[quote author=“minijigga”]
EVERYONE AT THAT TIME agreed that Saddam was a threat, EVERYONE. AND EVERYONE still thinks that the world is a better place without him. You can only point the finger at Bush for so long, before someone points at you and informs you of your other three fingers pointing in the opposite direction. As inexplicable as it is for me to try and understand where you are all coming from; why you refuse to accept the fact that Saddam DID HAVE AND DID USE WMDS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE; why you cannot process that Saddam payed 50k the families of suicide bombers, why when you turn on your TV, and see the news reports of Al Qaeda forces fighting in Iraq, that you don’t see the obvious connection between the Islamic Extremists/Terrorists worldwide; how (and this one’s most important) you live with yourselves when your stance on the “Iraq Issue” is that of an isolationist? Saddam was the most obvious of the Islamic Extremists because of his Oil Wealth. With that wealth, he could basically w/e he wished. Yet, you’d rather this man be in power just so you can win a political election.
Forgive me for making generalizations, I know all of the Liberals don’t believe that.
I want to say more, but I feel it will fall on deaf ears :( And what’s the point of speaking to a deaf person… :?
I want to know where you get off saying everyone? Obviously, everyone didn’t otherwise Bush wouldn’t have had to disregard the UN and fight by himself with his supposed Coalition of the Willing which is a joke. All encompassing terms like “everyone” is what makes it obvious that you aren’t doing any research but simply stating your opinion. Also, he didn’t have WMD’s and he certainly wouldn’t have used them on his own people. It’s much more efficient and easier to conceal by gassing people or lining them up and shooting them. Using WMD’s would most certainly have been picked up by any other country and thus would have signified that he needed to be taken out. Instead we charged in on false pretenses, found nothing, and now we’re the laughing stock of First World Nations. Find me an article or study (not from Bush’s website) that says he had WMD’s. I’ll agree that Saddam was a threat to his own people and it was inevitable that he would have to be dealt with. But this is what could have happened had we had UN support:
1) Going in with the support of the UN would probably have averted the current problems that we are having there with insurrections. Maybe avoiding over 1000 US troop deaths.
2) We would not have to divert troops from South Korea which is a much more important area in terms of WMD’s because Kim Jong-Il actually has them.
3) Many more american’s (including myself) would be much happier with Bush’s handling of the situation.
Afghanistan was different. I was for bombing the hell out of them because we were going after Osama who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. Now Bush more or less disregards Osama. What happened here? What happened to our priorities?
In the recording of the meeting of 26 May 1987, Proconsul Al Majid declares: ?I will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The international community? #### them! (6)?
Yes, these are people that you want to sit down with and chat about the weather. From that statement alone, I can see how clearly your thought process is. I mean, I would love to talk with the “butcher of Kurdistan”, he seems reasonable. The international community could really unite and change his mind…
Iraq?s possible possession of weapons of mass destruction had been a matter of concern to the international community since before the first Gulf War. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons in the past. At some point, he assembled thousands of chemical warheads, along with biological weapons, and made a serious attempt to build a nuclear-weapons program. What has been in dispute is how much of that capacity, if any, survived the 1991 war and the years of United Nations inspections, no-fly zones, and sanctions that followed. In addition, since September 11th there have been recurring questions about Iraq?s ties to terrorists. A February poll showed that seventy-two per cent of Americans believed it was likely that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11th attacks, although no definitive evidence of such a connection has been presented.
If you want to know what I think of the UN, you should have read up. THE UN IS A ####### USELESS ORGANIZATION. This was proved by their actions after Saddam snubbed his nose at us, resolution after resolution. Why? ‘Cause he had the word of the French and Germans that they’d make sure we wouldn’t go in. In fact, senior Iraqi officials claimed that Saddam was totally oblivious up until the very last, thinking that he’d be saved by his Socialist pals. How can I make such a bold claim? Because the French (as I said above, it would do you some good to read my other posts) Ambassador to the United States reported back to the Iraqi’s after each meeting we had with him.
