PDA

View Full Version : A Hat Trick for "W"


Pages : [1] 2

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:03 PM
I like President George W. Bush. He seems like a funny, down-to-earth, cool guy. However, these are not qualities I look for in a president.

Years ago, GW was arrested for and convicted of a DUI in 1976 (1). He was also arrested twice before that (2). For a fourth and separate offense, a family friend said he served a year of community service for cocaine use (3). In 1972 he went AWOL (no charges or conviction) (4). Like Martha Stewart, Bush was investigated by the SEC for insider trading (no charges or conviction) (5). For years, Corporate President Bush was a good friend of Ken Lay, ex-chairman of Enron (6).

To be fair, that was years ago, and people can change.

Since becoming president, GW has earned the title "Flip-Flopper in Chief" (7). He illegally imprisoned hundreds of people--including US citizens--for years (8). He spent the budget surplus and bankrupted the treasury in record-setting fashion (9). He's the first president in 72 years to have a net loss of jobs (10).

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

I guess that what you'd expect from a rich kid with a rap sheet. A funny, simple, cool guy, GW's character has been consistent throughout his life. Is it reasonable to assume that he'll be any different in the next four years?

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." –Mark Twain



SOURCES

(1) BUSH'S DUI IN 1976
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/
b. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html

(2) BUSH'S 2 OTHER ARRESTS
a. Kristof, Nicholas D. "THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE TEXAS GOVERNOR; Ally of an Older Generation Amid the Tumult of the 60's" The New York Times 19 Jun. 2000, late ed. (National Desk): A1. Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.dke.org/bushyaletimes.html

(3) BUSH ALLEGEDLY BUSTED FOR COCAINE USE IN 1972
a. Kranish, Michael. "Bush denies allegation of '72 drug arrest in book" Boston Globe 20 Oct. 1999, city ed.: A10 Academic Universe. Lexis-Nexis. Kingwood Coll. Lib., Kingwood. 9 Aug. 2004 <http://www.lexis-nexis.com>
b. http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread3352.shtml
c. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/232407p-199614c.html
d. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/10/18/cocaine/

(4) BUSH WAS PAID FOR ONLY 6 DAYS OF SERVICE BETWEEN APRIL 17 AND DEC. 31, 1972. AWOL?
a. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-records_x.htm
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-13-bush-alabama_x.htm

(5) BUSH INVESTIGATED BY THE SEC
a. Behr, Peter. “Bush Sold Stock After Lawyers’ Warning,” Washington Post 1 Nov. 2002

(6) BUSH'S GOOD FRIEND KEN LAY
a. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/17/bush.lay/
b. http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/08/MNGHK7HVO317.DTL
c. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html

(7) EXAMPLES OF BUSH FLIP-FLOPPING
a. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263
b. http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/{65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63}/gwb.pdf
c. http://www.democrats.org/specialreports/top10_flipflops/
d. http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/09/con04380.html
e. http://www.jamesglaser.org/2004/p20040406.html

(8) BUSH ILLEGALLY DETAINED HUNDREDS
a. http://www.amnestyusa.org/waronterror/guantanamo/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-07-07-detainee-tribunals_x.htm
c. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/28/opinion/courtwatch/main626507.shtml
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/28/politics/28CND-SCOT.html?ex=1097899200&en=57df0b9f3dbec6ea&ei=5070&hp
e. http://www.infoshop.org/inews/stories.php?story=04/06/29/1904880

(9) BUSH'S RECORD DEFICIT
a. http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/state/9914143.htm
b. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
c. http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/13/news/economy/election_debates/

(10) BUSH'S JOB DESTRUCTION
a. http://slate.msn.com/id/2082321/
b. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-03-28-herbert-hoover_x.htm
c. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38172

(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL

(15) US CASUALTIES IN IRAQ
a. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2004/10/041012-casualty.pdf
b. http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
c. http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/USfatalities.html
d. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/09/national/09deaths.html?ex=1097812800&en=64efea2052a0ae9e&ei=5070&oref=login

(16) COST OF WAR IN IRAQ
a. http://www.costofwar.com/
b. http://www.factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=253
c. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/9902611.htm
d. http://christianity.about.com/cs/warandpeace/a/100billion.htm
e. http://civilliberty.about.com/b/a/111120.htm

(17) CIVILIAN DEATHS IN IRAQ
a. http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
b. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,976392,00.html

Donger
10-17-2004, 11:12 PM
GW should apologize to the UN and the world.

Ummm, why exactly?

nychief
10-17-2004, 11:16 PM
Ummm, why exactly?


for being a "freedom lover."

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:22 PM
Ummm, why exactly?

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:27 PM
http://members.cox.net/ed2klinks/files/BLPDFtL.gif

BigMeatballDave
10-17-2004, 11:31 PM
http://members.cox.net/ed2klinks/files/BLPDFtL.gifThat would also make Kerry a liar...and Edwards...and Gore...and clinton...etc...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:34 PM
I'm not sure what you mean BigChiefDave.

BTW, why does your avatar say you are saluting terrorists?

Joe Seahawk
10-17-2004, 11:44 PM
Hey, a new left wing psycho!

Donger
10-17-2004, 11:46 PM
Hey, a new left wing psycho!

Methinks it's a "new, but old" left wing psycho.

Saggysack
10-17-2004, 11:54 PM
A hat trick? Wow! That's so neat. He wouldn't have pulled out any WMD from that hat, did he?

BigMeatballDave
10-17-2004, 11:54 PM
I'm not sure what you mean BigChiefDave.

BTW, why does your avatar say you are saluting terrorists?I used to have a photoshop of Bush flipping the bird...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:54 PM
Are you saying I'm a psycho for my opinions on Bush?

Or are you saying BigChiefDave is a psycho for saluting terrorists?

BigMeatballDave
10-17-2004, 11:57 PM
Are you saying I'm a psycho for my opinions on Bush?

Or are you saying BigChiefDave is a psycho for saluting terrorists?Don't be a tard.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:57 PM
A hat trick? Wow! That's so neat. He wouldn't have pulled out any WMD from that hat, did he?

I think everyone knows that there were no WMD's in Iraq.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:57 PM
Don't be a tard.
What do you mean, Sir?

Phobia
10-17-2004, 11:58 PM
Are you saying I'm a psycho for my opinions on Bush?

Or are you saying BigChiefDave is a psycho for saluting terrorists?

We're saying your a psycho for coming to a FOOTBALL site to talk politics. Your username seems to indicate that you'll be talking politics exclusively. Is that the case?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-17-2004, 11:59 PM
I used to have a photoshop of Bush flipping the bird...
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. What do you mean you used to have "a photoshop"? and what does that have to do with you saluting terrorists?

BigMeatballDave
10-17-2004, 11:59 PM
I think everyone knows that there were no WMD's in Iraq.Lets see...Reagan supplied Saddam with weapons during the 80's, yet Saddam never had them...interesting...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:01 AM
We're saying your a psycho for coming to a FOOTBALL site to talk politics. Your username seems to indicate that you'll be talking politics exclusively. Is that the case?

No.

However, right now I am focused on politics because of election in a couple weeks.

My friend told me this site has some good debaters. I'm looking for a reason why Bush should be given 4 more years.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:01 AM
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. What do you mean you used to have "a photoshop"? and what does that have to do with you saluting terrorists?This would be less time consuming explaining this to my son...WHO IS 5!

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:02 AM
Lets see...Reagan supplied Saddam with weapons during the 80's, yet Saddam never had them...interesting...
We haven't found them, have we?

(FYI, the year is 2004. Much has happened since the 80's.)

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:02 AM
No.

However, right now I am focused on politics because of election in a couple weeks.

My friend told me this site has some good debaters. I'm looking for a reason why Bush should be given 4 more years. Proactively rooting out terrorist and killing them. We are killing terrorists in Iraq now.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:03 AM
I think everyone knows that there were no WMD's in Iraq.


Did we check his hat?

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:05 AM
We haven't found them, have we?

(FYI, the year is 2004. Much has happened since the 80's.)You are right. There is also no documentation on their whereabouts, either...

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:06 AM
I'm sorry, I'm still confused. What do you mean you used to have "a photoshop"? and what does that have to do with you saluting terrorists?"Salute to Terrorists"

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:07 AM
Proactively rooting out terrorist and killing them. We are killing terrorists in Iraq now.
I think the correct term is "insurgents". Otherwise, you run the risk of sounding dogmatic. Is everyone who defends their country a terrorist, or are they soldiers just like the army who invaded them?

Let's not forget the cost to this "proactivity".
Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:07 AM
My friend told me this site has some good debaters. I'm looking for a reason why Bush should be given 4 more years.

Are you really looking for a reason, or are you spreading propaganda about why he should not?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:08 AM
You are right. There is also no documentation on their whereabouts, either...

A point the Bush administration should have considered before sending 200,000 US troops to invade Iraq.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:10 AM
I think the correct term is "insurgents". Otherwise, you run the risk of sounding dogmatic. Is everyone who defends their country a terrorist, or are they soldiers just like the army who invaded them?

Let's not forget the cost to this "proactivity".Protecting their country with carbombs? Sounds like the work of a terrorist if you ask me....

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:12 AM
Proactively rooting out terrorist and killing them. We are killing terrorists in Iraq now.

Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:13 AM
A point the Bush administration should have considered before sending 200,000 US troops to invade Iraq.Wha... :spock:

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:13 AM
Are you really looking for a reason, or are you spreading propaganda about why he should not?
as questionable as it seems, I've found the best way to generate discussion about this topic is to take the opposite side. do you have a suggestion for how to find a good argument for Bush's re-election?

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:14 AM
Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...Bring 'em on!

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:14 AM
A point the Bush administration should have considered before sending 200,000 US troops to invade Iraq.

I'm pretty sure they considered it. I wasn't actually in those meetings, but I'm guessing that it was a topic at least once.

Have you considered a couple of these facts?

1. Iraq had and has used WMD in the past. In some cases on their own citizens.
2. Weapons inspectors were stymied by Hussein for 12 years. He rarely cooperated and when he did, it was a dog and pony show. The UN inspection teams never saw anything SH didn't want them to see.
3. The intel provided to the WH indicated there were WMD in Iraq. If you can't trust your own intel, WTF can you trust?

I'm not a GWB fan, but crack on him for his legitimate failures, not something completely out of his control.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:15 AM
Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops fight the enemy over there...

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:15 AM
My friend told me this site has some good debaters. I'm looking for a reason why Bush should be given 4 more years.

Your friend may well be correct.

But, riddle me this: why on earth would I elect to debate a person who has an animated GIF that states, "Bush Lied, People Died, Fire The Liar?"

No offense, but that in and of itself leads a rational person to conclude that you are not capable of substantial debate.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:16 AM
Protecting their country with carbombs? Sounds like the work of a terrorist if you ask me....
I agree it "sounds" like a terrorist.

Then again, I'm sure the hit-and-run tactics of the US militia seemed like terrorism to the noble, discplined redcoats during our Revolutionary War.

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 12:16 AM
as questionable as it seems, I've found the best way to generate discussion about this topic is to take the opposite side. do you have a suggestion for how to find a good argument for Bush's re-election?

Well, I think you're a stupid mother(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )er, perhaps that will generate some discussion as to why you shouldn't be banned...

I'm J/K about the banning part.. you should be allowed to voice your stupid moronic positions.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:18 AM
Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...

Why do people keep saying this? It has been proven that there were terrorist training camps IN Iraq before, during, and after our invasion. It has also been proven that SH interacted with and financially supported terrorists. Where do you think terrorists come from? They aren't ALL Saudis, but most of them are from the Middle East - at least the terrorists that want to cause harm to the US.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:19 AM
Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...

The Klinghoffer family vehemently disagrees with you.

I doubt not that the majority of the terrorists our troops are presently fighting in Iraq were late arrivals, but to suggest that the Hussein regime was not actively engaged in supporting terrorism pre-invasion is simply wrong.

I trust that you are not making that assertion.

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:19 AM
Bring 'em on!

That is too damn funny... you get rep for that...

:thumb:

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:20 AM
I'm J/K about the banning part.. you should be allowed to voice your stupid moronic positions.

Actually, I was in the control panel ready to press the big red button when I decided I liked his response to my question about his desire to share his football opinions.

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:21 AM
Yessirreee... terrorists that weren't there before we invaded Iraq...Saddam actually funded the families of homicide bombers in Israel. That alone makes him a terrorist...

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:22 AM
That is too damn funny... you get rep for that...

:thumb:I stole it from GWB!

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:24 AM
Have you considered a couple of these facts?

1. Iraq had and has used WMD in the past. In some cases on their own citizens.
2. Weapons inspectors were stymied by Hussein for 12 years. He rarely cooperated and when he did, it was a dog and pony show. The UN inspection teams never saw anything SH didn't want them to see.
3. The intel provided to the WH indicated there were WMD in Iraq. If you can't trust your own intel, WTF can you trust?

I'm not a GWB fan, but crack on him for his legitimate failures, not something completely out of his control.
Yessir, and I agree with your point that Iraq wasn't a hotspot tourist destination.

However, the end does not justify the means.

Just because Iraq wasn't perfect doesn't make it ethical for the US to invade Iraq and change our justification to fit the situation. Even if the Bush admin wasn't malicious in its false and misleading accusations against Iraq, it's guilty of gross and severe negligence.

I have also considered that our government coerced the intelligence suggesting WMD were in Iraq.
http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

ever seen this film? (It's not Michael Moore.)

I have also considered that private US companies profited hundreds of millions of dollars off the fictitious war in Iraq. Coincidence?

As to "WTF can you trust?" I don't know any more, but I know who we can not trust.

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 12:24 AM
Actually, I was in the control panel ready to press the big red button when I decided I liked his response to my question about his desire to share his football opinions.

I need to put him on iggy.. That F'n avatar and sig seriously piss me off.. I'm so sick of shit like that.. You would be too if you lived here in Seattle it's everywhere..

He's probably an O.K. guy underneath all that rhetoric, but he's on iggy for me .

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:25 AM
Well, I think you're a stupid mother(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )er, perhaps that will generate some discussion as to why you shouldn't be banned...

I'm J/K about the banning part.. you should be allowed to voice your stupid moronic positions.
When faced with evidence that challenges people's core beliefs, I've found that they frequently and quickly resort to personal attacks.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:27 AM
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops fight the enemy over there...

I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops not fighting at all, unless we're in imminent danger.

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 12:27 AM
When faced with evidence that challenges people's core beliefs, I've found that they frequently and quickly result to personal attacks.

Your sig and avatar personally attack our Commander In Chief, so GFY hypocrite.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:29 AM
Your sig and avatar personally attack our Commander In Chief, so GFY.
This discussion is about Bush. However, your name calling is not.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:30 AM
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops not fighting at all, unless we're in imminent danger.

That's pre-9/11 thinking for you.

Worked out pretty well for us, didn't it?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:30 AM
Your friend may well be correct.

But, riddle me this: why on earth would I elect to debate a person who has an animated GIF that states, "Bush Lied, People Died, Fire The Liar?"

No offense, but that in and of itself leads a rational person to conclude that you are not capable of substantial debate.
So because I have an opinion and voice it openly, I can't be rational?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:31 AM
I need to put him on iggy.. That F'n avatar and sig seriously piss me off.. I'm so sick of shit like that.. You would be too if you lived here in Seattle it's everywhere..

He's probably an O.K. guy underneath all that rhetoric, but he's on iggy for me .

Why on earth would you be angered at some other persons opinion?

I don't go around here in Kansas being pissed because of the religious fanatical right and their never ending intrusion of their morals into my life. I just tell them to F*** Off and go about my business.

Geez, some of you guys get angry and the stupidest little things.

Joe Seahawk
10-18-2004, 12:33 AM
Why on earth would you be angered at some other persons opinion?

I don't go around here in Kansas being pissed because of the religious fanatical right and their never ending intrusion of their morals into my life. I just tell them to F*** Off and go about my business.

Geez, some of you guys get angry and the stupidest little things.

That's what I did.. I told him to (. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. ) off and now I'm going about my business.. So WTF do you care dickwad..

Can you tell the Hawks have lost 2 straight?.. ;)

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:36 AM
It has been proven that there were terrorist training camps IN Iraq before, during, and after our invasion.
Terrorist can be found in limited quantities in just about every nation on earth.
It has also been proven that SH interacted with and financially supported terrorists.
False--according to a bipartisan commission of US senators on June 16, 2004. Do you have sources to support your assertion?
(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:36 AM
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops not fighting at all, unless we're in imminent danger.That way of thinking is dangerous in todays world.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:38 AM
...to suggest that the Hussein regime was not actively engaged in supporting terrorism pre-invasion is simply wrong.
(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:38 AM
I have also considered that private US companies profited hundreds of millions of dollars off the fictitious war in Iraq. Coincidence?


How about BILLIONS? Yeah, I find that pretty pathetic as well. I can't believe we're paying Millions for privatized chowhalls over there when we used to get it done paying actual servicemen a fraction of the cost. What is the point? In GW1, we didn't have all those contractors supporting the troops. Troops supported themselves. Halliburton is a complete joke - some of their employees should do jailtime for fraud or even outright theft.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:38 AM
That's what I did.. I told him to (. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. ) off and now I'm going about my business.. So WTF do you care dickwad..

Can you tell the Hawks have lost 2 straight?.. ;)

I was at one time a dickwad but I have evolved, some.

Yeah, sorry to hear about those Seachicks Joe. You guys will still win the division though. But it's hard for me to be really sorry considering the Chiefs season.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:39 AM
So because I have an opinion and voice it openly, I can't be rational?

Sure you can. Voice it anyway...

"Bush Lied."

Are you suggesting that you have evidence that Bush knowingly lied about his justifications for going to war with Iraq? Specifically, that Iraq had WMDs? In other words, Bush KNEW that Iraq no longer (because they did) had WMDs and blatantly lied when he said they did?

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:39 AM
Terrorist can be found in limited quantities in just about every nation on earth.

False--according to a bipartisan commission of US senators on June 16, 2004. Do you have sources to support your assertion?

Phobia is referring to SH paying a "reward" to families of Palestinian suicide bombers...

...which has nothing to do with Al Qaida or 9/11 at all... or being an imminent threat to the U.S...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:40 AM
Saddam actually funded the families of homicide bombers in Israel. That alone makes him a terrorist...
While you're certainly entitiled to your opinion on the matter, your views are not widely held.

Many people consider the occupied Palestinians to be defending themselves against the Israeli invaders. Again, it comes back to the question: when is it terrorism and when is it self-defense?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:42 AM
Terrorist can be found in limited quantities in just about every nation on earth.

False--according to a bipartisan commission of US senators on June 16, 2004. Do you have sources to support your assertion?

Yep, even here in the U.S., guys get ready for the invasion.

As a far as what they consider links to terrorists, I pretty sure Phobia is meaning SH funnelling money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:42 AM
Yeah. Those articles are great and all, but you may notice that I didn't mention al Qaeda.

Do/did you consider Abu Nidal to be a terrorist?

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 12:43 AM
While you're certainly entitiled to your opinion on the matter, your views are not widely held.

Many people consider the occupied Palestinians to be defending themselves against the Israeli invaders. Again, it comes back to the question: when is it terrorism and when is it self-defense?(. x. )(. x. )(. x. )(. x. ) You, you anti-semite...and no, I'm not Jewish or Israeli...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:43 AM
That's pre-9/11 thinking for you.

Worked out pretty well for us, didn't it?
Do you have any sources for your assertions that Iraq was a threat to us?

Phobia
10-18-2004, 12:43 AM
Terrorist can be found in limited quantities in just about every nation on earth.

False--according to a bipartisan commission of US senators on June 16, 2004. Do you have sources to support your assertion?

100% of the terrorists involved in the WTC bombing(s) were from the ME. I don't care about Irish terrorists because they aren't a threat to me.

No, I don't frequent political sites. I'm not going to have any links to back up my claims. That probably makes me a bad debater, but I don't care. I've formed my opinion about SH's participation with terrorists based upon the countless articles I've read and war coverage I've watched. By very definition, Saddam was a terrorist himself. Considering this, how could it possibly be proven that SH isn't linked to terrorists.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:45 AM
While you're certainly entitiled to your opinion on the matter, your views are not widely held.

Many people consider the occupied Palestinians to be defending themselves against the Israeli invaders. Again, it comes back to the question: when is it terrorism and when is it self-defense?

Self defense isn't blowing up school choldren on their way home from school in a public transportation bus. Palestinian targets have by and large never been military targets, they have been targets that subject the civilian population the full brunt of it's force.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:45 AM
While you're certainly entitiled to your opinion on the matter, your views are not widely held.

Many people consider the occupied Palestinians to be defending themselves against the Israeli invaders. Again, it comes back to the question: when is it terrorism and when is it self-defense?

Considering that Isreali forces are only in "Palestine" territory because they defended themselves because of imminent threat of invasion, I call it self-defense.

Being pro-active when it comes to your own survival isn't global politics; it's common sense.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:46 AM
That way of thinking is dangerous in todays world.
is it as dangerous as...oh say...losing 1,069 soldiers and $120 billion in a war that, as the evidence shows, didn't need to be fought?

stevieray
10-18-2004, 12:46 AM
look up terrorist in the dictionary.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:46 AM
Self defense isn't blowing up school choldren on their way home from school in a public transportation bus. Palestinian targets have by and large never been military targets, they have been targets that subject the civilian population the full brunt of it's force.

When teenage girls strap bombs to their chests and blow up a restaurant full of innocent Israelis, they chose to make the line of delineation a tad hazy.

Wouldn't you agree?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:48 AM
When teenage girls strap bombs to their chests and blow up a restaurant full of innocent Israelis, they chose to make the line of delineation a tad hazy.

Wouldn't you agree?

of course

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 12:48 AM
Considering that Isreali forces are only in "Palestine" territory because they defended themselves because of imminent threat of invasion, I call it self-defense.

Being pro-active when it comes to your own survival isn't global politics; it's common sense.

I won't argue about Israel's right to exist or its right to defend itself. But it wasn't global terrorism. It was Palestinian terrorism. There IS a difference. Or, at least, there was a difference... Like the McCoys and the Hatfields... a feud of bad blood that never ends...

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:48 AM
Do you have any sources for your assertions that Iraq was a threat to us?

Did I say they were?

If you are truly looking for a honest debate, don't put words into my mouth.

It's a bad start, and makes any honest person immediately suspect of your motives.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:51 AM
of course

Good.

Therefore, does logic not then dictate that Israel is justified in assuming that any "Palestinian" capable of walking into an establishment is a threat?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:51 AM
How about BILLIONS? Yeah, I find that pretty pathetic as well. I can't believe we're paying Millions for privatized chowhalls over there when we used to get it done paying actual servicemen a fraction of the cost. What is the point? In GW1, we didn't have all those contractors supporting the troops. Troops supported themselves. Halliburton is a complete joke - some of their employees should do jailtime for fraud or even outright theft.
I'm sorry, I forgot to note that the 2 companies I was referring to, Carlyle Group and Halliburton, were directly associate with GW, Bush Sr., and Cheney, the guys who decided that we must attack Iraq for false reasons.

When a woman's husband is killed, leaving her millions in insurance, wouldn't you at least question her motives and whereabouts? Of course you would.

When 1,000 husbands die, leaving the Bush's and Cheney's ex-companies billions of dollars, don't ya think we should question their motives and whereabouts?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:54 AM
Phobia is referring to SH paying a "reward" to families of Palestinian suicide bombers...

...which has nothing to do with Al Qaida or 9/11 at all... or being an imminent threat to the U.S...
While you're certainly entitiled to your opinion on the matter, your views are not widely held.

Many people consider the occupied Palestinians to be defending themselves against the Israeli invaders. Again, it comes back to the question: when is it terrorism and when is it self-defense?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:55 AM
Good.

Therefore, does logic not then dictate that Israel is justified in assuming that any "Palestinian" capable of walking into an establishment is a threat?

Not justified. Are you ready to assume that every person of Arab descent that boards a plane will hijack it and slam it into a skyscraper?

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:55 AM
I'm sorry, I forgot to note that the 2 companies I was referring to, Carlyle Group and Halliburton, were directly associate with GW, Bush Sr., and Cheney, the guys who decided that we must attack Iraq for false reasons.

When a woman's husband is killed, leaving her millions in insurance, wouldn't you at least question her motives and whereabouts? Of course you would.

When 1,000 husbands die, leaving the Bush's and Cheney's ex-companies billions of dollars, don't ya think we should question their motives and whereabouts?

I'm going to ask you again.

Sans an answer, I will conclude that you are nothing more than a provocateur.

Do you have any evidence that George Bush INTENTIONALLY MISLED (or lied, if you prefer) our country and the world when he stated that Iraq had WMDs?

In other words, he KNEW they did not and said so anyway?

Yes, or no?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 12:55 AM
Yeah. Those articles are great and all, but you may notice that I didn't mention al Qaeda.

Do/did you consider Abu Nidal to be a terrorist?
Do you consider him to have been on the Iraqi bankroll? Sources please.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:58 AM
Not justified. Are you ready to assume that every person of Arab descent that boards a plane will hijack it and slam it into a skyscraper?

Not at all.

I'm saying that the Israelis are justifiably cautious of any Palestinian that is capable of delivering a weapon.

History supports that caution.

Donger
10-18-2004, 12:58 AM
Do you consider him to have been on the Iraqi bankroll? Sources please.

Who?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 12:59 AM
I'm going to ask you again.

Sans an answer, I will conclude that you are nothing more than a provocateur.

Do you have any evidence that George Bush INTENTIONALLY MISLED (or lied, if you prefer) our country and the world when he stated that Iraq had WMDs?

In other words, he KNEW they did not and said so anyway?

Yes, or no?

Tactical diversion sounds so much better.

But how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a tactical diversion? :p

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:01 AM
Tactical diversion sounds so much better.

But how do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a tactical diversion? :p

I'll take that as a no.

No BS folks: if it can be proven that Bush intentionally misled/lied to us, then not only would I not vote for him, I'd demand his impeachment and imprisonment.

I doubt I'd be alone.

So, anyone?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:01 AM
100% of the terrorists involved in the WTC bombing(s) were from the ME. I don't care about Irish terrorists because they aren't a threat to me.
so which terrorists are a threat to you? Are the ones in Iran? N Korea? Sudan?

No, I don't frequent political sites. I'm not going to have any links to back up my claims. That probably makes me a bad debater, but I don't care. I've formed my opinion about SH's participation with terrorists based upon the countless articles I've read and war coverage I've watched.
The vast majority of Bush supporters have no basis for their beliefs. It's blind faith. If you're any different, then prove it.

By very definition, Saddam was a terrorist himself.
how so?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:02 AM
Self defense isn't blowing up school choldren on their way home from school in a public transportation bus. Palestinian targets have by and large never been military targets, they have been targets that subject the civilian population the full brunt of it's force.
If you're right, then why doesn't the Bush administration do something about Palestine?

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:04 AM
how so?

Do you only ask questions? Not answer them?

Would you consider using chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja the act of a terrorist?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:05 AM
When teenage girls strap bombs to their chests and blow up a restaurant full of innocent Israelis, they chose to make the line of delineation a tad hazy.

Wouldn't you agree?
Palistinean suicide bombers is nothing new. If the "war on terror" really were about stopping terrorists, we would've done something about Palestine a long time ago.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:07 AM
I'm sorry, I forgot to note that the 2 companies I was referring to, Carlyle Group and Halliburton, were directly associate with GW, Bush Sr., and Cheney, the guys who decided that we must attack Iraq for false reasons.

When a woman's husband is killed, leaving her millions in insurance, wouldn't you at least question her motives and whereabouts? Of course you would.

When 1,000 husbands die, leaving the Bush's and Cheney's ex-companies billions of dollars, don't ya think we should question their motives and whereabouts?

There's a reason that the President and VP were required to give up their interests in these types of companies prior to their inauguration.
Do you really think GWB and Cheney are negotiating contracts with these companies? They are incredibly large corporations with vast resources. They are capable of meeting the military's requirements. Have you ever worked in a government job? Are you familiar with all the checks and balances to win a government contract?

Again, I think that what is going on over there is criminal. People deserve to be held accountable. But, did Bush and Cheney grease the wheels for these companies to be the major contractors in Iraq and are they personally benefiting from the money taxpayers are being bilked out of? Preposterous and impossible.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:08 AM
Palistinean suicide bombers is nothing new. If the "war on terror" really were about stopping terrorists, we would've done something about Palestine a long time ago.

We tried. Ask Bill Clinton. He gave them everything they wanted and yet the still refused to accept peace.

The simple fact about the issue in "Palestine" is that they will never accept peace until Israel is destroyed.

That won't happen.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:10 AM
Did I say they were?

If you are truly looking for a honest debate, don't put words into my mouth.

It's a bad start, and makes any honest person immediately suspect of your motives.
Then what did you mean by this?
That's pre-9/11 thinking for you.

Worked out pretty well for us, didn't it?

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:11 AM
so which terrorists are a threat to you? Are the ones in Iran? N Korea? Sudan?


The vast majority of Bush supporters have no basis for their beliefs. It's blind faith. If you're any different, then prove it.


how so?

You're right. I support Bush on blind faith. He's the best President we've ever had and I hope that we rescind term limits so he can run again in 2008.

Jeez - you're gonna be a real hit here. Goodnight.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:12 AM
Your friend may well be correct.

But, riddle me this: why on earth would I elect to debate a person who has an animated GIF that states, "Bush Lied, People Died, Fire The Liar?"

No offense, but that in and of itself leads a rational person to conclude that you are not capable of substantial debate.

I read it. I agreed with it. Yet, I played anyway. :banghead:

You're a very smart person, Donger.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:14 AM
I'm going to ask you again.

Sans an answer, I will conclude that you are nothing more than a provocateur.

Do you have any evidence that George Bush INTENTIONALLY MISLED (or lied, if you prefer) our country and the world when he stated that Iraq had WMDs?

In other words, he KNEW they did not and said so anyway?

Yes, or no?
Yes, and by "Bush" I include his cabinet and employees that he is responsible for.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(You can DL it on Suprnova.org.)

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:15 AM
Then what did you mean by this?

I was referring to the pre-9/11 stance of being reactive versus proactive.

Personally, I'd rather have an "Iraq: Ooopps, sorry!" answer than another "Ooopps, another 9/11."

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:18 AM
Who?
The only "him" in that line of questioning, Abu Nidal. You asked, "Do/did you consider Abu Nidal to be a terrorist?"

I replied, "Do you consider him to have been on the Iraqi bankroll? Sources please."

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:19 AM
I'll take that as a no.

No BS folks: if it can be proven that Bush intentionally misled/lied to us, then not only would I not vote for him, I'd demand his impeachment and imprisonment.

I doubt I'd be alone.

So, anyone?
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

DL it on Suprnova.org

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:19 AM
Yes, and by "Bush" I include his cabinet and employees that he is responsible for.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(You can DL it on Suprnova.org.)

No offense, but I can download movies of people that absolutely assert that aliens are at Area 51 and are secretly controlling our government.

That doesn't exactly make them factually, now does it?

After all, it this film were factual (and credible), I'm sure that it would be first page news tomorrow, right? Imagine, bringing down a sitting US POTUS.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:21 AM
The only "him" in that line of questioning, Abu Nidal. You asked, "Do/did you consider Abu Nidal to be a terrorist?"

I replied, "Do you consider him to have been on the Iraqi bankroll? Sources please."

Ah.

No, I have no idea.

But, it's a simpe truth that Iraq harbored him.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:21 AM
Do you only ask questions? Not answer them?

Would you consider using chemical weapons on the Kurds in Halabja the act of a terrorist?
Do YOU only ask questions, not answer them? :)

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:22 AM
Do YOU only ask questions, not answer them? :)

Ask a question.

I'll answer it to the best of my abilities.

If I can't answer it, I'll state so.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:23 AM
Not at all.

I'm saying that the Israelis are justifiably cautious of any Palestinian that is capable of delivering a weapon.

History supports that caution.

And history will also support that while we were killing off terrorists at a pace never seen, we still couldn't kill them off as fast as they can recruit.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:24 AM
Ask a question.

I'll answer it to the best of my abilities.

If I can't answer it, I'll state so.

Is the sky blue on cloudy days?

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:27 AM
I'll take that as a no.

No BS folks: if it can be proven that Bush intentionally misled/lied to us, then not only would I not vote for him, I'd demand his impeachment and imprisonment.

Likewise.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:27 AM
You're right. I support Bush on blind faith. He's the best President we've ever had and I hope that we rescind term limits so he can run again in 2008.

Jeez - you're gonna be a real hit here. Goodnight.

Now that's going alittle too far Chief. Just be happy that you don't have term limits. :p

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:29 AM
Is the sky blue on cloudy days?

It's all relative, baby.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:30 AM
And history will also support that while we were killing off terrorists at a pace never seen, we still couldn't kill them off as fast as they can recruit.

Nature of warfare.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:31 AM
And history will also support that while we were killing off terrorists at a pace never seen, we still couldn't kill them off as fast as they can recruit.

Because history also proves that nobody has taken a proactive approach to terrorists prior to GWB. I think it's a great concept, but it needs some fine tuning. We need to be creative to dissuade these morons from being recruited. We need to feed their remains to filthy swine. We need to persecute (within the law) their families. We need to make life hell for anybody who ever associated with know terrorists and we need to teach them that it is NOT an honor to die for their cause and there is not a pot of virgins at the end of the rainbow.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:32 AM
I'll take that as a no.

No BS folks: if it can be proven that Bush intentionally misled/lied to us, then not only would I not vote for him, I'd demand his impeachment and imprisonment.

I doubt I'd be alone.

So, anyone?


Don't take it as a no. Previous administrations knew the corruptness and political liability that Chalabi brought to the table. This administration just decided to act on his 'intelligence'.

Iraq IMO was nothing but a diversion from the real WoT. I don't know about you but the 2nd place(Saddam) capture did nothing to help the WoT in my eyes.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:33 AM
Nature of warfare.

No it is not. It is the nature of hatred.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:33 AM
We need to feed their remains to filthy swine. We need to persecute (within the law) their families. We need to make life hell for anybody who ever associated with know terrorists and we need to teach them that it is NOT an honor to die for their cause and there is not a pot of virgins at the end of the rainbow.

Not very "sensitive" of you Phobia.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:34 AM
No it is not. It is the nature of hatred.

Yeah.

Warfare is such a "happy-feely" thing.

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:35 AM
Now that's going alittle too far Chief. Just be happy that you don't have term limits. :p
Of course, you know I'm not serious. In many cases, GWB has proven himself to be a moron. His public speaking ability alone inspires little confidence from the American public. It's a miracle he was ever elected to begin with.

On your final point, I'd love term limits. I've tried to quit this job many times, but they keep giving me 50% raises. Do you know what 50% of zero is?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:36 AM
There's a reason that the President and VP were required to give up their interests in these types of companies prior to their inauguration.
And did Cheney give up his interests? No. Cheney retains about $18 million in stock options with Halliburton.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/26/politics/main575356.shtml

Cheney is a liar. More lies:
"F-bombs over Baghdad"
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/30/Opinion/F_bombs_over_Baghdad.shtml

More lies:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/06/24_times.html
Do you really think GWB and Cheney are negotiating contracts with these companies?
Is it so hard to believe that top-level politicians operate on the "good o' boy" principle, "You scratch my back...."

Are you familiar with all the checks and balances to win a government contract?
Are you familiar with the $7 billion no-bid contract Halliburton received?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/25/60minutes/main551091.shtml

Halliburton "is now the biggest private contractor for American forces in Iraq; it has received contracts worth some eleven billion dollars for its work there."
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040216fa_fact

...did Bush and Cheney grease the wheels for these companies to be the major contractors in Iraq and are they personally benefiting from the money taxpayers are being bilked out of? Preposterous and impossible.
perhaps you'll reconsider.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:39 AM
We tried. Ask Bill Clinton. He gave them everything they wanted and yet the still refused to accept peace.

The simple fact about the issue in "Palestine" is that they will never accept peace until Israel is destroyed.

That won't happen.
You're ignoring the point. If things are as you say they are, and Palestineans are terrorists, why do we not do something about their terrorist practices?

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:39 AM
More lies:
http://www.democraticunderground.co...6/24_times.html

Oh my.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:39 AM
Because history also proves that nobody has taken a proactive approach to terrorists prior to GWB. I think it's a great concept, but it needs some fine tuning. We need to be creative to dissuade these morons from being recruited. We need to feed their remains to filthy swine. We need to persecute (within the law) their families. We need to make life hell for anybody who ever associated with know terrorists and we need to teach them that it is NOT an honor to die for their cause and there is not a pot of virgins at the end of the rainbow.

We don't need to do anything. That will only give the attitude that we are still trying to dictate our policy to them.

What we need to do is strike a major blow. Tell Pakistan to fugg off for harboring terrorists, position 250,000 troops on the Afghan side of the border and tell them either let us in the tribal areas or else. Tell Saudi Arabia to fugg off for funding terrorism and hit their pipelines on a daily basis. But that wouldn't be politically right to our so-called friends, would it?

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:40 AM
Not very "sensitive" of you Phobia.

I know. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. While I wouldn't advocate reducing ourselves to their level in most cases, I wouldn't have an ethical problem with taking 20 known terrorists and torturing 19 of them in the worst possible methods then feeding them to pigs, kicking and screaming. Let the 20th guy go home and tell his story. Give him a tape of the carnage to show at training camp.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:41 AM
You're ignoring the point. If things are as you say they are, and Palestineans are terrorists, why do we not do something about their terrorist practices?

Because Bush isn't willing to commit totally to the support of Israel stomping the crap out of them.

One of the issues that I disagree with him about, FYI.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:41 AM
You're right. I support Bush on blind faith. He's the best President we've ever had and I hope that we rescind term limits so he can run again in 2008.

Jeez - you're gonna be a real hit here. Goodnight.
I'm not about being popular. Apparently you are. Do you see this debate, this presidency even, as a popularity contest?

There are many who do.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:41 AM
Yeah.

Warfare is such a "happy-feely" thing.

It is to some people. Osama, defense contractors, etc. etc....

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:43 AM
I was referring to the pre-9/11 stance of being reactive versus proactive.

Personally, I'd rather have an "Iraq: Ooopps, sorry!" answer than another "Ooopps, another 9/11."
Maybe you're right, maybe you're not. In any case, we're still waiting for the "Oops, sorry!" part.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:44 AM
Of course, you know I'm not serious. In many cases, GWB has proven himself to be a moron. His public speaking ability alone inspires little confidence from the American public. It's a miracle he was ever elected to begin with.

On your final point, I'd love term limits. I've tried to quit this job many times, but they keep giving me 50% raises. Do you know what 50% of zero is?Yes, yes I do. My wife gives me raises like that everyday. We're so money!

Phobia
10-18-2004, 01:44 AM
We don't need to do anything. That will only give the attitude that we are still trying to dictate our policy to them.

What we need to do is strike a major blow. Tell Pakistan to fugg off for harboring terrorists, position 250,000 troops on the Afghan side of the border and tell them either let us in the tribal areas or else. Tell Saudi Arabia to fugg off for funding terrorism and hit their pipelines on a daily basis. But that wouldn't be politically right to our so-called friends, would it?

I agree. Saudi Arabia isn't our friend. We should go find WMD there next.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:46 AM
No offense, but I can download movies of people that absolutely assert that aliens are at Area 51 and are secretly controlling our government.

That doesn't exactly make them factually, now does it?

After all, it this film were factual (and credible), I'm sure that it would be first page news tomorrow, right? Imagine, bringing down a sitting US POTUS.
Kinda like these articles?
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:46 AM
Tell Pakistan to fugg off for harboring terrorists, position 250,000 troops on the Afghan side of the border and tell them either let us in the tribal areas or else.

Got no problem with that. But, let's a have a summit forst to see what France and Germany think about it.

Tell Saudi Arabia to fugg off for funding terrorism and hit their pipelines on a daily basis. But that wouldn't be politically right to our so-called friends, would it?

Bad idea. Great concept, but bad idea. As the primary supplier of crude to our country, it'd be a bad idea to piss them off to that extent. I'd favor more discrete methods. And, as I understand, they are being persued.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:48 AM
I agree. Saudi Arabia isn't our friend. We should go find WMD there next.

ROFL

WMD I see is an evolving term. One day it means weapons of mass destruction, the next it means murdered Iraqi's, the next, pipelines.

I kinda like that.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:50 AM
Ah.

No, I have no idea.

But, it's a simpe truth that Iraq harbored him.
Sources?

Whether Iraq did or did not harbor him, Abu Nidal died long before we invaded Iraq.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

See, this is why you need sources for your claims.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:50 AM
Kinda like these articles?
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm

Okay, one last time, then we take alternative measures:

Please copy and paste (I think you know how to do that) proof from any of those three sources that President Bush KNEW that no WMDs were in Iraq and lied about their existence in order to jusitify the war.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:52 AM
Sources?

Whether Iraq did or did not harbor him, Abu Nidal died long before we invaded Iraq.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/19/mideast.nidal/

See, this is why you need sources for your claims.

When did Abu Nidal gain entry into Iraq?

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 01:54 AM
Got no problem with that. But, let's a have a summit forst to see what France and Germany think about it.



Bad idea. Great concept, but bad idea. As the primary supplier of crude to our country, it'd be a bad idea to piss them off to that extent. I'd favor more discrete methods. And, as I understand, they are being persued.


Ok, yes, let's have a summit. ;)

I know it is a bad idea. But the back channel crap will stop sooner or later before their funding will IMO.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:58 AM
Because history also proves that nobody has taken a proactive approach to terrorists prior to GWB. I think it's a great concept, but it needs some fine tuning. We need to be creative to dissuade these morons from being recruited. We need to feed their remains to filthy swine. We need to persecute (within the law) their families. We need to make life hell for anybody who ever associated with know terrorists and we need to teach them that it is NOT an honor to die for their cause and there is not a pot of virgins at the end of the rainbow.

If Iraq is the benchmark, I'd say our proactive approach needs a little more than "fine tuning". We're talking major overhaul.

So far, no apologies (except from Tony Blair) and no one held accountable.

Bush has failed us in almost every way imaginable, and this new "proactive approach" of his is probably the most visible. I don't want that kind of leadership for 4 more years.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:00 AM
Don't take it as a no. Previous administrations knew the corruptness and political liability that Chalabi brought to the table. This administration just decided to act on his 'intelligence'.

Iraq IMO was nothing but a diversion from the real WoT. I don't know about you but the 2nd place(Saddam) capture did nothing to help the WoT in my eyes.
Agreed.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:04 AM
Of course, you know I'm not serious. In many cases, GWB has proven himself to be a moron. His public speaking ability alone inspires little confidence from the American public. It's a miracle he was ever elected to begin with.

On your final point, I'd love term limits. I've tried to quit this job many times, but they keep giving me 50% raises. Do you know what 50% of zero is?
I know. I can't believe he was ever elected, and I can't believe he's still in teh running after all this stuff that keeps coming out week after week concluding how bad he screwed up.

I guess the reason I voted for him was cuz I didn't know anything about him and I figured a political dynasty was what this country needed. also, I was pissed at the democrats for sponsoring Clinton and his scandalous lies.

all I want to do now is be an informed voter for the next election. so far, I'm not finding any reasons to vote for Bushy.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:05 AM
If Iraq is the benchmark, I'd say our proactive approach needs a little more than "fine tuning". We're talking major overhaul.

So far, no apologies (except from Tony Blair) and no one held accountable.

Bush has failed us in almost every way imaginable, and this new "proactive approach" of his is probably the most visible. I don't want that kind of leadership for 4 more years.

I'm being somewhat facetious here, but part of me kind of goes, "So what?" when it comes to Iraq.

Look at Libya.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:10 AM
What we need to do is strike a major blow. Tell Pakistan to fugg off for harboring terrorists, position 250,000 troops on the Afghan side of the border and tell them either let us in the tribal areas or else. Tell Saudi Arabia to fugg off for funding terrorism and hit their pipelines on a daily basis. But that wouldn't be politically right to our so-called friends, would it?
exactly. in Iraq, where there may be a few terrorists, we have 140,000 troops. In Afghanistan, where we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden but believe him to live there, we have 16,000 troops. what's wrong with this administration?!

Meanwhile Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, N Korea, Palestine, and many other nations continue to harbor terrorists. Yet we do nothing.

(...yet.)?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:12 AM
I know. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. While I wouldn't advocate reducing ourselves to their level in most cases, I wouldn't have an ethical problem with taking 20 known terrorists and torturing 19 of them in the worst possible methods then feeding them to pigs, kicking and screaming. Let the 20th guy go home and tell his story. Give him a tape of the carnage to show at training camp.
I doubt any politician would go on the record to advocate that policy, but it would certainly be effective.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:14 AM
I agree. Saudi Arabia isn't our friend. We should go find WMD there next.
lmao :clap:

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:17 AM
I doubt any politician would go on the record to advocate that policy, but it would certainly be effective.

And yet, you seem to back a presidential candidate that is on record as wanting to return to the the "Clintonian" methodology of dealing with terrorism. I.E., treating it as a primarily criminal issue with occasional military responses? Until, of course, they return to being a "nuisance."

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:21 AM
Okay, one last time, then we take alternative measures:

Please copy and paste (I think you know how to do that) proof from any of those three sources that President Bush KNEW that no WMDs were in Iraq and lied about their existence in order to jusitify the war.
I already gave you the link to the movie.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

If you dont' wanna DL it, fine. But don't keep claiming that there's no proof.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:22 AM
When did Abu Nidal gain entry into Iraq?
I'd like to know. You're the one claiming he did.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:26 AM
I already gave you the link to the movie.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

If you dont' wanna DL it, fine. But don't keep claiming that there's no proof.

And, like I've repeatedly said, if there were conclusive evidence in that "movie" that Bush knowingly lied, it would be frontpage news.

Since it is not, I can only assume that there is no evidence.

Like I said, I can give you link to a movie that gives "evidence" that aliens from Area 51 run the government.

That doesn't mean it's factual.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:28 AM
I'd like to know. You're the one claiming he did.

In 1998.

"Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence."

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:28 AM
And yet, you seem to back a presidential candidate that is on record as wanting to return to the the "Clintonian" methodology of dealing with terrorism. I.E., treating it as a primarily criminal issue with occasional military responses? Until, of course, they return to being a "nuisance."
Invading Afghanistan was fine, but we botched it. Iraq wasn't fine to invade, IMO.

