See, I don't think this is funny...

I'm a Bush supporter, and a conservative, but I'm failing to see the humor in this.

There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.

EDIt: Link
Taken from here

[Edited on 25-3-2004 by kramtronix]

texas humor.

I'm just glad he's doing what the israelis have the cojones to do to that hamas leader.

I wonder if i can get a spoke of his smoldering wheel chair on ebay?

I think it's histarical. I don't like Bush at all. He's failed to show us that he can find the WMD. Since he's failed to find them in Iraq what better place to look then in his own office.

I'm a Bush supporter, and a conservative, but I'm failing to see the humor in this.

Humour is the best way to get over almost any problem. Every situation has a funny side to it. The better you can find this, the easier life becomes.

It shows that he screwed up, and is willing to admit it. By laughing at himself, and highlighting the joke he will be remembered just after the dinner as a witty and funny person (for an American ). Also, the best way to get someone to remember you etc. is to make them laugh.
100s of people, who may have watched the event, will remember him with the joke. And when polling day comes and they don't know who to vote for, they might not be able to remember much info about either candidate but will remember the joke and hence remember Bush and realise he can hold his head high even when things are bad. And 1 more vote for him.

(I dunno if that made sense cause i'm dyslexic and have trouble writing anything over 2 sentences long)

Ummm...this is just a way to trivialize the issue of WMDs and our call to arms because of them. If your argument has been destroyed, you can divert people's attention with humor.

Originally posted by Fury
texas humor.

I'm just glad he's doing what the israelis have the cojones to do to that hamas leader.

I wonder if i can get a spoke of his smoldering wheel chair on ebay?

What Isreal did to the Hamas leader was wrong, plain and simple. If someone was to assasinate Colin Powell or Dubya himself because, they didn't agree with their ideals, I don't think you would still endorse these tactics.

Ummm...this is just a way to trivialize the issue of WMDs and our call to arms because of them. If your argument has been destroyed, you can divert people's attention with humor.

And why shouldn't he? Mr Bush is in politics. Politics is all about survival of the fittest and who can last the longest. Humour is a good way of, as you say, distracting from the bad issues. But the Iraq war wasn't just about WMDs, but freeing an opressed people - but thats another argument

Originally posted by NotTooHappy

Originally posted by Fury
texas humor.

I'm just glad he's doing what the israelis have the cojones to do to that hamas leader.

I wonder if i can get a spoke of his smoldering wheel chair on ebay?

What Isreal did to the Hamas leader was wrong, plain and simple. If someone was to assasinate Colin Powell or Dubya himself because, they didn't agree with their ideals, I don't think you would still endorse these tactics.

lmao colin powell didn't sent pregnant mothers strapped with bombs into afghanistan.
this man did.
Can i please buy a piece of his wheelchair off ebay???

I thought the whole bit was hilarious; I especially liked the parts where GWB imitated the leader of N Korea talking to Kerry on the phone, and where he was trying to explain Kerry's foreign policy to Condy.

Ideals, NotTooHappy? The man was the author of the human bomb, fer chrissakes. Strapping explosives to children is an ideal?

john

Originally posted by Fury

lmao colin powell didn't sent pregnant mothers strapped with bombs into afghanistan.

No, he just drops bombs on women and children that pose no threat to the US or it's interests. I can see how you'd think that was OK.

that's totally funny !!! I can't stop laughing...

what an statement....

I can't believe that we are still believing that there were no weapons of mass destruction found. I have a friend who is involved in a special ops group consisting of seals, CIA, special forces, etc., and they did find these weapons. Our gov't. is not admitting this because they need to hide which countries sold these weapons to Iraq. So people, please start thinking a little out of the box and realize that if we did not really have good intelligence that these weapons existed, then we would not have gone in. Do not be so shallow that you actually believe the media. Many of the special ops guys have dozens of pictures which have not been de-classified showing these weapons. Day after day I look at these threads and sit in amazement that some of you actually believe these weapons were never found. Trust me, they were there.