WE TRIED FOR TEN YEARS WITH THE INSPECTORS AND DIPLOMACY. IT DIDN’T WORK THEN, AND IT CERTAINLY WOULDN’T HAVE WORKED WHEN HE HAD THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL IN HIS POCKET. Get over it. Your party has been flogging that same dead horse for the past two years, and it’s getting a little old. I’m VERY GLAD we took him out when we did, because had we let him go on, no one knows what could have happened. When he eventually passed away, one of his sons would have taken over, and they are reported to be as sadistic, if not more, than Saddam. So yeah, let’s just wait for one of those guys to revamp the evil plans the Hussein’s were working on. GreaT idea. While we’re at it, let’s go back on a retrospective journey to the 1930s. Let’s go and listen in at one of the Nazi rallies, and, even though we can see trouble brewing…let’s just do nothing. Be the isolationist pussies that Osama thought we were. I think I’m loving this idea so much, I’m going to go celebrate by nailing all my fingers to the wall.
F^CK THE FRENCH. F%CK THE UN. I hope they can see both of my middle right this very moment.
This isn’t even a good debate anymore. Your complete lack of interest in discussing the subject at hand instead, referring to your own biased views isn’t what comprises a good argument. You’ve presented your side of the debate but I’m stopping because I don’t feel like I’m learning anything, just being yelled at.
[quote author=“sweet jesus”]This isn’t even a good debate anymore. Your complete lack of interest in discussing the subject at hand instead, referring to your own biased views isn’t what comprises a good argument. You’ve presented your side of the debate but I’m stopping because I don’t feel like I’m learning anything, just being yelled at.
I wouldn’t have yelled at you had you not acted like your ears were closed to learning something. I provide you with sources, and you back down. ok.
This is exactly why I want to get into politics in a few years, after I graduate and go to law school. There is nothing like a debate, great stuff. In fact, you guys shouldn’t be surprised to see me running for president in twenty-thirty years or so.
Anyway, what you are saying about debates is true. When one person refuses to listen to the argument of the other side, they close themselves off to the ethos of the audience. When a debator can take the argument of the other side, present convincing arguments in favor of his own side using sources and information, and then realate it to what the opposition has said, they will invariably succeed in winning the debate. The key to winning a debate is to know more about the other side of the argument than the other person knows about it themselves.
I just want to add that the threat of Saddam Hussein was in no way comparable to that of the Nazis. Neither in scale nor policy. I don’t refute the fact that diplomacy wasn’t working against Saddam in terms of him killing his own people and I certainly don’t condone Saddam’s actions. In terms of WMD’s I believe that we were following the correct route and obviously it was working since we can’t seem to find any in the country. My argument rests on the truth that our country was led into war on false pretenses, those being that we were told Saddam had WMD’s. This administration’s entire policy is one based on fear. The constant updates of that color-coded warning system are a joke. They are used to keep the American people scared because we’ll allow anything if we think it’s to keep us safe.
Again, like I said, the American people would not have that hard a time accepting Bush’s bullying tactics if he would tell us exactly why we went to war. If he had said that Saddam didn’t have WMD’s would the people still want the war? Obviously he doesn’t care much about the massacring of Africans in Darfur because he didn’t even bother inspecting the situation until now. Darfur doesn’t have any natural resources we’re intersted in, is that it? The UN declared Darfur the worst humanitarian crisis in the world about 6 months ago. Where was the US on this? Why aren’t we spending money helping them out instead of dumping money into rebuilding oil pipelines in Iraq? I don’t care what you say about the UN because I think in terms of priorities, they have their correct.
As a sidenote: take a look into the Israeli recreation of the Berlin Wall they’re making in Palestine. Check out the voting record there and see who is in the right. The US constantly backs Israel’s unilateral pull-out of Palestinian settlements which will leave Palestinians homeless, jobless, and will force many of its own people back into Israel when they don’t want to leave. US international diplomacy is a joke because we think we own everything and everyone. It’s exactly this bull-headed strategy that gets us into debt and Bush needs to bite on the bullet and admit he’s made some serious mistakes.
I’m sorry if you felt like I was yelling at you; however, you did provoke me. You attacked my intelligence, and for that, you had it coming :D
Debate about the issues? I am totally up for it, but it seems you are not… Let me tell you, there is going to be more than yelling in the next few months, so you had better get over it 😛 I wouldn’t be completely surprised if some people died as a result of the winner of the election, that’s how split the country is right now. It makes me really sad, but that’s just the way it is.
So, no more debate from you then? You aren’t going to try and counter my sources?
Tighr, I want to go into politics as well :D
claud, I guess you’ve been asleep for the past three years. Let me catch you up on what’s happened. Three years ago this Saturday, 4 planes were hijacked and used as methods of terror against the American people. 2 flew into the WTC, 1 into the Pentagon, and another was heroically crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. After this insurmountable tragedy, Life as we Knew it, Changed. The very few who did travel by air, were looked upon as gamblers playing with their lives. Several businesses in the industry, had to be bailed out of bankruptcy by the government, costing billions of dollars (and that’s just initially, during the first few quarters).
But, because we are Americans, even the greatest tragedies of recent memory, couldn’t keep us from realizing our dreams. It’s been three years since September 11th, 2001, and we’re finally back on track towards a positive economic outlook. More and more jobs are becoming available to the ever-hungry American job-seeker. America, is open for business once more. Due, in part, to the current Administration’s Tax-cuts. If you look at the link Andruex posted, you’ll see that the spin that has been put on the Bush tax policy, is in fact, not very true at all.
Please don’t talk to me about deficits, the Liberal’s want to turn this countries economic system into something that closely resembles Socialism, if not Socialism wholly. Do you have any conception as to what that would do to this country? If they want it so bad, they can pack their bags, and move to Europe. There are plenty of socialist nations over there that would love to have ‘em. Like France. Oh wait, no they wouldn’t, because France hates immigration. Gotta’ love the French, always stabbing us in the back every chance they get :D
But, that’s what is so great about America. People can move here, and with the right ambition, realize their dreams. That’s something that few nations in the world can say about the place they call home. With Socialism, not only would all the free-loaders of the world want a piece, but all the honestly decent people who were willing to work, would have it that much harder. They’d have to pay half or more of their wages so Larry down the street could sit on his Lazy ass all day and do nothing. Look at the economies of these Socialist nations, and tell me about their economic growth. If we had the economic growth of Germany, the people of America would be calling for the death of Bush. But, this is America. People are allowed to prosper, relatively uninhibited by the government, at least for now that is.
Man, I really don’t have time for this, I should be studying! I know there are tons of things you guys are going to say, but I’ll just have to respond to them as they come, instead of saying them before you do 😛 Wouldn’t want to steal your thunder anyway 😛 (Bush created the deficits with his tax-cut, Bush is a Nazi, Bush knew about 9/11 and did nothing, Bush is only friends with Big Business, Bush went to Iraq solely for Oil, Bush doesn’t have any clue where he is half the time—what a retarded dumbass he is, yadda yadda yadda…go ahead, say them, I’ll be waiting 😛)
One more thing…
Alot of the young people in America today, are backing Kerry simply because it’s the “hip” thing to do. They see him trying to act cool on his snowboard or on MTV, but mostly they think he’s the anti-“Man”. They see voting for Kerry as being against the “Man” or the “System”, and that’s considered cool. They don’t realize that they are betting on a blind horse, who’s running backwards towards a hungry lion with a chip on his shoulder. Please, if you are considering voting for Kerry, stop to think for a moment. Think about what it would be like if your local, high-population center was struck by a terrorist attack. Would you prefer that such a thing never happened? Or would you rather that the people (who would most likely be dead) were prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law?
Do you like the fact that personal-injury lawyers are driving up the cost of health-care in America? Would you rather have affordable health-care, or hungry lawyers praying you’ll get into a medical accident so they can stick their fangs back into the neck of the hard-working doctors around the country?
Some food for thought, especially useful when you sit down for breakfast on the morning of November 2nd…
Anyway, minijigga (and anyone else who cares), I was in a class last semester called Presidential Election Rhetoric, and we held a mock campaign with 4 presidential candidates. Here is a look at my campaign website (I was one of the Candidates, I ran as a Libertarian/Republican and my VP was a Republican). Of important note are the platform planks. Read those.
Some of them (education) I don’t agree with because they are my group’s choices not mine, but I debated them fiercely in the debates. That was the stance my advisors wanted me to take, and I fought to the death to get that point across. I made pretty convincing arguments for it, too. Some of the other stances I wanted to push forward were tax reform (I’m in favor of a fairtax plan) and my pet issue during the entire presidential campaign was social security reform (I knocked that one out of the park, despite its controversial qualities).
My favorite part of the convention was Bush’s speech; all he said was what he wants to do…wait a sec…didn’t he already get his chance? Oh yeah, he blew it. Let’s face it, he hasn’t done a single thing he promised. He squandered our surplus and took us into a war on false pretenses.
I want to talk to minijigga about the subject of sources because I think it’s important that you understand what they are. Now sources are outside materials that are used to support your hypothesis. Usually in this case, they may be online publication from organizations, or other written material. When you say that you’ve presented sources, all I see is your Republican dogma chanted over and over about how Saddam was the next Hitler and that Bush is making the world a sunshine ####### happy place. You aren’t using sources, you’re using your own opinion, which I’m sorry to say fits the exact same opinion as every other person that hails Bush as a savior. You haven’t quoted a single statistic, quote, or source that implies these things you seem to hold as fact actually are.
Your opinion matters very little to me as I’ve heard it voiced by a dozen other people with the same hatred for the left and their concept that whatever the republicans do is right. I’m not saying democrats are always right and the republicans are always wrong. Factions aren’t to blame, people are. This shouldn’t be a debate about opinion because we both know where we stand, this should be a debate about facts and facts are obvious when you read the statistics and the news (not tv). Everything you said in your last post is exactly what I heard at the RNC and on Fox news…almost word for word. It’s pathetic. And yes, this time I am insulting your intelligence.
Now here’s some sources on your glorious economic boom, read the numbers and figure it out; Bush is ####### up:
You do realize that the economy is not influenced by the president, and that things such as GDP and consumer wealth are actually rooted in administrative actions taken at least 5 years prior to the economic result? Just making sure you knew that. (SOURCE: any ***ing economics book in the world will tell you this). Administrative action is actually the absolute slowest way to stimulate/stagnate the economy.
h yeah, he blew it. Let’s face it, he hasn’t done a single thing he promised. He squandered our surplus and took us into a war on false pretenses.
Well I guess other than the tax cut and his attempts (blocked by congress) at pushing forward education reform and maybe the prescription drug plan (btw, I hate this plan and I’m conservative, but this isn’t the point. the point is Bush promised it) including medicare reform, then yes. I guess you’re right, he hasn’t even TRIED to do any of the things he wanted to get done. I guess he’s been sitting on his duff watching TV for for years, and then last week woke up and realized he was supposed to be doing president-type things. Yes that was sarcasm.
I know that people do not like Bush. This is a fact stating an opinion. But what is NOT a fact is that he is a dumb man; he does NOT have an IQ of 91 like is popularly believed (snopes.com disporved this myth). In fact, he is a close model of what the founding fathers intended the president to be; a man, a common man, who makes decisions for other common men, which is what he attempts to do. Sure he has advisors, but so do you. I’m sure you’ve got friends who tell you if that chick you made out with was hot or not, right? So the man listens to advisors. Big deal. Kerry does, too. Everyone does. So my point is that its fine to have the opinion that you don’t like Bush, but its not a fact that the man is stupid and dumb.
I heard at the RNC and on Fox news
I didn’t think liberals watched fox news? Oh, thats right. You have to watch it so you can complain that the media is really conservative. Because as everyone who has taken elementary school math knows, 1 conservative channel is a larger number than 7 liberal channels. I guess one is a bigger number than seven for lefties.
I don’t consider any news channels really liberal. MSNBC may be leaning that way but it’s more talk shows than direct news. I’m still confused on exactly what makes news liberal or conservative. I get almost all of my news from BBC and other non-US sources unless it’s about politics. I’ll grant you that I shouldn’t have used Fox news in there because I honestly don’t think it’s a good idea to bring TV into this. No matter what station or program you’re watching, you aren’t getting a direct, uncut story. Everyone has their agenda.
Anyway, I realize that the administration doesn’t have a direct link to the economy but then I don’t think Bush should take credit when 144,000 out of a predicted 300,000 get jobs. Bush may not have a direct link to a lot of the things that are messed up in this country, but his cabinet and his idealogy are certainly represented in a lot of the country’s current failings.
One last thing. Do you honestly believe that the country is better now than it was four years ago? Can you whole-heartedly tell me that Bush is doing what’s best for America or for you as an individual? For myself I can honestly say no. My father’s annual salary is down more than $9000 a year, college tuition is up, I have friends going over to Iraq, jobs have drastically decreased where I live, and my family’s health care premium has gone up nearly $1000 a year. I’m not voting against Bush or for Kerry because they promise anything (empty promises on both sides) but because I think my family will be better off with someone new in the office. It may not change much but that’s the beauty of the democratic process. The president doesn’t descend from the heavens, we hire him, and if he does a crappy job than we fire him and try something else. From my perspective we need a new president. I’m done.
[quote author=“sweet jesus”]I just want to add that the threat of Saddam Hussein was in no way comparable to that of the Nazis. Neither in scale nor policy. I don’t refute the fact that diplomacy wasn’t working against Saddam in terms of him killing his own people and I certainly don’t condone Saddam’s actions. In terms of WMD’s I believe that we were following the correct route and obviously it was working since we can’t seem to find any in the country. My argument rests on the truth that our country was led into war on false pretenses, those being that we were told Saddam had WMD’s. This administration’s entire policy is one based on fear. The constant updates of that color-coded warning system are a joke. They are used to keep the American people scared because we’ll allow anything if we think it’s to keep us safe.
So, wait. I’m taking things straight from the RNC, but you aren’t taking this straight from Fahrenheit 9-11?
To use your words, “Where do you get off” saying that Saddam wasn’t as big a threat as Hitler? You may want to pick up a dictionary and look that word up…Lemme help you out a lil’
1. An expression of an intention to inflict pain, injury, evil, or punishment.
2. An indication of impending danger or harm.
3. One that is regarded as a possible danger; a menace.
Let’s see. Hitler was all of those things, and in my view, so was Mr. Hussein. He had, at one time, intended to spread his ideology throughout the Arabic world. He hated and defied us. He IS evil. Given enough time, and enough French hands to hold, who knows what he would have been capable of over the next ten years. HE WAS AND IS regarded by the national community as a menace and a danger to the free world.
What you meant was scale, didn’t you? In comparison, the scale of the two mens plans were different? They both had VERY similar intentions: extermination of a people, expansion, and domination of the people that they ruled. They were both sadistic… Nope, I really don’t see how they are much different from one another. Try using your fancy “facts” to prove me wrong.
ON THE WAR IN IRAQ. ALL YOU HAVE, is a conspiracy theory. That’s all you have. All the Liberals in the country that go around saying exactly what you are puking up to me, are totally out of the minds with hatred for Bush. False Pretenses implies that he lied to the American Public. No wait, that’s exactly what your side is charging. That he’s lied. You want to show me one shred of evidence that he intentionally mislead the American people? Don’t show me what he said before he took office, and then what he said later on…I want a piece of paper that shows in black and white that president either lied, or manipulated facts to lead us into war. Good luck finding that, because it doesn’t exist. The problem with your charge, is that it most politicians in Washington (DC) agreed (Kerry included) to go to war because they had the same intelligence that Bush had. If you are going to blame someone for this, blame the intelligence people that gave this “false” information. You really can’t blame them either, because the links and informants we should have had in Iraq, weren’t there to verify satellite images or intercepted reports. Why weren’t they? Because for 8 years, Clinton and Gore chipped away at the intelligence agencies…wouldn’t let us hire certain “undesirables” to help gain vital links to the terrorists. Remember that thing I said about you pointing a finger, and the other three pointing back at you? This applies here too.
