Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress; Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretz
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 03:04:03 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors. Again & again they kept coming
up dry -- never finding any of these imaginary WMDs
Bush kept pretending were there -- and they kept asking
Bush to share some of this... this... "Intel" that
Bush was insisting was so accurate.
Bush NEVER identified a single WMD in Iraq. Not a one.
Bush simply refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 04:17:26 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175976243.049626.79280@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors. Again & again they kept coming
up dry -- never finding any of these imaginary WMDs
Bush kept pretending were there -- and they kept asking
Bush to share some of this... this... "Intel" that
Bush was insisting was so accurate.
Bush NEVER identified a single WMD in Iraq. Not a one.
Bush simply refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
LOL! You're funny, in a sorta' schizo-in-the-padded-cell way, honey bear.
It didn't matter whether the Chimp shared his intel or not -- the
inspectors were in Iraq to find evidence of WMD, as well as any weapons
that violated UNSC restrictions. They did find some short-range missiles
that had a longer range than was allowed, and destroyed them -- just
before Bushbutt's invasion began. I'm sure the UNSC had no interest in
Bush's intel -- if such intel proved the existence of WMD, they knew Bush
would've passed it along. They were suspicious that his motives were
political or commercial, and logically pressed on with their search for
evidence. Hans Blix has stated repeatedly that the UN inspection team
could not depend on politicians and their 'intel' -- that is why they were
searching, you lil' honey bear.
You need to get your damned fairy brains ironed out ... they're all
wrinklely and crinklely.
LOL!
Dr. Bipolar
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 12:13:21 AM |
|
|
"Doc" <bushgobye...@leftofcenter.com> wrote:
LOL!
Okay, psycho what are you pretending wasn't accurate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 03:36:20 AM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176009201.535004.242580@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
"Doc" <bushgobye...@leftofcenter.com> wrote:
LOL!
Okay, psycho what are you pretending wasn't accurate?
Was I pretending? No, I don't think I was. =)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 06:53:29 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
It means he thinks you're an easy target (and this is the guy
who talks to dead people by 'channeling').
Again & again they kept coming
up dry -- never finding any of these imaginary WMDs
Bush kept pretending were there -- and they kept asking
Bush to share some of this... this... "Intel" that
Bush was insisting was so accurate.
Bush NEVER identified a single WMD in Iraq. Not a one.
Bush simply refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 07:39:35 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns990BB60052911rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat
the
Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
It means he thinks you're an easy target (and this is the guy
who talks to dead people by 'channeling').
Either that, or he's beginning to have romantic or sexual feelings for The
Steve (!). He's been having an EZ time with me for the past two weeks
since I put him in the killfile for awhile. Heeheehee...I'd almost
forgotten he'd been in there, until a noticeable foul odor began to
emanate from the hard drive this morning...and a peculiar *whining* sound,
too.
Dr. Bipolar :))~
Again & again they kept coming
up dry -- never finding any of these imaginary WMDs
Bush kept pretending were there -- and they kept asking
Bush to share some of this... this... "Intel" that
Bush was insisting was so accurate.
Bush NEVER identified a single WMD in Iraq. Not a one.
Bush simply refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 07:09:40 PM |
|
|
On Apr 7, 4:53 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 07:52:27 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Apr 7, 4:53 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com>
Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
You getting bent over and fucked up the ***** by george w bush
has nothing to do with sex, stevie !!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Bipolar" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 08:25:07 PM |
|
|
"Perseid" <eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns990BBFFF76809rrfkwrantispamattbic@216.196.97.136...
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Apr 7, 4:53 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com>
Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
You getting bent over and fucked up the ***** by george w bush
has nothing to do with sex, stevie !!
Well, certainly, the Chimp has an anal affinity for other simians,
especially the red-***** baboons. I don't know what category of primate
Stevie's in...it's so confusing since he seems to morph between a baboon
and a chimpanzee.
Dr. Bipolar
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 08:53:53 PM |
|
|
On Apr 7, 5:52 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Apr 7, 4:53 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jte...@gmail.com>
Spat the Words
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors.
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
You getting bent over and fucked up the ***** by george w bush
has nothing to do with sex, stevie !!
If that was all you'd ever said, I'd have understood it as a simple
(but crude) analogy. But you've gone into far more (gross) detail than
that on occasion, which led me to wonder about your proclivity for
same-sex fantasies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 06:14:08 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
You getting bent over and fucked up the ***** by george w bush
has nothing to do with sex, stevie !!