Originally posted by NotTooHappy

No, he just drops bombs on women and children that pose no threat to the US or it's interests. I can see how you'd think that was OK.

yeah well he does it with style,
so since you're so intent on being right, and comparing the similarities between them, you'd rather side with the hamas leader instead of the american general?

typical, treacherous, liberal minded, hippy bull#.

Please get out of your care bear world and step into the real one.

this guy sent people with bombs to kill soft targets.

americans try to reduce civillian casualtys.

do the math.
or leave the country join hamas and blow yourself up. preferably before you reproduce.

Our gov't. is not admitting this because they need to hide which countries sold these weapons to Iraq

I agree. The US and UK govts could prove he had the WMDs, cause we still have the receipts after we sold them to him.

But, France and Russia also supplied arms so it is not wholely our fault. Russia and France were still supplying, which was why their leaders were against the war in the first place.

correct me if i am wrong, fury, but it appears that NotTooHappy isn't siding with anyone on this. he is illustrating that no matter who's side you are on, assasinating a leader is wrong. you however are taking the side of the US, the "good guys". now i dont agree with human bombs in any way, but i don't agree with sending anyone to their death, reguardless of the method. is it really any worse than when the US sent troops to iraq, knowing full well that many of them were being sent to their death?

Originally posted by dunkleskates
correct me if i am wrong, fury, but it appears that NotTooHappy isn't siding with anyone on this. he is illustrating that no matter who's side you are on, assasinating a leader is wrong. you however are taking the side of the US, the "good guys". now i dont agree with human bombs in any way, but i don't agree with sending anyone to their death, reguardless of the method. is it really any worse than when the US sent troops to iraq, knowing full well that many of them were being sent to their death?

that guy wasn't the leader of #.
he was a terrorist cell leader.
he wasn't an elected official,
he wasn't a un member of high standing,
he was the evil terrorist christopher reeves, and if the israelis didn't have the cojones to put him down, i'd have personally pushed his crippled terrorist ass down a skyscraper stairwell.

Originally posted by dunkleskates
correct me if i am wrong, fury, but it appears that NotTooHappy isn't siding with anyone on this. he is illustrating that no matter who's side you are on, assasinating a leader is wrong. you however are taking the side of the US, the "good guys". now i dont agree with human bombs in any way, but i don't agree with sending anyone to their death, reguardless of the method. is it really any worse than when the US sent troops to iraq, knowing full well that many of them were being sent to their death?

Thanks Dunkle. Some people can only look at one side of things.
If the League of Nations hadn't unjustly created the state of Isreal, there would be no Hamas.

[Edited on 3/25/04 by NotTooHappy]

Originally posted by NotTooHappy

Originally posted by dunkleskates
correct me if i am wrong, fury, but it appears that NotTooHappy isn't siding with anyone on this. he is illustrating that no matter who's side you are on, assasinating a leader is wrong. you however are taking the side of the US, the "good guys". now i dont agree with human bombs in any way, but i don't agree with sending anyone to their death, reguardless of the method. is it really any worse than when the US sent troops to iraq, knowing full well that many of them were being sent to their death?

Thanks Dunkle. Some people can only look at one side of things.

and i'll repeat,
he wasn't the leader of #.
hamas is a terrorist org. not an elected position.
next question.

Originally posted by kramtronix
See, I don't think this is funny...

I'm a Bush supporter, and a conservative, but I'm failing to see the humor in this.

The reason why you don't think it's funny is because you are obviously not the idiot that the one you support is.

I don't think it's one bit funny that G.W. would make light of such important facts such as the one that he lied to Congress and the American people to gain support for a war. One that has caused our allies to be more alienated from us, less willing to help, and has fanned the flames of the hearts of those willing to go to great lengths to kill us.

Since you are not the idiot that Bush needs to continue pissing off the world, maybe you should reconsider your support for the buffoon.

DeltaChaos

better then kerry.

personally i would have rather seen edwards for the ticket. or even clark if his own troops respected him,
but kerry strikes me as a dueche bag.

saying one thing outta the corner of his mouth and changing it 5 mins later.