I’m afraid I don’t know anything about this situation in Darfur, but I’ll do some research and get back to you.
The links from slate.com are obviously partisan, and btw, are both written by the same guy. As Tighr said, Presidents do very little to influence economic growth or decline. I mean, look at Clinton. He didn’t really have much to do with the 8 years of prosperity that took place during his watch, but your side didn’t (and still doesn’t) have a problem with accrediting him with that success. :yawn: Some more rhetoric for you, “Bush inherited a recession. When Clinton should have implemented a tax-cut to stimulate growth, he didn’t, thus worsening the effects of the oncoming recession (that he knew was coming btw, economists were predicting it ~9-11 months before Clinton left office)”... I had more I promise, just too tired to function at this point.
Oh, I didn’t bother reading that .org you gave me, should have been more specific on what you were intending to cite.
On my sources, I hardly think The New Yorker is a Republican rag. Nor do I think some French publication is either. So, you are wrong there mate…totally wrong. I really don’t think you actually took the time to go read them (as I did for you, with the exception of the .org…btw, I found the numbers interesting, at best; his obvious indignation for the incumbent president ruined any chance of his words having any real meaning for me :(), all you must’ve done was read my post…if that. You should really watch your mouth on this, because it’s becoming increasingly questionable whether or not you are actually reading everything I’m writing.
Forgive me, oh kind sire, for being proud of what my party stands for and the accomplishments that have been made. Yes, I was regurgitating things that were said. But, damn man, don’t be so hypocritical. You realize that nearly 90% of what you said, I’ve heard on Fox? Yes, Fox. They have Liberals there to even it out. Yes, they are Conservative, but they do at least offer your side a word here and there. So, you aren’t being so damn original yourself. The 10% (I am unfamiliar with) being the situation in Darfur, and the remake of the “Berlin Wall” in Palestine; I’m sure I could have heard that had I payed more attention to CSPAN, NPR, CNN, or MSNBC…so, please don’t try and make it seem like you are some elite thinker of our time just to demean me. It’s really petty. Especially when an entire paragraph is seemingly a dedication to Michael Moore’s latest film experiment.
I’d say more, but Tighr said alot of it. Bush has made good, at least in his attempts, on his campaign promises.
I really just feel bad for the Liberals of this country. Yes, I hate them at times, but only because they seemingly have no interest in this countries safety. I sympathize with what their goal, to adopt Socialism as our economic agenda, but fail to see why they don’t come clean with their intentions. They’re afraid to come out and announce their plan and hope for the future. All they do, is sit on debates and say how horrible the President is. Do you think that the American people are going to buy into this total blanket of hate? What I’d like to see, is another guy like Dean, or Dean, actually take up your beliefs, and goto a state and do it. Goto Vermont or wherever, and actually setup a Socialist State Government. If it does well, other states will follow. But, I don’t think that’s ever going to happen…you’re all too afraid to tell the middle that you want half of their wages to pay for the lazy asses who don’t work. And your candidate, he doesn’t even know where he stands. At least Dean seemed like he had an idea of what he wanted to do, and Dean didn’t have that politician aura about him. As for the Liberals, I’d rather have had you guys take Dean…but instead, Dean dragged all the Democrats way over off the edge of the left-hand side..and now that’s where we are. If it were up to me, I would have had Lieberman as your candidate. I wouldn’t mind him in office, but, hey…once that poll came out that said Kerry could beat Bush…that’s all your side needed to hear. Bang, presto, instant candidacy.
I think the “Daily Show” summed it up best when they said, “John Kerry, Definitely not Bush” or something. That’s John Kerry’s entire platform. That he isn’t Bush. And that’s exactly what you Liberals want, someone who isn’t Bush..and you don’t care who it is. Therefore, even though Mr. Kerry hasn’t taken a solid stance on anything, or given us an idea of what his plan for the future is, he wouldn’t really have it. He would just have to take the opposite stance of whatever the President decided his position was.
Most of this is probably grammatically incorrect, but I’m way too tired to fix any of it. Take it as it is.
