conspiracy' boards. it's incredible. There are hundreds of people who have made it their life's work to spread the truth about what happened on 9/11. There are thousands who do nothing but copy dvds of the events and distribute them on campuses, malls, etc. There are hundreds of thousands who spend time on line debating and converting people, and there are millions who believe.
Me, I *really* want to believe the official 911 story. It scares the hell out of me when I see the evidence of an "inside Job". It saddens me, it worries me, and I pray it's not true.
But I'm afraid the evidence very strongly points to an inside job. The warnings and behaviors before the day, the events of the day, and the covering up since then. it's reaching some incredible levels - politicians are running for office now, on 911 Truth platforms (calling for a new investigation).
This has nothing to do with the war. This has to do with dead Americans and the very strong possibility that some in our govt knew, or helped it happen. And anyone who knew was guilty of treason - they abandoned their duty to protect and let people die.
I pray that it's not... but sadly, I know that it is.
-
you guys should check out some of the 'conspiracy' boards. it's incredible. There are hundreds of people who have made it their life's work to spread the truth about what happened on 9/11. There are thousands who do nothing but copy dvds of the events and distribute them on campuses, malls, etc. There are hundreds of thousands who spend time on line debating and converting people, and there are millions who believe.
Me, I *really* want to believe the official 911 story. It scares the hell out of me when I see the evidence of an "inside Job". It saddens me, it worries me, and I pray it's not true.
But I'm afraid the evidence very strongly points to an inside job. The warnings and behaviors before the day, the events of the day, and the covering up since then. it's reaching some incredible levels - politicians are running for office now, on 911 Truth platforms (calling for a new investigation).
This has nothing to do with the war. This has to do with dead Americans and the very strong possibility that some in our govt knew, or helped it happen. And anyone who knew was guilty of treason - they abandoned their duty to protect and let people die.
I pray that it's not... but sadly, I know that it is.
Don't kid yourself 240. This is also about the war. The ones who died on 911 aren't the only dead Americans. There are more dead Americans as a result of the war than died on 911. All lives are just as valid, and all died because of lies told both to Congress and the American people. And countless thousands dead who are not Americans is also a factor, along with the ill will & animosity it has engendered around the world is... well, certainly not the best state of affairs. It's not just about those in the twin towers or in the pentagon. Don't forget the soldiers.
-
It's not just about those in the twin towers or in the pentagon. Don't forget the soldiers.
I'm not. but I wanted to make it clear that I don't question what happened on 911 because I like to bash Bush, or because I disagree with the war.
I question what happened because of the evidence and events of september 11th. I put the war in a different compartment, because I think that when I discuss 911 with someone, I lose credibility if I say "it was just to get us into war..."
The first time I heard 911 was staged, it was from an anti-war guy, so I discounted his belief to "this idiot will do anything to bash this war". So I know how both sides think. I focus on the facts of 9/11 and only the facts. And surprisingly, I have converted quite a few nonbelievers. Some people would deny it even if they read a handwritten confession from the President. But many in the middle just want to see the facts and make their own judgment.
-
I'm not. but I wanted to make it clear that I don't question what happened on 911 because I like to bash Bush, or because I disagree with the war.
I question what happened because of the evidence and events of september 11th. I put the war in a different compartment, because I think that when I discuss 911 with someone, I lose credibility if I say "it was just to get us into war..."
The first time I heard 911 was staged, it was from an anti-war guy, so I discounted his belief to "this idiot will do anything to bash this war". So I know how both sides think. I focus on the facts of 9/11 and only the facts. And surprisingly, I have converted quite a few nonbelievers. Some people would deny it even if they read a handwritten confession from the President. But many in the middle just want to see the facts and make their own judgment.
Sorry for accusing you of forgetting about the soldiers. That was out of line and far too presumptive of me.
I see your logic which makes perfect sense. Most people not happy with the war feel that way as a result of 911 so yes it is a steady progression, however, not one that many are able to make overnight.
Q) How do you eat an elephant? A) One bite at a time ;D