I just want competent leadership. GW has proved incompetent in so very many ways. so far, I"m not seeing any reason why his incompetence is better than anyone else.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:30 AM
Invading Afghanistan was fine, but we botched it. Iraq wasn't fine to invade, IMO.

I just want competent leadership. GW has proved incompetent in so very many ways. so far, I"m not seeing any reason why his incompetence is better than anyone else.

Again, your OPINION is fine.

You are the one with the avatar and sig that states, "Bush lied."

Back it up or be silent.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:38 AM
And, like I've repeatedly said, if there were conclusive evidence in that "movie" that Bush knowingly lied, it would be frontpage news.

Since it is not, I can only assume that there is no evidence.

Like I said, I can give you link to a movie that gives "evidence" that aliens from Area 51 run the government.

That doesn't mean it's factual.
I believe the reason this info, that Bush knowingly lied, isn't mainstream is cuz it's too complex. The context and facts take too long to lay out to fit nicely in 1-3 columns of a newspaper.

The movie demonstrates evidence and testimony from a string a expert witnesses including UN weapons inspectors, CIA analysts, and other government officials. Personally, I can't imagine an open-minded person listening to that case and concluding otherwise.

Also, as I said, I consider Bush to mean the administration. Short of a confession, it would be nearly impossible to prove that GW himself lied, cuz in the strictest definition of "lie", one must prove intent. Intent is nearly impossible to prove.

GW, or anyone in his administration, can simply point a finger to his or her underling.

So, is there proof that Bush (the administration) knowlingly lied? Yes, IMO. Can it be boiled down to a short & sweet front-page story. No, IMO.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:44 AM
So, is there proof that Bush (the administration) knowlingly lied? Yes, IMO.

IMO = You have no proof. You have opinion.

Thank you.

I'm off to bed now. See you tomorrow.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:48 AM
In 1998.

"Al-Banna relocated to Iraq in December 1998, where the group maintains a presence."

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/abu.htm
I appreciate you posting a link.

I believe that terrorist cells operate covertly around the world. Several of the hijackers in 9/11 lived in teh US for 2 years or more. Does that make the US a nation guilty of harboring terrorists?

The link you posted says, "Has received considerable support, including safehaven, training, logistic assistance, and financial aid from Iraq, Libya, and Syria (until 1987), in addition to close support for selected operations."

that was 16 years before we invaded Iraq. If we're going to go back that far, then we might as well use the evidence of Iraq's 1991 WMD.

Besides, there's evidence that Iraq was not supporting him, and that evidence was produced long before we invaded Iraq. "Iraq says Abu Nidal was working against Baghdad: Iraqi official calls President Bush 'an idiot'"
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/08/20/jordan.otsc/

IMO, this whole Abu Nidal thing appears to be more incompetence from our president.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:50 AM
Again, your OPINION is fine.

You are the one with the avatar and sig that states, "Bush lied."

Back it up or be silent.
BUSH LIED ABOUT SEEING THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE WTC.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

"Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's movements and sayings on 9/11"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=bush

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:52 AM
IMO = You have no proof. You have opinion.

Thank you.

I'm off to bed now. See you tomorrow.
Choosing to not look at the proof does not diminish its potency.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(DL it on suprnova.org.)

good night. thanks for discussing this stuff w/me.

BroWhippendiddle
10-18-2004, 04:18 AM
Bush has failed us in almost every way imaginable, and this new "proactive approach" of his is probably the most visible. I don't want that kind of leadership for 4 more years.

So are you advocating sitting on our hands in a Clintonesque way? We were attacked during his 8 years in office and didn't do much more than divert attention from personal problems with his extremely limited responses.

I would guess that you would rather react to another mass killing of Americans. If you get your way, I hope you are at ground zero the next time.

BroWhippendiddle
10-18-2004, 04:25 AM
exactly. in Iraq, where there may be a few terrorists, we have 140,000 troops. In Afghanistan, where we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden but believe him to live there, we have 16,000 troops. what's wrong with this administration?!

Meanwhile Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, N Korea, Palestine, and many other nations continue to harbor terrorists. Yet we do nothing.

(...yet.)?

Your facts seem to be somewhat erroneous. The troops that were in Afganistan were doing their job, taking down the taliban and hunting down Al Queda as well as looking for OBL. The number of troops in Afganistan was INCREASED during the buildup to Iraq and those numbers have not diminished. We are still searching for Al Queda and OBL, it was not turned over to the warlords as Kerry indicated, but then what would he know about operations over there? He has missed every intel briefing since he started his run for president, I guess you call that plausable deniability.

By your comments you are saying that OBL is absolutely alive and living in a place that only you know, or some type of garbage like that. Your greatest fear should be that if Kerry gets elected you will lose more of your money due to higher taxes. You will be in a position to see the national defenses of the U.S. be weakened by typical democratic policy as well as having an anti-war president that would turn all defense responsibilities over to the UN.

Lotsa luck.

BroWhippendiddle
10-18-2004, 04:31 AM
Again, your OPINION is fine.

You are the one with the avatar and sig that states, "Bush lied."

Back it up or be silent.

He cannot back it up. His only response can be that Bush lied because he isn't a democrat.

If you look at the tapes of all three debates the mainstay of Kerry's arguments is that he calls the president a liar (using other words because he doesn't ever use the L word) each and every time he comments on matters that are on record. Kerry distorts the numbers to make his point and doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to admit that he was in error. The closest he has come is when he backtracked on the $200 billion he claimed we spent in Iraq when the actual number was $119 billion. He said the actual number was $119 billion but would be over $200 billion before it is over. He couldn't even make a correction without stating facts that are not current (lying just in case you don't understand).

BroWhippendiddle
10-18-2004, 04:35 AM
Choosing to not look at the proof does not diminish its potency.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(DL it on suprnova.org.)

good night. thanks for discussing this stuff w/me.

It seems as if most of your references are part of the left leaning media. What truth have they found that they have reported on?

All of their stories show an absolute favoritism for Kerry.

Your arguments and links are worthless to all except those sheep that are following the path laid out for them by their guides (liberal media).

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 04:57 AM
It's all relative, baby.

The sky is red on cloudy days, clear days and even days it looks blue.

KCWolfman
10-18-2004, 05:09 AM
And the propagandists roll in, even here.

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 07:22 AM
Without reading through all the posts and all the pages, I will just assume the truth was laid out somewhere. So I'll just leave this little note.

The ‘Bush lied and people died’ mantra is so retarded and lacking in any truth, that it is actually helping GW to get elected. Left wing psychopaths have yet to learn; that type of propaganda is so transparent that most people roll their eyes at it. You aren't convincing anyone, you are simply reinforcing your and the other psychotic left wingers beliefs.

Prove Bush lied.

Donger
10-18-2004, 07:34 AM
BUSH LIED ABOUT SEEING THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE WTC.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

"Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's movements and sayings on 9/11"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=bush

Let me get this straight.

You create a post that has "IMO" in it.

I point out that it is, in fact, your opinion and not fact.

And you question me on that?

Loki
10-18-2004, 08:06 AM
I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops not fighting at all, unless we're in imminent danger.

please DEFINE your version of "imminent danger". :shrug:

do you not agree that the US has been victim to well over 30 terrorist attacks in the last 20 years both home and abroad and you don't consider this a serious threat?

have you not considered the resourcefulness and unending supply of money these terrorist groups get?

do you not agree that the borders of the United States are as solid as swiss cheese? if drugs, weapons, illegal aliens, etc can make it in now as they have for generations, what makes you think another devastating attack stateside could not occur?

imminent danger...

Chief Henry
10-18-2004, 08:18 AM
Choosing to not look at the proof does not diminish its potency.
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(DL it on suprnova.org.)

good night. thanks for discussing this stuff w/me.



The lamb is being lead down the the Michael Moore waste land of
numbness.

Boyceofsummer
10-18-2004, 08:30 AM
Why do people keep saying this? It has been proven that there were terrorist training camps IN Iraq before, during, and after our invasion. It has also been proven that SH interacted with and financially supported terrorists. Where do you think terrorists come from? They aren't ALL Saudis, but most of them are from the Middle East - at least the terrorists that want to cause harm to the US.

SH is amazing! He is still bringin-on the terrorists from behind bars. "Where do you think terrorists come from?"

None of the above was proven. I want a President that uses war as a LAST RESORT! You want a President that "kicks ass" even if there is no ass in front of him to kick. This is why American attitudes are belittled overseas.

Loki
10-18-2004, 08:30 AM
exactly. in Iraq, where there may be a few terrorists, we have 140,000 troops. In Afghanistan, where we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden but believe him to live there, we have 16,000 troops. what's wrong with this administration?!

Meanwhile Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, N Korea, Palestine, and many other nations continue to harbor terrorists. Yet we do nothing.

(...yet.)?

newsflash:

pakistan WON'T let US troops operate on their side of the mountains.
kinda negates having more. also, a lot of our troops aren't trained in mountain and or cold weather combat. most of the units that are so trained are already there and have been there. go figure. :hmmm:

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 08:38 AM
SH is amazing! He is still bringin-on the terrorists from behind bars. "Where do you think terrorists come from?"

None of the above was proven. I want a President that uses war as a LAST RESORT! You want a President that "kicks ass" even if there is no ass in front of him to kick. This is why American attitudes are belittled overseas.Then move your chicken-shit ass overseas! Coward!

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 08:46 AM
This is why American attitudes are belittled overseas.Seriously, why does this matter to you?

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 09:22 AM
Seriously, why does this matter to you?

I haven't any idea why people care what other countries think of us. I mean, most countries haven't liked us for decades. It's not like all of the sudden there we were, with whole world hating us. People who find it shocking that the French hate us, really aren't worth arguing to.

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 09:23 AM
SH is amazing! He is still bringin-on the terrorists from behind bars. "Where do you think terrorists come from?"

None of the above was proven. I want a President that uses war as a LAST RESORT! You want a President that "kicks ass" even if there is no ass in front of him to kick. This is why American attitudes are belittled overseas.


Last resort? What do you call 12 years?

BigMeatballDave
10-18-2004, 09:25 AM
I haven't any idea why people care what other countries think of us. I mean, most countries haven't liked us for decades. It's not like all of the sudden there we were, with whole world hating us. People who find it shocking that the French hate us, really aren't worth arguing to.Exactly. The French have hated us for decades. The citizens may not hate Americans as a whole, but their gov't is a different story...

Duck Dog
10-18-2004, 09:28 AM
Exactly. The French have hated us for decades. The citizens may not hate Americans as a whole, but their gov't is a different story...


I've never met anyone who has been to France that had a good experience with the people.

Who cares what Euro Trash snobs think anyway's?

Oh, I know....the same people who care what Hollywood's elite trash think.

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 09:43 AM
I've never met anyone who has been to France that had a good experience with the people.

Who cares what Euro Trash snobs think anyway's?

Oh, I know....the same people who care what Hollywood's elite trash think.

Seems to me that the French hate everyone not French. I personally think they need to take showers a little more often before being offended by anyone else.

BIG_DADDY
10-18-2004, 09:43 AM
BLPD,

Fvck You.

WilliamTheIrish
10-18-2004, 10:21 AM
I know. I can't believe he was ever elected, and I can't believe he's still in teh running after all this stuff that keeps coming out week after week concluding how bad he screwed up.

I guess the reason I voted for him was cuz I didn't know anything about him and I figured a political dynasty was what this country needed. also, I was pissed at the democrats for sponsoring Clinton and his scandalous lies.

all I want to do now is be an informed voter for the next election. so far, I'm not finding any reasons to vote for Bushy.

Ya know what? THIS is the post I was waiting for. You can string together all the links to cocaine abuse, and have a riduculous avatar AND be a complete f*cknozzle. That will get my ridicule.

