format_quote Originally Posted by
Cognescenti
Yeah...that's rich. You don't think that might be out of context or something?
No. It was not taken out of context. But the moniker "moron" probably doesn't suit either. What I should have said was paranoid megalamaniac sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss. He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively or when he's talking about violence and revenge. When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine. It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes.
In a speech last Sept. in Nashville, trying to strengthen his case against Saddam, Bush's script called for him to say, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." But the words that came out of his mouth were, ""Fool me once, shame . . . shame on . . . you," followed by a long pause, then, "Fool me — can't get fooled again!"
What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, 'Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude.
Another example occurred early in Bush's White House tenure when he said, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, 'Put food on your family's table' — it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table. When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it. But don't just take it from me. Read it straight from the analysts themselves.
hthttp://books.google.com/books?id=e...thumbnailtp://
In his quest to shove democracy down everyone else's thoat, he's had Afghanistan bombed back beyond the Stone Age to rid the world of Usama bin Laden and al Qaeda, then switched to claiming it was the Taliban that had to go, then declared there was an "axis of evil" and it was really Saddam Hussein who was the "mother of all evil" and that war with Iraq was in the offing to get rid of Saddam, all whilstthe corporate media cheered him on and to this day continues to beat the war drum. They have yet to consider that this "passive serial killer" needs to feed his lust for blood by sending others to put their lives on the line and do the killing for him.
format_quote Originally Posted by
Cognescenti
I hope you aren't a Pat Robertson fan (and I am pretty sure you aren't) because I think Pat Robertson is losing it. I wonder how long he spends looking for his keys in the morning.
He's another blood thirsty war monger hiding in sheep's clothing. I love his predictions.....none of which have come true. Last year he said this:
"a terrorist act, possibly involving a nuclear weapon, would result in mass killing in the United States. Noting that it hadn't come to pass, Robertson said, "All I can think is that somehow the people of God prayed and God in his mercy spared us."
This year's prediction goes like this:
"Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Wednesday that 2008 will be a year of violence worldwide and a recession in the United States, followed by a major stock-market crash by 2010."
Wow. He must have a direct pipeline to God himself. Even Usama Bin Laden told us that was going to happen.
As for Clinton...........oh....don't get me started.....on either one.:heated: