G. W. Bush's secret speech in the Cayman Islands

[RandFan]

Wow. Private citizen gives speech at private event. Hyperpartisan bozos go bananas. Film at 11.

If the Dems had a private meeting where they discussed getting rid of guns you know you would want any secret tape of that to get out.

 

[JohnnyG]

If the Dems had a private meeting where they discussed getting rid of guns you know you would want any secret tape of that to get out.

Are you saying this was a meeting of the Republican party to discuss policy? Do you think there has never been a Democrat discuss banning guns in private?

This whole thing smells of pre-election gaffe hunting.

 

[RandFan]

Are you saying this was a meeting of the Republican party to discuss policy?

How would I know?

Do you think there has never been a Democrat discuss banning guns in private?

I suspect there has and I would damn sure want to know about it.

This whole thing smells of pre-election gaffe hunting.

No doubt, and let's be honest, it's rather easy pickings.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

You're kidding aren't you?

Of course.

Ah, one of the classic internet dodges. Someone posts some lunacy and get called on it. The response? "Ha. Ha. 'Jes kidding"

Riiiiight.

If you're volunteering to demonstrate that not all humorless partisans are Republicans, then you're welcome to explain how you completely missed the hints I planted in my original message as well as the explicit winky smiley in my second.

 

[RandFan]

If you're volunteering to demonstrate that not all humorless partisans are Republicans, then you're welcome to explain how you completely missed the hints I planted in my original message as well as the explicit winky smiley in my second.

I think you need to learn what a Poe is. In any event, I don't at all find your hints or your smiley particularly obvious. You've not said anything or done anything that another serious poster has not done. If you really are a Poe and that was your purpose then kudos, otherwise, it's really weak.

 

[SezMe]

If you're volunteering to demonstrate that not all humorless partisans are Republicans, then you're welcome to explain how you completely missed the hints I planted in my original message as well as the explicit winky smiley in my second.

I'll volunteer that you flatter yourself if you think I religiously follow every nook, cranny and smilie in your oeuvre.

 

[JohnnyG]

How would I know?

Why would it matter?

I suspect there has and I would damn sure want to know about it.

I suspect there has too, but I don't care in the least. Lots of things are discussed in private, but I think it is rather obsessive to want to know everything that is discussed.

No doubt, and let's be honest, it's rather easy pickings.

Easy does not make it any less petty and juvenile.

 

[RandFan]

Why would it matter?

Dude, it's your question. If you don't know how the answer to the question would matter perhaps you shouldn't ask it.

Easy does not make it any less petty and juvenile.

Asserting that it's petty and juvenile doesn't make it true. Some might find it petty and juvenile to expose John Edwards and Sylvia Browne when they dupe their marks in private but some of us don't.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I think you need to learn what a Poe is. In any event, I don't at all find your hints or your smiley particularly obvious. You've not said anything or done anything that another serious poster has not done. If you really are a Poe and that was your purpose then kudos, otherwise, it's really weak.

Thank you.

Yes, this is one of several subfora in which there is no argument so stupid but that someone will make it. I apologize for posting satire that was too subtle for this sobforum.

I'll volunteer that you flatter yourself if you think I religiously follow every nook, cranny and smilie in your oeuvre.

No, I don't think that at all. So far as I can tell, you don't even pay much attention to what's written in the posts to which you respond.

 

[JohnnyG]

Dude, it's your question. If you don't know how the answer to the question would matter perhaps you shouldn't ask it.

The question was yours, I just wanted to know why you framed it using a false analogy.

Asserting that it's petty and juvenile doesn't make it true.

Yet you agree that it is simply gaffe hunting of an easy target. Should every conversation be made public so you can verify there are no juicy bits that can twisted to fit your political agenda?

Some might find it petty and juvenile to expose John Edwards and Sylvia Browne when they dupe their marks in private but some of us don't.

Yet another false analogy.

 

[RandFan]

The question was yours, I just wanted to know why you framed it using a false analogy.

A.) No, it was yours. B.) I didn't use a false analogy.

Yet you agree that it is simply gaffe hunting of an easy target.

Politics is a bitch. As Romney says, "there's no whining in politics".

Yet another false analogy.

How is it a false analogy? Those are "private" meetings. Given the 47% remark made by Romney the contempt of the GOP for the working class is every much a fair target as the lies of John Edwards and Sylvia Browne. In short, asserting a false analogy doesn't make it so. But you are special pleading.

 

[mikedenk]

Thank you.

Yes, this is one of several subfora in which there is no argument so stupid but that someone will make it. I apologize for posting satire that was too subtle for this sobforum.

No.

No, I don't think that at all. So far as I can tell, you don't even pay much attention to what's written in the posts to which you respond.

No. You fail again.

That kind of weak sauce may fly in the Conjurer's Corner, but you best bring your A-game up in this bitch.

 

[JohnnyG]

A.) No, it was yours. B.) I didn't use a false analogy.

Politics is a bitch. As Romney says, "there's no whining in politics".

How is it a false analogy? Those are "private" meetings. Given the 47% remark made by Romney the contempt of the GOP for the working class is every much a fair target as the lies of John Edwards and Sylvia Browne. In short, asserting a false analogy doesn't make it so. But you are special pleading.

The question was yours. You set up a false analogy about Democrats discussing gun policy as if it was somehow similar to Bush being an invited speaker to a private event. When I asked if you were insinuating it was a Republican policy meeting you went out to left field.

Regardless, if you can't understand how a private speech at a private event is different from defrauding people by claiming powers that don't exist then I'm afraid I cannot help you.

Feel free to continue gaffe hunting all you like. I'll keep my laughter to myself.

 

[RandFan]

The question was yours.

Dude, what was the question? Sitting here spouting over and over that it was my question is getting you no where.

You set up a false analogy about Democrats discussing gun policy as if it was somehow similar to Bush being an invited speaker to a private event.

That's NOT a false analogy. And it could just as easily been a Democrat speaker talking about guns. Jesus Christ. Learn what a false analogy is before you make such accusations.

Regardless, if you can't understand how a private speech at a private event is different from defrauding people by claiming powers that don't exist then I'm afraid I cannot help you.

As if rich people cannot get together to discuss ways of screwing people. I'm sorry but this is weak sauce.

Feel free to continue gaffe hunting all you like. I'll keep my laughter to myself.

We'll keep laughing at your silly accusations.

 

[JohnnyG]

Dude, what was the question? Sitting here spouting over and over that it was my question is getting you no where.

You are correct, I did ask the question. It was in response to your incorrect assumption that I would want a tape released of Democrats discussing gun policy. My apologies.

That's NOT a false analogy. And it could just as easily been a Democrat speaker talking about guns. Jesus Christ. Learn what a false analogy is before you make such accusations.

So you are saying that, from a "general public needs to know what was said" perspective, a room full of politicians discussing a highly controversial government policy is equivalent to a former politician talking at an investment conference? I think you must have skipped a dose.

As if rich people cannot get together to discuss ways of screwing people.

I see. It's the evil rich people now that should not be allowed privacy?

Grab your pitchforks people - somebody we don't like may have said something in private to other people we don't like and they won't let us hear it to find out!