But THIS post, sans all the bullsh*t, is where we see eye to eye. I voted for him too. Why? Because I thought he'd be a good POTUS. Well, I was wrong. He has not been a good POTUS. Awful is the only description/label I can hang on the guy.

But I'll be honest. I'm not upset about the war. Post war strategy? That I'm upset about. Can we win the hearts and minds? I dunno at this point. But we gotta try. We're there. Leave now and it's going to be a hornets nest.

OK, I take some of that back. I'm upset we haven't rung the Saudi's by the economic and political neck, basically holding them upside down over a balcony shaking every wahhabist organization out of their pocket and demanding that any involvement by their government will be met with the swiftest of azz kickings. It should have been done long ago. But it wasn't. Now the bastrads are all over the world and you can be assured our blindness to them will come home to roost.

On the flip side, what insires you about JFKerry? I find him to be equally incompetent as a candidate. Is he a better public speaker? Why yes, yes he is. He doesn't say 'nukular.' He doesn't butcher the language. 'Cept when he says 'Genghis Kahn'in front of Senate committee.

The worst possible candidate is what the Dems nominated. By now, with all the bungling this administration has done, Kerry has been able to stay close. Barely. The most uninspiring candidate since Dukakis.

Bush is bungler.

Kerry is like a guy who is already embalmed.

Saggysack
10-18-2004, 10:46 AM
Damn! You mean I came back and didn't see my name ridiculed. I'm offended! F*** Off you jerks. You just don't know a real asshole when you see one. :)

penchief
10-18-2004, 10:47 AM
for being a "freedom lover."

I don't know if you are being sarcastic, or not. I certainly do hope so.

I finally figured out what "Compassionate Conservative" really means.

If you take both extremes of the political spectrum and combine them dishonestly in a way that can be sold to the American public, then you have a compassionate conservative. I say this because GW is neither compassionate nor conservative.

The "compassionate" part is the labels they use to describe themselves and their programs which have no basis in reality. For example, "compassionate" is the label they give themselves to soften their so-called conservative (extreme right-wing, in reality) image. They apply this strategy throughout everything they do. They call a bill that deprives the American people of the liberties that founded our nation and call it the "Patriot" act. They gut clean air laws and call it the "clear skies" initiative. They want to give a free hand to the timber industry to cull old growth trees (when really it is the brush that causes the problems) and they call it the "healthy forest" initiative. This list goes on and on. Slap a compassionate label on a power grabbing or greedy proposal that smacks of Orwellian double-speak and there you have it.

The most ironic part is that they call themselves conservatives. To me, they have brilliantly pulled the wool over conservative's eyes in this country. If conservative means evangelical, then Bush is conservative. If conservative means deceitful, then bush is conservative. If conservative means extremely ideological, then Bush is conservative. If however, conservative means fiscally responsible, pragmatic, and respectful of others in this world as I have always believed it did, then Bush is the anything but a conservative.

It is going to take a long, long time to reverse the damage that these dishonest extreme ideologues have done to our great nation.

Rukdafaidas
10-18-2004, 11:04 AM
I guess BLPD is voting for Nader, Badnarik or Cobb, because the other two candidates authorized the use of force in Iraq.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:01 PM
So are you advocating sitting on our hands in a Clintonesque way? We were attacked during his 8 years in office and didn't do much more than divert attention from personal problems with his extremely limited responses.
Clinton's sins do not excuse Bush's sins.

True, Clinton could have done more. Bush should have done A LOT more.

Maybe if Bush hadn't spent more time on vacation than any US president in the last 32 years he could have prevented 9/11. Instead, 42% of his presidency during his first 8 months in office was spent at vacation spots or en route.
BUSH'S MANY VACATIONS BEFORE 9/11
a. Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001.
b. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/18/politics/main607234.shtml

GW never met with his head of counterterrorism, and his administration cut terrorism funding from the FBI.
BUSH DIDN'T MEET WITH HIS HEAD OF COUNTERTERRORISM.
a. Richard Clarke interview with Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press, March 28, 2004
b. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 8, “National Policy Coordination,” pp 9-10; http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_8.pdf
c. Testimony of Richard A. Clarke before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, March 24, 2004

BUSH ADMINISTRATION CUT TERRORISM FUNDING FOR THE FBI.
a. http://www.americanprogress.org/atf/cf/%7BE9245FE4-9A2B-43C7-A521-5D6FF2E06E03%7D/FY03ASHCROFT.PDF
b. “Former FBI Director Louis Freeh and Attorney General John Ashcroft to appear before 9/11 commission tomorrow,” NPR Radio: Marketplace, April 12, 2004


On Aug 6, 2001 he was handed a security brief warning that Osama Bin Laden was going to attack the US by hijacking airplanes.
BUSH WAS WARNED ON AUG 6, 2001 ABOUT TERRORIST PLANS.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf
b. Clarke J. Scott, “Clarke Gave Warning on Sept. 4, 2001; Testimony Includes Apology to Families of Sept. 11 Victims, Associated Press, March 25, 2004.
c. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Guess Bush had more important things to do than protect our country.
I would guess that you would rather react to another mass killing of Americans. If you get your way, I hope you are at ground zero the next time.
Let's be civil please.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:08 PM
Your facts seem to be somewhat erroneous.
That's a false statement. how are they erroneous?

The troops that were in Afganistan were doing their job, taking down the taliban and hunting down Al Queda as well as looking for OBL. The number of troops in Afganistan was INCREASED during the buildup to Iraq and those numbers have not diminished.
Yet they remain pitifully small.

We are still searching for Al Queda and OBL, it was not turned over to the warlords as Kerry indicated, but then what would he know about operations over there? He has missed every intel briefing since he started his run for president, I guess you call that plausable deniability.
sources please.
By your comments you are saying that OBL is absolutely alive and living in a place that only you know, or some type of garbage like that.
Would you please quote where I allegedly said that. I did not say that. You're making false statements again.

You will be in a position to see the national defenses of the U.S. be weakened by typical democratic policy as well as having an anti-war president that would turn all defense responsibilities over to the UN.
Kerry is not anti-war. He's just anti-fictitious-wars. At least Kerry has actually been to war instead of sending others to die in his stead.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:12 PM
He cannot back it up. His only response can be that Bush lied because he isn't a democrat.
More false statements. That's 3 times now.

BUSH LIED ABOUT SEEING THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE WTC.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

"Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's movements and sayings on 9/11"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_911=bush
He couldn't even make a correction without stating facts that are not current (lying just in case you don't understand).
kinda like most of your posts, huh.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:14 PM
It seems as if most of your references are part of the left leaning media. What truth have they found that they have reported on?

All of their stories show an absolute favoritism for Kerry.

Your arguments and links are worthless to all except those sheep that are following the path laid out for them by their guides (liberal media).
At least I have sources. At least I'm not going on blind faith. Your blind faith, your baseless claims are the epitome of "sheople".

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:15 PM
Let me get this straight.

You create a post that has "IMO" in it.

I point out that it is, in fact, your opinion and not fact.

And you question me on that?
No sir. Bush did in fact lie. See example below please.

BUSH LIED ABOUT SEEING THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE WTC.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

"Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's movements and sayings on 9/11"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...day_of_911=bush

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:16 PM
please DEFINE your version of "imminent danger". :shrug:

do you not agree that the US has been victim to well over 30 terrorist attacks in the last 20 years both home and abroad and you don't consider this a serious threat?

have you not considered the resourcefulness and unending supply of money these terrorist groups get?

do you not agree that the borders of the United States are as solid as swiss cheese? if drugs, weapons, illegal aliens, etc can make it in now as they have for generations, what makes you think another devastating attack stateside could not occur?

imminent danger...
Iraq was not posing a threat to the US. We were not in imminent danger from them.

Brock
10-18-2004, 01:17 PM
No sir. Bush did in fact lie. See example below please.

BUSH LIED ABOUT SEEING THE FIRST PLANE HIT THE WTC.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

"Complete 911 Timeline: Bush's movements and sayings on 9/11"
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...day_of_911=bush

You might want to make sure your links work before posting them.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:18 PM
The lamb is being lead down the the Michael Moore waste land of
numbness.
That film is not Michael Moore. If you'd watch it, you'd know that.

However, I find that the vast majority of Bush supporters are afraid to read, listen, or watch anti-Bush criticism.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:21 PM
SH is amazing! He is still bringin-on the terrorists from behind bars. "Where do you think terrorists come from?"

None of the above was proven. I want a President that uses war as a LAST RESORT! You want a President that "kicks ass" even if there is no ass in front of him to kick. This is why American attitudes are belittled overseas.
Exactly! It's sad that so many in this group are walking blindly through faith, without evidence. they are afraid of the evidence, so they cast stones at Kerry to pacify their insecurities about GW.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:23 PM
newsflash:

pakistan WON'T let US troops operate on their side of the mountains.
kinda negates having more. also, a lot of our troops aren't trained in mountain and or cold weather combat. most of the units that are so trained are already there and have been there. go figure. :hmmm:
newsflash:
This Bush administration is fighting a ficitious War on Terror that doesn't wait for permission before doing what it wants. Iraq certainly didn't "let US troops operate on their side of the mountains."

Loki
10-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Iraq was not posing a threat to the US. We were not in imminent danger from them.

this was your post.
imminent danger (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2015630&postcount=48)
i wasn't talking about iraq. and didn't seem as though you were either.

but i suppose it's easier to deflect to the all encompassing "but it wasn't iraq" statement than to answer my questions.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:28 PM
Then move your chicken-shit ass overseas! Coward!

Seriously, why does this matter to you?

BigChiefDave, it is obvious that your opinions are immovable, and that is fine. It is also obvious from the immature name calling and apathy towards other countries of the world that you are somewhat ignorant regarding the issues at hand. (No offense intended.)

Please consider spending a few minutes reading some of the dozens of sources posted in this thread. I think you'll be amazed.

penguinz
10-18-2004, 01:29 PM
Iraq was not posing a threat to the US. We were not in imminent danger from them.
Iraq did pose an imminent danger to the US.

Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html)

Loki
10-18-2004, 01:29 PM
newsflash:
This Bush administration is fighting a ficitious War on Terror that doesn't wait for permission before doing what it wants. Iraq certainly didn't "let US troops operate on their side of the mountains."

ficticious?

WTF are you smoking?
:bong:

BIG_DADDY
10-18-2004, 01:30 PM
Boy is this loser gonna be pissed when GW is elected. I sure wish we had a real candidate in there with a shot to win.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:31 PM
Last resort? What do you call 12 years?
I call the last 12 years just like most dictatorships. The citizens are ruled by an unfair regime and they aren't nearly as well off as us. They certainly weren't threatening us in anyway.

what do you call it?

Loki
10-18-2004, 01:32 PM
BigChiefDave, it is obvious that your opinions are immovable, and that is fine. It is also obvious from the immature name calling and apathy towards other countries of the world that you are somewhat ignorant regarding the issues at hand. (No offense intended.)

Please consider spending a few minutes reading some of the dozens of sources posted in this thread. I think you'll be amazed.

buddy, you're coming in here with old news and propaganda. most of your "informative links" have been hashed out on this board long before you came along.

keep trying... :rolleyes:

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:33 PM
BLPD,

Fvck You.
This is the typical response of Bush supporters. No defense, just fear and insecurity manifested through anger.

mlyonsd
10-18-2004, 01:33 PM
I call the last 12 years just like most dictatorships. The citizens are ruled by an unfair regime and they aren't nearly as well off as us. They certainly weren't threatening us in anyway.

what do you call it?

I knew I shouldn't have listened to Kerry and all the other dems that talked me into the fact they were a threat.

Loki
10-18-2004, 01:35 PM
This is the typical response of Bush supporters. No defense, just fear and insecurity manifested through anger.

and yours is the typical response of some egotistical self made intellectual who thinks everyone is ignorant unless they share your viewpoint...

is your name jettio by chance?

penguinz
10-18-2004, 01:36 PM
I am still waiting for a response from BushLiedPeopleDied tot he article I liked to.