1. A key piece of evidence to back up the claim Iraq was actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program is now known a crude forgery. The Bush administration has conceded that it is a forgery without explaining how our multi-billion dollar intelligence apparatus could have made such an elementary error. US Rep. Henry Waxman has been demanding answers regarding this failure, his letters regarding the matter can be read at http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_nuclear_evidence.htm. Encourage your congressional representatives to join Waxman in demanding answers to the questions he has posed.
2. Early in October 2002, George Bush gave a speech in which he twice cited photographic evidence that Iraq was rebuilding it’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Activity in industrial complexes that were previously known to have been used in Iraq’s WMD programs was said to be proof the Hussein was reconstituting his WMD programs (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html). One cannot claim that industrial complexes were buried in the sand or moved out of Iraq - far less claim that more time is needed to find buildings that have been pinpointed by satellite. Why was this evidence used?
3. On March 30th, 2002 as our troops advanced towards Baghdad, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refered to Iraq’s WMD by asserting, “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Mar2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html. What led Rumsfeld to assert that precise knowledge of the locations of WMD? What did we find when we reqached these areas? Would Rumsfeld like to retract the statement or admidt that intelligence lost track of the WMD in the week and a half between this statement and the time we controlled the areas?
* “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”
- Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002
* “We know for a fact that there are weapons there.”
- Ari Fleischer
January 9, 2003
* Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
You’re posing alot of questions, but you aren’t actually using any of it to back up your claim. You are writing as if I will infer the same conclusions you must’ve come to, and concede my defeat.
I will not, because you have not given me anything more than quotes and loose conspiracy theories. I’d like to know the answers to all those questions too, but I’m not going to back someone who has such an obvious desire to take the President down. You say you want answers, but what you really want is any opening to give the President a jab because you so desperately hate him.
Had you actually read my long-winded posts, you’d know what the hell is with me and the French.
Edit: btw, your links don’t work.
I want them to forgive us for saving them from the Germans. I want you to admit that you lost the 2000 Election. I want my free iPod. I want to goto sleep. Many things…many things that I want right now 😛 But, above all, when I move to California next year, I want to know that I have a President who views my safety as something more than a political issue.
mini you haven’t presented one solid argument based on reason, statistics, or actual policy. Presenting the party line is not an argument, it’s ignorance. I’ve given you a ####### heap of information. I did some research and I wish you would do the same. Go back and read some of your posts. All it is is left wing bashing, ultra-conservative, #### every other country America is always right babble. It’s not interesting to talk to someone so caught up in their own ideology that their blinded by rage everytime their confronted with the idea that they may not be right. Take a look at this again. Don’t just say, “tell me what to read comes I’m too damn lazy.” Read some of the headlines of the documents and maybe read a few documents. That’s hard #######, irrefutable evidence of this country’s economic situation. Show me the statistics that say America is better under Bush.
[quote author=“sweet jesus”]mini you haven’t presented one solid argument based on reason, statistics, or actual policy.
You’ve been doing an awful lot of complaining about how mini is presenting his arguments. I think instead, you should try and debate him instead of tell him how much he sucks. At least in his arguments, he is presenting arguments.
[quote author=“sweet jesus”]mini you haven’t presented one solid argument based on reason, statistics, or actual policy. Presenting the party line is not an argument, it’s ignorance. I’ve given you a ####### heap of information. I did some research and I wish you would do the same. Go back and read some of your posts. All it is is left wing bashing, ultra-conservative, #### every other country America is always right babble. It’s not interesting to talk to someone so caught up in their own ideology that their blinded by rage every time their confronted with the idea that they may not be right. Take a look at this again. Don’t just say, “tell me what to read comes I’m too damn lazy.” Read some of the headlines of the documents and maybe read a few documents. That’s hard #######, irrefutable evidence of this country’s economic situation. Show me the statistics that say America is better under Bush.
