cinghiale wrote:

“THE BAILOUT,”
a play in 20 words

CURTAIN RISES. TWO MEN, BANKS and CONGRESS, ARE AT CENTER STAGE.

BANKS: We need money.

CONGRESS: Here you go.

(long pause)

CONGRESS: Hey, that money I gave you, what are you doing with it?

BANKS: Fuck you.

LIGHTS DIM, CLOSE CURTAIN

You just don’t understand trickle down economics!

(By the way, I think that trickle that’s landing on us is them peeing off the balcony…)

CURTAIN RISES. TWO MEN, BANKS and CONGRESS, ARE AT CENTER STAGE.

BANKS: We need money.

CONGRESS: Here you go.

(long pause)

CONGRESS: Hey, that money I gave you, what are you doing with it?

BANKS: Fuck you.

LIGHTS DIM, CLOSE CURTAIN

BklynHobo wrote:

Gotta love the unbiased Wahington Post. Here is Cheney’s exact quote from the ABC interview:

“As I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren’t any stockpiles.”

“What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stock.”

Cheney added that, given Saddam Hussein’s capabilities, reputation and track record of brutality, “this was a bad actor, and the country’s better off, the world’s better off with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments.”

I love how you call me the kool aid drinker when you can’t even be intellectually honest about the situation. It’s not like GWB was the only one saying there were WMD. The people that also saw the intelligence all thought he did as well, as well as the UN. Do you think Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Tony Blair, and the rest of the people that said he had WMD and saw the same information as Bush were lying as well? Of course you wouldn’t say that, your Bush rage has blinded you too much.

I don’t think the post invasion strategy was a good one, and I am glad that Petraus and Gates have righted the ship. But if you think or say Iraq was better off, including the citizens and our interests in the area, you’re either an idiot or you just can’t see past your partisan hatred.

Ok, cherry it is then…

Intellectual honesty was seeing through the BS.

Easy-E wrote:

BklynHobo wrote:

Skywalker wrote:

Funny on this bit from the White House reax to the NYT story:

“The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.”

Gee, Bush would never find selected intelligence to pitch a war the administration fully intended to launch from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit his point of view — would he?

Take another sip of the Kool Aid..

Pot, meet kettle…

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a...cle/2008/12/21/AR2008122100869.html

“In an interview with ABC News last week, Cheney suggested that the administration would have gone to war with Iraq even without erroneous intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction.”

I would explain it to you, but it wouldn’t do any good. What’s your preference? Grape or Cherry?

Gotta love the unbiased Wahington Post. Here is Cheney’s exact quote from the ABC interview:

“As I look at the intelligence with respect to Iraq, what they got wrong was that there weren’t any stockpiles.”

“What they found was that Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology, he had the people, he had the basic feed stock.”

Cheney added that, given Saddam Hussein’s capabilities, reputation and track record of brutality, “this was a bad actor, and the country’s better off, the world’s better off with Saddam gone, and I think we made the right decision, in spite of the fact that the original NIE was off in some of its major judgments.”

I love how you call me the kool aid drinker when you can’t even be intellectually honest about the situation. It’s not like GWB was the only one saying there were WMD. The people that also saw the intelligence all thought he did as well, as well as the UN. Do you think Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Tony Blair, and the rest of the people that said he had WMD and saw the same information as Bush were lying as well? Of course you wouldn’t say that, your Bush rage has blinded you too much.

I don’t think the post invasion strategy was a good one, and I am glad that Petraus and Gates have righted the ship. But if you think or say Iraq was better off, including the citizens and our interests in the area, you’re either an idiot or you just can’t see past your partisan hatred.

It’s so appropriate that these toolbags are all on Fox News. They laughed in his face!! I’m surprised they didn’t have O’Rielly yelling at him for good measure.

What a double edged sword, you’re proven right about something that sucks for everyone.

BklynHobo wrote:

Skywalker wrote:

Funny on this bit from the White House reax to the NYT story:

“The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.”

Gee, Bush would never find selected intelligence to pitch a war the administration fully intended to launch from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit his point of view — would he?

Take another sip of the Kool Aid..

Pot, meet kettle…

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a...cle/2008/12/21/AR2008122100869.html

“In an interview with ABC News last week, Cheney suggested that the administration would have gone to war with Iraq even without erroneous intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein had developed weapons of mass destruction.”

I would explain it to you, but it wouldn’t do any good. What’s your preference? Grape or Cherry?

BklynHobo wrote:

Skywalker wrote:

Funny on this bit from the White House reax to the NYT story:

“The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.”

Gee, Bush would never find selected intelligence to pitch a war the administration fully intended to launch from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit his point of view — would he?

Take another sip of the Kool Aid..

I can’t, apparently you polished off the pitcher.

Skywalker wrote:

Funny on this bit from the White House reax to the NYT story:

“The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.”

Gee, Bush would never find selected intelligence to pitch a war the administration fully intended to launch from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit his point of view — would he?

Take another sip of the Kool Aid..

“The Times’ ‘reporting’ in this story amounted to finding selected quotes to support a story the reporters fully intended to write from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit their point of view.”

Gee, Bush would never find selected intelligence to pitch a war the administration fully intended to launch from the onset, while disregarding anything that didn’t fit his point of view — would he?