Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Bush still doesn’t know....

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
Author
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 5:13pm

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

Originally posted by Clark Kent Clark Kent wrote:

I have been on record as supporting this war (the one in Iraq) since before the war begun. People seem intent on assuming otherwise, for some reason.
Then why do you persist at argueing with me when ever I say we should have gone in?   Though I might be mistaken (wouldn't be first time...) it is just I always aregue with you on whether we shoudl have gone in or not...

I haven't argued with you on whether we should have gone in - I have argued with you about the various ridiculous arguments and claims you have made. 

Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

 
Finally, #2 person to state what I have states a ton of times. Checmicle weapons ARE wmd's... so people like dune and smitty have to quit saying he didn't have them.

Verbs have tenses, Linus.

EDIT - The question raised by challengers isn't whether he EVER had chemical weapons, but whether he had them at the time of the invasion.  Temporal relevance is important.

And as to chemical weapons/WMDs - that's just a convenient semantic tool implemented by the only country to ever use nuclear weapons.  To equate a little ricin to a nuke is ridiculous - almost as ridiculous as calling a MOAB anything BUT a weapon of mass destruction. 

My pepper spray is a chemical weapon, but I would hardly call it a WMD.



Edited by Clark Kent
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 6:05pm
It's actually biological clark.. made from peppers

We, Ok, we didn't find any yet, but I want to know where they went, he didn't just throw them out with the trash before we went in...

Back to Top
Ejp414 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 13 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6483
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ejp414 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 6:07pm
Originally posted by agentwhale007. agentwhale007. wrote:

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

I think the pot just called the kettle black.

 

And the pot can't spell.



And the kettle is white.

Sorry, this is my only contribution. Murdock makes my head hurt so I can't stand to read past page five . . . .
__________________
__________________

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 6:10pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

It's actually biological clark.. made from peppers

We, Ok, we didn't find any yet, but I want to know where they went, he didn't just throw them out with the trash before we went in...


No its chemical.. You misunderstand what makes it biological or chemicle, the pepper makes a chemicle, and thats what we use. Anthrax is biologic because it uses a strain of the small pox virus.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 6:22pm
Ehh.. might be right Dbib.. it was only a half hearted joke...

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 6:24pm
I know. But mace isnt even that bad. I was messing with some i found in my basement. I sprayed the wall and some splashed back into my face. Wasnt too bad. I remembered what to do and blinked a lot. It helped a lot.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 7:42pm
Probably weren't using cop mace then...

Cop mace is made out of hte most potent/spicy pepper on Eartj (which makes it biological ) and from what my cop buddy told me.. it hurts "like the **edited**ens" Replaced **edited**ens with another worse word...

Back to Top
TheHoff View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 11 March 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 498
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote TheHoff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 8:11pm

Originally posted by Dune Dune wrote:

Now I must say thank god for Clark. Too many Americans are so "pro-America" that they can't sift through all the smoke and mirrors that this current administration displays. Stop it with that "Anti-American" crap because your nationalistic idealism is sickening. How about for once you make opinions based on solid judgement and stop giving the benefit of the doubt to the country because we are so "uber strong."

Nationalistic idealism?  Doesn't sound so bad to me.  Wait, if public television has taught me one thing, it's that pride in one's country automatically makes you a mindless, war mongering, destroyer of all that is good in the world.   Be disapointed in your country over every little mishap!  Show sympathy to the enemy and a double standards.  Why be outraged if they behead our p.o.w.'s?  But no, the Americans are abusing them in Cuba!  There is no documented proof, but newsweek never lies. Wait, benefit of the doubt [invalid].  Society makes me sick.  Know why?  Nationalism is now an evil.  Nationalism is the driving force to making a country great.  Yes, too much will do harm, but I don't see a Treblinka anywhere in the U.S.  Show a nation that has little pride and I will show you a nation ready to fall.

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 9:01pm
So we attended the OS/Linus School of Exaggerated Rhetoric, did we? 
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 11:51pm
Just a FYI...The same Leading Democrat Congressmen and Women who now question the war were the same who co-wrote, and signed the following Joint Resolution October 2002....How soon they forget and now point the blame solely on President Bush.......

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq





Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to


(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.

In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and

(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --


(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS

(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.



Edited by oldsoldier
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 11:56pm
OH, someone just got OWNED.. dunno who though, it's 12 am and I'm too tired to read all of it...

Edited by Linus

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 June 2005 at 11:59pm
Originally posted by Linus Linus wrote:

OH, someone just got OWNED.. dunno who though, it's 12 am and I'm too tired to read all of it...


Thats basicaly how i feel. This is why i like OS so much.
Back to Top
Linus View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - language 6.29.10

Joined: 10 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7908
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Linus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:02am
OS is agreat debator because he just overwhelsm you with so much info and so little time ot react to it.. He's done it to me many times...*cough* sniper*cough*

Back to Top
DBibeau855 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
IIIIIMMMMM BAAACCCKKK

Joined: 26 November 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11662
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DBibeau855 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:05am
He doesnt really debate. He just kinda gives you all the facts and lets you sit there like an idiot.
Back to Top
Bango View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Rugged Individualist

Joined: 30 January 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2572
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bango Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:07am
Whereas
Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 12:59am

Originally posted by OldSoldier OldSoldier wrote:

Just a FYI...The same Leading Democrat Congressmen and Women who now question the war were the same who co-wrote, and signed the following Joint Resolution October 2001....How soon they forget and now point the blame solely on President Bush.......

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

[Irrelevant crap deleted]

OS, who are you talking to?  Seriously - who are you talking to?  This post is, as best I can tell, completely off-topic and not in response to any actual post in this thread.