BIG_DADDY
10-18-2004, 01:38 PM
This is the typical response of Bush supporters. No defense, just fear and insecurity manifested through anger.
I'm not voting for Bush dickhead. The last thing we needed on this BB though is another freaking tard. Did Denise point you this direction?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:40 PM
The worst possible candidate is what the Dems nominated. By now, with all the bungling this administration has done, Kerry has been able to stay close. Barely. The most uninspiring candidate since Dukakis.

Bush is bungler.

Kerry is like a guy who is already embalmed.
lol it seems the Democrats have made some pretty big blunders in the past few years. I don't know much about Kerry, but I know a lot about Bush.

Honestly, I'm having trouble finding anything "bad" about Kerry other than the cliche that he flip-flopped. Yet Bush is the "Flip-Flopper-In-Chief"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Oddly, the same Republicans who grilled Clinton for months just to get a confession of dishonesty don't have any personal dirt on Kerry. They drug up Clinton's experience with narcotics and his whereabouts during the draft to Vietnam, yet they can't find any personal dirt on Kerry.

(I dont' want to argue Kerry's merits in this thread. If you want to change my mind, you're certainly welcome to post stuff with sources and I'll read it later.)

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:42 PM
It is going to take a long, long time to reverse the damage that these dishonest extreme ideologues have done to our great nation.
But maybe they'll change in the next 4 years. No, no. I don't think they will.

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 01:43 PM
I'm not voting for Bush dickhead. The last thing we needed on this BB though is another freaking tard. Did Denise point you this direction?

C’mon BD, you’re a de facto Bushy because you dared to disagree with the immeasurable intellect that is BLPD. What are you new at this? ;)

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:47 PM
I guess BLPD is voting for Nader, Badnarik or Cobb, because the other two candidates authorized the use of force in Iraq.
Just because Kerry voted to authorize Bush to use force doesn't mean Kerry voted for Bush to make the wrong, baseless decisions. Isn't it possible that Kerry just wanted us to scare Iraq with a few bombs so that the weapons inspectors could finish their job? Isn't it possible that Kerry didn't intend for an all-out ground war costing the US hundreds of billions and 1000's of lives?

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 01:47 PM
lol it seems the Democrats have made some pretty big blunders in the past few years. I don't know much about Kerry, but I know a lot about Bush.

Honestly, I'm having trouble finding anything "bad" about Kerry other than the cliche that he flip-flopped. Yet Bush is the "Flip-Flopper-In-Chief"
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

Oddly, the same Republicans who grilled Clinton for months just to get a confession of dishonesty don't have any personal dirt on Kerry. They drug up Clinton's experience with narcotics and his whereabouts during the draft to Vietnam, yet they can't find any personal dirt on Kerry.

(I dont' want to argue Kerry's merits in this thread. If you want to change my mind, you're certainly welcome to post stuff with sources and I'll read it later.)

Ah, so you’re an “Anybody But Bush” person. Well, at least you freely admit it.

Donger
10-18-2004, 01:48 PM
Isn't it possible that Kerry just wanted us to scare Iraq with a few bombs so that the weapons inspectors could finish their job? Isn't it possible that Kerry didn't intend for an all-out ground war costing the US hundreds of billions and 1000's of lives?

Quite possibly. Kerry's held so many positions on Iraq over the years that that one may have slipped in.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:49 PM
You might want to make sure your links work before posting them.
touché, sir.

the CNN link works.
"President Bush Holds Town Hall Meeting"
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

There you can see where Bush lied.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 01:52 PM
this was your post.
imminent danger (http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2015630&postcount=48)
i wasn't talking about iraq. and didn't seem as though you were either.

but i suppose it's easier to deflect to the all encompassing "but it wasn't iraq" statement than to answer my questions.
I was talking Iraq. Why do you think I wasn't? I answered your question.

Loki
10-18-2004, 01:58 PM
I was talking Iraq. Why do you think I wasn't? I answered your question.

don't know about you, but I'd much rather have our troops not fighting at all, unless we're in imminent danger.
where did you mention specifically fighting in iraq? point it out for me.


MY QUESTIONS OF YOU:

do you not agree that the US has been victim to well over 30 terrorist attacks in the last 20 years both home and abroad and you don't consider this a serious threat?

have you not considered the resourcefulness and unending supply of money these terrorist groups get?

do you not agree that the borders of the United States are as solid as swiss cheese? if drugs, weapons, illegal aliens, etc can make it in now as they have for generations, what makes you think another devastating attack stateside could not occur?


YOUR RESPONSE TO MY QUESTIONS:
Iraq was not posing a threat to the US. We were not in imminent danger from them.

how is that answering my questions?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:00 PM
Iraq did pose an imminent danger to the US.

Russian intelligence services warned Washington several times that Saddam Hussein's regime planned terrorist attacks against the United States, President Vladimir Putin has said.

The warnings were provided after September 11, 2001 and before the start of the Iraqi war, Putin said Friday.

The planned attacks were targeted both inside and outside the United States, said Putin, who made the remarks during a visit to Kazakhstan.

Source: CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/18/russia.warning/index.html)
oh, I get it. so if the Russians say so, it must be true.

If I don't trust what the US government tells its people, why would I trust what the Russian government says?

Furthermore, if a little 4 year-old boy in Mexico is planning attacks against you and you're in NY, NY, are you in imminent danger? No.

Even if the Russians were right (which they may or may not be) that Iraq was planning attacks against us, it does not mean we were in imminent danger.

Try again.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:01 PM
Boy is this loser gonna be pissed when GW is elected. I sure wish we had a real candidate in there with a shot to win.
ditto.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:02 PM
Even if the Russians were right that Iraq was planning attacks against us, it does not mean we were in imminent danger.

Try again.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you provide your definition of "imminent danger."

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:13 PM
ficticious?

WTF are you smoking?
:bong:
Here's a link so you can see what it means and how it's spelled.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fictitious

when I refer to the fictiTious war in Iraq, I mean the war that was based on fiction.
Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14).
(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:15 PM
buddy, you're coming in here with old news and propaganda. most of your "informative links" have been hashed out on this board long before you came along.

keep trying... :rolleyes:
really? is that why you're at such a loss to hash them out now? ;)

keep trying...

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:17 PM
and yours is the typical response of some egotistical self made intellectual who thinks everyone is ignorant unless they share your viewpoint...

is your name jettio by chance?
I don't mean to come across as egotistical, and I apologize if I do.

I wish dissenters to my opinions would post links to back their assertions.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:18 PM
I am still waiting for a response from BushLiedPeopleDied tot he article I liked to.
I'm not sure what you mean or what you're waiting for.

penguinz
10-18-2004, 02:18 PM
oh, I get it. so if the Russians say so, it must be true.

If I don't trust what the US government tells its people, why would I trust what the Russian government says?

Furthermore, if a little 4 year-old boy in Mexico is planning attacks against you and you're in NY, NY, are you in imminent danger? No.

Even if the Russians were right (which they may or may not be) that Iraq was planning attacks against us, it does not mean we were in imminent danger.

Try again.

LOL. You sir are an idiot. Plain and simple. No argument about it. I do not think you can make an comparison between a 4 year old mexican and a dictator that has expressed hatred for the US and has funded terroristic activities.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:19 PM
I'm not voting for Bush dickhead. The last thing we needed on this BB though is another freaking tard. Did Denise point you this direction?
I never said you were voting for Bush, did I? I merely said your direct personal attack was synonomous w/most Bush supporters.

Please get your facts straight.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:20 PM
C’mon BD, you’re a de facto Bushy because you dared to disagree with the immeasurable intellect that is BLPD. What are you new at this? ;)
Several anti-Bush posts have disagreed w/me. It doesn't mean they're then pro-Bush.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:22 PM
Ah, so you’re an “Anybody But Bush” person. Well, at least you freely admit it.
I said, "I don't know much about Kerry, but I know a lot about Bush."

Your ability to mangle facts is not impressive or entertaining.

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 02:23 PM
Several anti-Bush posts have disagreed w/me. It doesn't mean they're then pro-Bush.


That’s not what you posted earlier.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:23 PM
Quite possibly. Kerry's held so many positions on Iraq over the years that that one may have slipped in.
do ya have any sources or evidence, or is this just another baseless claim?

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 02:24 PM
I said, "I don't know much about Kerry, but I know a lot about Bush."

Your ability to mangle facts is not impressive or entertaining.

I’m not here for your entertainment, get over yourself.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:31 PM
where did you mention specifically fighting in iraq? point it out for me.
I didn't, but I clarified it for you. A reasonable participant in this discussion would have known I was talking about Iraq cuz we are disputing the actual fighting that's taking place in Iraq.

Context, my dear boy.

I agree that 30 terrorist attacks in 20 years would be a serious threat. However, I don't think it's serious enough to send 200,000 troops to invade Iraq.

Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims (30 attacks in 20 years)?

Yes I've considered the supply of money. what's your point?

Yes I agree the borders are weak, and that's why I question the judgement of attacking Iraq.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:31 PM
do ya have any sources or evidence, or is this just another baseless claim?

Asks the guy who posts a movie link when asked if he has any evidence that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq's WMDs.

So, if that's good enough for you, here: http://www.kerryoniraq.com/

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:35 PM
LOL. You sir are an idiot. Plain and simple. No argument about it. I do not think you can make an comparison between a 4 year old mexican and a dictator that has expressed hatred for the US and has funded terroristic activities.
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:36 PM
That’s not what you posted earlier.
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:37 PM
Asks the guy who posts a movie link when asked if he has any evidence that Bush knowingly lied about Iraq's WMDs.

So, if that's good enough for you, here: http://www.kerryoniraq.com/
what's wrong with documentaries to communicate ideas?

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:40 PM
what's wrong with documentaries to communicate ideas?

I thought the film contained evidence that Bush knowingly lied anout Iraq's WMDs?

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 02:47 PM
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

You suffering from alzhiemers or are you just a “stoned slacker”?

From this very topic. (http://67.18.68.69/BB/showthread.php?t=101557&page=1&pp=15)

BLPD,

Fvck You.

This is the typical response of Bush supporters. No defense, just fear and insecurity manifested through anger.

I'm not voting for Bush dickhead. The last thing we needed on this BB though is another freaking tard. Did Denise point you this direction?

C’mon BD, you’re a de facto Bushy because you dared to disagree with the immeasurable intellect that is BLPD. What are you new at this? ;)

Several anti-Bush posts have disagreed w/me. It doesn't mean they're then pro-Bush.

That’s not what you posted earlier.

:rolleyes:

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 02:57 PM
I thought the film contained evidence that Bush knowingly lied anout Iraq's WMDs?
it does.

Donger
10-18-2004, 02:59 PM
it does.

I have not seen the film. I assume you have.

So, please detail said evidence.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:02 PM
You suffering from alzhiemers or are you just a “stoned slacker”?
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.
I never said you were a Bush supporter, did I? No. You're mangling the facts yet again.

I said your response was typical of a Bush supporter.

If I said something typical of a Hanoi native, it doesn't mean I'm Vietnamese. It just means I emulated one.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:03 PM
I have not seen the film. I assume you have.

So, please detail said evidence.
are you gonna pay me to tutor you?

Donger
10-18-2004, 03:05 PM
are you gonna pay me to tutor you?

No. But you could do yourself (and your credibility) a favor and back up your claim with facts.

Again, I've not seen the film. Have you?

Radar Chief
10-18-2004, 03:05 PM
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.
I never said you were a Bush supporter, did I? No. You're mangling the facts yet again.

I said your response was typical of a Bush supporter.

If I said something typical of a Hanoi native, it doesn't mean I'm Vietnamese. It just means I emulated one.

