So you wanna piss off a lemming/freeper? Ask them this -

[zbdent]

"So, a sitting pResident giving technically correct, but misleading answers is okay now?"

[Skittles]

1. they will say YES, as long as he is not under oath

because they are f***ing idiots.

[Qutzupalotl]

6. There's a saying down in Texas...

You don't have to be under oath to tell the truth.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

14. But that's not true either

I wish I could recall who pointed this out on these pages in recent days so I could give credit, but...

The Constitution says that one of the duties of the President is to report to the country on the state of the Union.

Bush took the Presidential Oath. Giving the State of the Union address is one of his constitutionally-mandated duties that he swore he would uphold.

He lied.

Under oath.

He's a liar. Wait. LIAR (looks better in all-caps).

[Wonk]

15. Might've been me. I've posted this a couple of times now.

http://www.madkane.com/wwwboard/messages/7671.html

[MUAD_DIB]

2. Let's get their doublewide in an uproar.

Missing Freeper

Blind in left eye

Missing right leg

Unemployed

Castrated

Answers to lucky

[GumboYaYa]

7. "Answers to Lucky"

I really did LOL. In fact, I almost choked to death laughing so hard.

[Mz Pip]

3. Technically correct

WTF does that mean????? I heard the term used and tried to figure out what it meant. Seems to me it was an out and out lie and they knew it.

MzPip
:dem:

[liberalhistorian]

10. It means that that's THEIR version of

"it depends on what the meaning of "is" is! Don't you know by now that, according to their world view, lying is perfectly acceptable, no matter what harm it costs in little things like lives lost, as long as the lies come from THEIR side and as long as the lies aren't (gasp! horror! shock! SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, there are sensitive ears present) anything to do with S-E-X!

[qandnotq]

13. "technically correct" because

he didn't say Iraq tried to buy nukes. he said the British "learned" that Iraq tried to buy nukes. so, the claim is "technically correct" because the British did indeed make the assertion. this is, of course, a load of crap because the statement was intended to convey the impression that we believed the British assertion. further, he didn't say the British "claimed", he said they "learned". this phrasing is clearly is an endorsement of the veracity of their claim; so technically it's not even technically correct.

[mourningdove92]

4. Thats Great!

But you know, the come back will be CLINTON.....they just cannot get over the fact that he was such a great President, kicked the repugs butt every chance he got. 70 million to discover that he lied about a blow job. Dang, you know, I love Hillary, and cannot wait for her to be President, but hey, if I was married to her, I WOULD LIE TOO.
:kick:

[liberalhistorian]

12. LOL!

If I were married to Hillary (I'm a hetero woman, but work with me here!), I would not only have lied, I would have STAYED THE HELL OUT OF HER WAY for about three weeks after she found out the truth! I love her too, though, and her prez election can't come soon enough for me!

[arcane1]

5. Bush swore on the Holy Bible to uphold his Constitutional duties

foremost of those being the SOTU address itself


I wonder how freeps will reply to this suggestion, since being under oath apparently is the only thing that matters: Would you, freepers, be willing to accept putting Bush under oath and asking him about these WMD stories?

I would!!!!

[Phoenixtongueof fire]

11. In as much as George W. Bush has never made an.....

original statement in his life, he would probably answer, any question that he is ask under oath, by saying, "It all depends on what is your definition as to what is, is" Since it worked for Clinton when queried about a blowjob, it should work for Bush about killing thousands because of a lie. After all Bush only lied about killing, Clinton lied about a blowjob, for heaven's sake. Killing, blowjob, killing, blowjob.....it's a no-brainer

[dbt]

8. "It's not about the Weapons of Mass Destruction,

It's about the lying!"

:evilgrin:
dbt

[NicoleM]

9. What I like to ask them

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

I have yet to receive any answer at all to that.

[snippy]

16. Kreepers already are always,always, always pissed off. But if you really

want to annoy them tell them that there are four objective criteria which distinguish the terms of democratic presidents from republican presidents.

1. Stock market performance

2. Jobs growth

3. Limiting increases in discretionary spending by the government

4. Number of members of the administration indicted

For some reason it enrages kreepers and shittoheads, to the point of sometimes going ballistically apeshit, when I point out that democratic presidents do a consistently better job as measured by these criteria.