I mean, if you want to present your "arguments" against an imaginary opponent, knock yourself out I guess, but this is a bit ridiculous.

 

(And, not to get picky, but that resolution passed in 2002, not 2001)

Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:31am
Yes it is relevant...one of our usual suspects goes after Bush, based on media biased reporting of issues relating to the Iraq War. The information these suspects throw out there is meant to demean and provide the standard left wing misinformation on the Iraq War, it Causes, and its merit, yet any defense of the President and or his Administration on this forum is considered illrelevant.

Look at all the political signatures and comments anti Bush/Administration, and say there is no Left bias on this forum, and when someone posts a reference fact, again we shoot the messenger as not to even consider the message.

Bush did not lie to America, also the Senate and The House by overwhelming majority approved of this war, based on the Resolution I posted, now we see a posting of "Bush still doesn’t know.... " and within the resolution the fsact of three distinct paragraphs within the resolution state:

"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

"Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;"

"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;"

And our usual suspects post a topic contrary to proven documented fact as made by Resolution of the US Congress

If you feel my post does not apply to the topic feel free, but refuting the base topic by posting a fact sure seems relevant to me.

Edited by oldsoldier
Back to Top
goodsmitty View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Childish Insults 3/3

Joined: 13 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote goodsmitty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 1:49am

Let me clear up a couple inaccuracies here:

1. The Dulfuer report extinguished any link between Iraq and terrorists. They did not harbor terrorists, and Saddam kicked Bin laden out of the country. Any argument otherwise is pure fiction.

2. The 9/11 commission report extinguished any link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Any argument otherwise is pure fiction.

Both reports were made by U.S. government sanctioned bodies.

3. "anthrax" in its weapon form is the spores of the anthracis bacillus bacteria.

4. Small pox is a virus.

5. Pepper spray is a chemical weapon. It does not have a biological action, such as a virus or bacteria.

With all of these ficticious renditions of history, politics, and science running rampant on this thread, I now see how Bush gets away with speeches that are based in fantasy.



Edited by goodsmitty
"Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status."
-Zesty

Back to Top
Clark Kent View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 July 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Clark Kent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 2:22am

oldsoldier wrote:

Yes it is relevant...one of our usual suspects goes after Bush, ...

Please - just say the name.  Oblique reference and the internet do not mix well.

Quote:

...based on media biased reporting of issues relating to the Iraq War.

First off, it was a link to an AP story.  While the AP certainly is subject to the same biases as any other source, casually dismissing this story, or the AP in general, as "biased" results in defining that term into uselessness.

Second, the story was describing reactions to Bush's speech.  The criticisms in the story belonged to quoted parties. 

Could the story have been more even-handed?  Probably.  Does that make this report "biased" in a meaningful sense of the word?  Absolutely not.  If this story is "biased", then so is all the news, and we might as well not bother using the term.

So, your claim of bias is either false or meaningless.

Quote:

The information these suspects throw out there...

I presume you mean the initial post/link?  Kind of hard to guess what you are talking about without any specifics.  But I will presume you meant the link to the Yahoo/AP story.

Quote:

... is meant to demean and provide the standard left wing misinformation ...

Was there misinformation provided in the AP story?  Please identify.

Quote:

...yet any defense of the President and or his Administration on this forum is considered illrelevant.

Oh, no - feel free to defend GW.  I just want some meat on the bones.  Spouting random anti-liberal rhetoric doesn't count as "defending".

Quote:

Look at all the political signatures and comments anti Bush/Administration,...

Are you referring to my sig, in part?  If so you have completely missed the point of my sig.

Quote:

... and say there is no Left bias on this forum...

Sure there is left bias in the forum, but it is substantially outweighted by the right bias.  Moreover, I believe you may be incorrectly applying "left" and "right" labels.  And moreover, who cares if there is a left bias on the forum?  This is an internet forum!!!

Quote:

... and when someone posts a reference fact, again we shoot the messenger as not to even consider the message.

I considered the message, and dismissed it as irrelevant.  I can also cut and paste random legislation.

Quote:

 the Senate and The House by overwhelming majority approved of this war...

Which is the irrelevant part.  To the extent that Bush is culpable, his culpability is affected in no way by any act of Congress.  At best, your post claims that there is badness in Congress as well as the White House.  That does not diminish any badness in the White House.  Entirely independent, and entirely irrelevant.

Quote:


"Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

...

And our usual suspects post a topic contrary to proven documented fact as made by Resolution of the US Congress

Congress doesn't create reality.  You are aware, I presume, that practically everybody (including the White House) now acknowledges that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11?

But even if he did, your post would still be irrelevant - see my point above.  Congress' sharing of the blame does not diminish any blame due to Bush.

Quote:

If you feel my post does not apply to the topic feel free, but refuting the base topic by posting a fact sure seems relevant to me.

It is relevant - IF the fact itself is relevant, and IF it refutes the base topic.

Your post does neither. 

Your post makes sense only within the strange world where an attack on a Republican is "refuted" by attacking a Democrat. 

Back to Top
goodsmitty View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Childish Insults 3/3

Joined: 13 January 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 635
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote goodsmitty Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 July 2005 at 5:06am

^^^ I'm glad there isn't an Intelligent Design thread right now. Ouch.

This article explains my revulsion at the Bush's speech much better than I ever could:

http://www.chillicothegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID= /20050701/OPINION02/507010319/1014/OPINION



Edited by goodsmitty
"Reading this thread, I'm sad to say that the only difference between the average American and the average Taliban is economic status."
-Zesty

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.