:LOL: It wasn’t me you moron, it was Big Daddy. Have you lost the ability to read along with that short-term memory? ROFL

Loki
10-18-2004, 03:13 PM
Here's a link so you can see what it means and how it's spelled.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=fictitious

when I refer to the fictiTious war in Iraq, I mean the war that was based on fiction.

(11) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT IRAQ HAVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
a. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/29/iraq/main596595.shtml
b. http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
c. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-01-28-kay-testifies_x.htm
d. http://www.truthuncovered.com/thefilm.html

(12) 237 MISLEADING STATEMENTS FROM THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ABOUT IRAQ
a. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

(13) BUSH WAS WRONG ABOUT SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING AN ALLIANCE WITH AL QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46254-2004Jun16.html
c. http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=92288

(14) BUSH AND CHENEY CONTINUE TO INSIST THAT THERE WAS AN ALLIANCE BETWEEN IRAQ AND AL-QAEDA.
a. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/15/bush.alqaeda/index.html
b. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
c. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/18/MNGP278BI61.DTL


get over your spelling corrections when you can't seem to spell "the".
check your posts.

if you (once again) wish to deflect on questions, i guess we're done.
the war is real, not fictitious (sp. happy now?) and going on as we speak. your links to 'he said-she said' webpages does nothing to dispell the reality that some of our countrymen are halfway around the world getting shot at.

Loki
10-18-2004, 03:15 PM
really? is that why you're at such a loss to hash them out now? ;)

keep trying...

no, just tired of going in circles.
ZZZ

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:20 PM
No. But you could do yourself (and your credibility) a favor and back up your claim with facts.

Again, I've not seen the film. Have you?
yes I have, and it's about an hour long. I'm not going to narrate it to you. You can get it for free and it's < 200 MB.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:22 PM
if you (once again) wish to deflect on questions, i guess we're done.
the war is real, not fictitious (sp. happy now?) and going on as we speak. your links to 'he said-she said' webpages does nothing to dispell the reality that some of our countrymen are halfway around the world getting shot at.
No one is claiming the war isn't real. I said, "when I refer to the fictiTious war in Iraq, I mean the war that was based on fiction."

Donger
10-18-2004, 03:23 PM
You can get it for free and it's < 200 MB.

From where?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:24 PM
no, just tired of going in circles.
ZZZ
you get tired easy. it's not even 4:30 pm in Chiefs land. ;)

If these arguments are so old and rehashed, you should be able to post sources for you claims off the top of your head.

Instead, we say you have no independent basis for your beliefs other than blind devotion to GW.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:25 PM
From where?
from suprnova.org, as I've told you several times before.

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:25 PM
:LOL: It wasn’t me you moron, it was Big Daddy. Have you lost the ability to read along with that short-term memory? ROFL
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.

sorry if I confused you and the other guy.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 03:26 PM
what a waste of skin... has buttstreak returned?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:27 PM
Our discussion has digressed. The main point still stands.

Since becoming president, GW has earned the title "Flip-Flopper in Chief" (7). He illegally imprisoned hundreds of people--including US citizens--for years (8). He spent the budget surplus and bankrupted the treasury in record-setting fashion (9). He's the first president in 72 years to have a net loss of jobs (10).

Bush was wrong about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction--237 times (11) (12). He was and continues to be wrong about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda (13) (14). The fictitious war in Iraq has cost us 1,069 soldiers' lives (7,730 wounded) (15). We've already spent $120 billion there (16). Some 13,000 Iraqi civilians have died because of it (17). Yet no one has been held accountable for the misleading statements about Iraq.

I guess that what you'd expect from a rich kid with a rap sheet. A funny, simple, cool guy, GW's character has been consistent throughout his life. Is it reasonable to assume that he'll be any different in the next four years?

BushGaveMeApplePie
10-18-2004, 03:29 PM
what a waste of skin... has buttstreak returned?
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.

penguinz
10-18-2004, 03:31 PM
Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims?

I need to give evidence that Sadaam has funded terrorist activities?

It is well known that he has given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.


Here ya go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

Hel'n
10-18-2004, 03:33 PM
I need to give evidence that Sadaam has funded terrorist activities?

It is well known that he has given money to the families of suicide bombers in Israel.


Here ya go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html

And that justifies us going into Iraq?

Loki
10-18-2004, 03:45 PM
I didn't, but I clarified it for you. A reasonable participant in this discussion would have known I was talking about Iraq cuz we are disputing the actual fighting that's taking place in Iraq.

Context, my dear boy.

I agree that 30 terrorist attacks in 20 years would be a serious threat. However, I don't think it's serious enough to send 200,000 troops to invade Iraq.

Do ya have any sources or evidence, or are these more baseless claims (30 attacks in 20 years)?

Yes I've considered the supply of money. what's your point?

Yes I agree the borders are weak, and that's why I question the judgement of attacking Iraq.

1. context my a$$. i read this thread from the beginning before jumping in. you mentioned far more nations than just iraq. afghanistan, sudan, iran, n.korea to name a few... we also happen to be fighting in afghanistan. go figure.

2. baseless claims... ok then. are you DISAGREEING that America has not been attacked at home and abroad by terrorists? (why do i bother with this...) ok basless, here's some info for your thirsty mind.
* * *
1979
Nov. 4, Tehran, Iran: Iranian radical students seized the U.S. embassy, taking 66 hostages. Fourteen were later released. The remaining 52 were freed after 444 days on the day of President Reagan's inauguration.
1982–1991
Lebanon: Thirty US and other Western hostages kidnapped in Lebanon by Hezbollah. Some were killed, some died in captivity, and some were eventually released. Terry Anderson was held for 2,454 days.
1983
April 18, Beirut, Lebanon: U.S. embassy destroyed in suicide car-bomb attack; 63 dead, including 17 Americans. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.
Oct. 23, Beirut, Lebanon: Shiite suicide bombers exploded truck near U.S. military barracks at Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines. Minutes later a second bomb killed 58 French paratroopers in their barracks in West Beirut.
Dec. 12, Kuwait City, Kuwait Shiite truck bombers attacked the U.S. embassy and other targets, killing 5 and injuring 80.
1984
Sept. 20, east Beirut, Lebanon: truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. embassy annex, killing 24, including 2 U.S. military.
Dec. 3, Beirut, Lebanon: Kuwait Airways Flight 221, from Kuwait to Pakistan, hijacked and diverted to Tehran. Two Americans killed.
1985
April 12, Madrid, Spain: Bombing at restaurant frequented by U.S. soldiers, killed 18 Spaniards and injured 82.
June 14, Beirut, Lebanon: TWA flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome hijacked to Beirut by Hezbollah terrorists and held for 17 days. A U.S. Navy diver executed.
Oct. 7, Mediterranean Sea: gunmen attack Italian cruise ship, Achille Lauro. One U.S. tourist killed. Hijacking linked to Libya.
Dec. 18, Rome, Italy, and Vienna, Austria: airports in Rome and Vienna were bombed, killing 20 people, 5 of whom were Americans. Bombing linked to Libya.
1986
April 2, Athens, Greece:A bomb exploded aboard TWA flight 840 en route from Rome to Athens, killing 4 Americans and injuring 9.
April 5, West Berlin, Germany: Libyans bombed a disco frequented by U.S. servicemen, killing 2 and injuring hundreds.
1988
Dec. 21, Lockerbie, Scotland: N.Y.-bound Pan-Am Boeing 747 exploded in flight from a terrorist bomb and crashed into Scottish village, killing all 259 aboard and 11 on the ground. Passengers included 35 Syracuse University students and many U.S. military personnel. Libya formally admitted responsibility 15 years later (Aug. 2003) and offered $2.7 billion compensation to victims' families.
1993
Feb. 26, New York City: bomb exploded in basement garage of World Trade Center, killing 6 and injuring at least 1,040 others. In 1995, militant Islamist Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and 9 others were convicted of conspiracy charges, and in 1998, Ramzi Yousef, believed to have been the mastermind, was convicted of the bombing. Al-Qaeda involvement is suspected.
1995
April 19, Oklahoma City: car bomb exploded outside federal office building, collapsing wall and floors. 168 people were killed, including 19 children and 1 person who died in rescue effort. Over 220 buildings sustained damage. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols later convicted in the antigovernment plot to avenge the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, Tex., exactly two years earlier. (See Miscellaneous Disasters.)
Nov. 13, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: car bomb exploded at U.S. military headquarters, killing five U.S. military servicemen.
1996
June 25, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: truck bomb exploded outside Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds of others. Thirteen Saudis and a Lebanese, all alleged members of Islamic militant group Hezbollah, were indicted on charges relating to the attack in June 2001.
1998
Aug. 7, Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: truck bombs exploded almost simultaneously near 2 U.S. embassies, killing 224 (213 in Kenya and 11 in Tanzania) and injuring about 4,500. Four men connected with al-Qaeda two of whom had received training at al-Qaeda camps inside Afghanistan, were convicted of the killings in May 2001 and later sentenced to life in prison. A federal grand jury had indicted 22 men in connection with the attacks, including Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden, who remained at large.
2000
Oct. 12, Aden, Yemen: U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole heavily damaged when a small boat loaded with explosives blew up alongside it. Seventeen sailors killed. Linked to Osama bin Laden, or members of al-Qaeda terrorist network.
2001
Sept. 11, New York City, Arlington, Va., and Shanksville, Pa.: hijackers crashed two commercial jets into twin towers of World Trade Center; two more hijacked jets were crashed into the Pentagon and a field in rural Pa. Total dead and missing numbered 2,9921: 2,749 in New York City, 184 at the Pentagon, 40 in Pa., and 19 hijackers. Islamic al-Qaeda terrorist group blamed. (See September 11, 2001: Timeline of Terrorism.)
2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including eight Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 29–31, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 11–19, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
* * *

3. my point? that with the supply of money they have, they have the means to plan, recruit, buy, smuggle, and detonate pretty much any type of device they can get their hands on IN our nation. what nations are "friendly" with terrorist groups, and what weapons systems do they have at their disposal?
do you not comprehend the strategic importance our presence in iraq is to neighboring nations that are on the proverbial sh*t list?
of you agree that our borders are weak, then why would you choose to sit back and expect another attack than be pro-active and try and PREVENT it from happening? provide me with all the links to lies you want to. they mean nothing with regards to how this "fictitious" war is to be won.

penguinz
10-18-2004, 03:48 PM
And that justifies us going into Iraq?

lol. This is what happens when you look at part of what is said and go with it. I stated in an earlier post that you can not compare a 4 year old from mexico and Sadaam because Sadaam has a history of hatred towards the US and funding of terrorist activities.

Loki
10-18-2004, 03:49 PM
you get tired easy. it's not even 4:30 pm in Chiefs land. ;)

If these arguments are so old and rehashed, you should be able to post sources for you claims off the top of your head.

Instead, we say you have no independent basis for your beliefs other than blind devotion to GW.

yeah... you got me pegged. :rolleyes:

blind devotion. find ANY of my posts that show blind devotion to bush2.
if i have any blind devotion, it's to our men and women in uniform, kicking a$$ half a world away so i can sit and 'grow tired' in my safe home.

you assume too much.

Cochise
10-18-2004, 03:54 PM
When you resort to childish name-calling and off-topic personal attacks, it tells readers that you're unable to focus on the issues either because of simple immaturity or lack of basis for your beliefs.

Oooh, a negative personal attack, I should be so ashamed of myself. :rolleyes: Give it a rest.

The issue has been discussed here ad nauseum for more than a year as I'm sure you remember. This sleep-inducing display of trollishness brings nothing new to the discussion and is hardly worth the time of someone who has fleshed it out many times before.

Just because someone decides to poke fun at you doesn't mean that you are right, buttstreak.

So BD, is this really burning4mansteak? I wasn't around the boards much this weekend.