OMG, you are such a big hypocrite. WHY DO YOU THINK WHAT YOU’RE TELLING ME, I HAVEN’T HEARD BEFORE? AND THEN HEARD THE REASONS AGAINST YOUR CLAIMS? As I said in my last post, you are just throwing loose conspiracy theories at me. You don’t have one piece of hard evidence that says Bush intentionally led us into a war on false pretenses. You’ve inferred that based on what you’ve read and seen, not one actual facts or direct quotes that clearly say such things.
TIGHR ALREADY SHOT YOU DOWN ON THE ECONOMIC POLICY MAN. GET OVER IT. The executive branch doesn’t control legislation or the US economy, that’s left up to Congress to deal with. Bush is influencing the policies as much as he can, but that doesn’t make it his fault jobs have gone down over the past four years. But, things ARE getting better. You can’t argue that, it’s a fact. Things are looking up. Some would say this is due to the Bush-tax cuts, and yes, I did read the article and understand it’s posed hypothesis’s. I disagree with them because the “facts” seem to be manipulated in a way to make the author’s point…and they are just economic theories, not proven facts. One of the only reason Clinton’s 8 years were so prosperous, was because of the Reagan tax-cuts. Then, when the economy was starting to slump down, he didn’t implement a tax break that could have softened the blow. But, you don’t want to hear that. You don’t want to talk about that. It’s just all bad horrible Bush. Oh, and not to mention all the pardons Clinton issued weeks before his last weeks in office…yeah, great role model for your current candidate who has his nose so far up Clinton’s ass, it looks as if he just picked himself up from a face-plant into the grassy swamps of Vietnam….hahaha
I did read the two slate articles, but they seemed more like opinionated views of facts. So, I disregard them. And btw, that website is heavily Liberal. It has a weekly (or so) piece that is called “Bushism”...Yes, tell me that I am using Right-wing material, and then make it seem like the material you’re using is somehow bi-partisan. Now isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?
It’s really funny to me that once you stopped talking about Saddam, and now you are feeling cornered on your last issue, so, instead you turn to me and insult my character and intelligence, instead of debating.
You ought not look too far from the nearest mirror to see someone deeply involved in their own ideology. Your so consumed in it, that you didn’t take the time to read everything I wrote, and couldn’t possibly understand how I couldn’t agree with you after you played “fact show and tell” with me. You get upset and call me an ideologist and towing my party line. You say I don’t do my research, when, in both cases, most of everything we’ve both said can be heard on the news…be it TV or radio. And I’ve been listening, to both. You say all these things, and yet, you are all the things you’ve called me. Maybe that’s what upsets you the most, that we’re so similar, but yet so different in our ideas.
You’re going to have to grow up and realize that people aren’t always going to agree with your conclusions or ideas, and that that’s okay. You aren’t always right, and there isn’t always one right answer. Just because someone doesn’t agree with you, doesn’t mean they’re a dumbass and haven’t studied as much as you have. Granted, I’ve said alot of things about “Liberals” and what they think. But, I think I tried to add in that I was making a generalization, and that I understood not every Liberal-Socialist-Democrat in the country thought the things I was saying they were. You don’t even offer me or my party that much. Ridiculous.
The next time you are so quick to slam me, take a second to realize you aren’t the god of politics, and you don’t know everything…‘cause you sure seem to think you’re much better than I am. That’s the thing I don’t get about the left, they say they’re for the people…but, they act so damn above everyone else, that it’s hard for me to see it that way…And, there’s this look in some of the eyes of some of the Liberals…I can’t quite describe it, but, it’s there. It’s this look, behind the eyes almost…Can’t quite put my finger on it, but it’s there. And, it’s what I use to determine right off hand whether or not if they are liberals.
OK, I’ve totally lost my direction, anyway…let’s see how long it takes you to smash me and my party again… more interestingly, let’s see if you can be without your air of elitism and hypocritical nature… :think: :?
Moore is all hype. I am voting for Nader simply because he is the lesser of three evils as far as I am concerned. I also picked him in the last election over Gore and Bush.
I hate to say it, but I am glad Bush won as opposed to Gore. I just cant see Gore handling September 11th.
As far as a straight Kerry/Bush poll with only those two choices, I would probably have to choose Bush. I just dont see Kerry as a strong president…although I like Edwards a lot.