If that was all you'd ever said, I'd have understood it as a simple
(but crude) analogy. But you've gone into far more (gross) detail than
that on occasion, which led me to wonder about your proclivity for
same-sex fantasies.
You wish to continue this discussion about same-sex
encounters, yes ? This is also a bad sign stevie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 10:10:28 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 4:14 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Believe it or not, Randie, I'd rather be called "honey" by JTEM than
have a role in some of your occasional same-sex fantasies.
You getting bent over and fucked up the ***** by george w bush
has nothing to do with sex, stevie !!
If that was all you'd ever said, I'd have understood it as a simple
(but crude) analogy. But you've gone into far more (gross) detail than
that on occasion, which led me to wonder about your proclivity for
same-sex fantasies.
You wish to continue this discussion about same-sex
encounters, yes ? This is also a bad sign stevie.
I never had that discussion with you. It was all your doing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 12:15:20 AM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Worry not, my little wall flower, for I shall call this, um,
this "Steven" something else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 06:04:22 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> Spat the
Words
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Stevie, it's a *bad* sign when JTEM starts calling you 'honey'.
Worry not, my little wall flower, for I shall call this, um,
this "Steven" something else.
Yes, go play with stephen. I somehow doubt he cares to speak
with you either though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
09 Apr 2007 07:19:05 PM |
|
|
Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, go play with stephen.
Very clever, my little skat queen. Someone is helping
you. I can tell.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
07 Apr 2007 03:24:29 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include:
Saddam gave his full cooperation to the UN weapons
inspectors,
Honey, *Bush* didn't give his full cooperation to the
UN weapons inspectors. Again & again they kept coming
up dry -- never finding any of these imaginary WMDs
Bush kept pretending were there -- and they kept asking
Bush to share some of this... this... "Intel" that
Bush was insisting was so accurate.
Bush NEVER identified a single WMD in Iraq. Not a one.
Bush simply refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors.
He didn't? Why, we oughta "Shock and Awe" the bast****!!
Huh? What?
He's on our side?
Are you sure? ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 01:07:23 PM |
|
|
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress; Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretzhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
More disingenuous ***** from douglas!
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 05:10:00 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 11:07 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress; Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretzhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
More disingenuous ***** from douglas!
Just another meaningless platitude from a leftist liar. How about some
actual refutation of the article? Are you able? I doubt it, but we'll
see, won't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Perseid" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 06:34:43 PM |
|
|
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Apr 8, 11:07 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;
Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he
was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD
programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article
The article isn't interesting at all, and myself and others here
have refuted each and every point (if you wish to think of them
as argumentative points) on at least several dozen occasions.
Face it stevie, you've been debunked to the bone.
-- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretzhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
More disingenuous ***** from douglas!
Just another meaningless platitude from a leftist liar. How about some
actual refutation of the article? Are you able? I doubt it, but we'll
see, won't we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
08 Apr 2007 10:11:53 PM |
|
|
On Apr 8, 4:34 pm, Perseid <eidp...@anti-spam.comcast.net> wrote:
After Much Chewing of Cud and Cogitation, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> Spat the Words
On Apr 8, 11:07 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;
Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he
was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD
programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article
The article isn't interesting at all, and myself and others here
have refuted each and every point (if you wish to think of them
as argumentative points) on at least several dozen occasions.
Only in your delusions.
Face it stevie, you've been debunked to the bone.
Hardly. Only if you consider the way you fling around those personal
attacks to be "debunking" something.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WH" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
10 Apr 2007 05:11:33 AM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 12:10 am, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:07 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress; Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretzhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
More disingenuous ***** from douglas!
Just another meaningless platitude from a leftist liar. How about some
actual refutation of the article? Are you able? I doubt it, but we'll
see, won't we?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've given up refuting your fantasies douglas. I did it for a long
time in the past and you still say the same old ***** you said in
those days. Just parrotting on and on and on and on ad infinitum. You
are saying and linking to the exact same rubbish you were saying and
linking to 3 fuckin' years ago. Still using the same "Foxnews/
worldNUTdaily"ish childish whinging type arguments to defend the
indefensible. You're living in a fantasy douglas. Your
disingenuousness is so transparent it's riduculous. You seem to be the
only one here who can't see it. I know that idiots like you cannot be
educated. I'll just let you parrot on and on, throwing you a tidbit
from time to time to fuel your *****. Appals me to see some of the
rubbish you push as truth, and you seem to believe it whilst everyone
else knows it's nonsense. Debating anything with you is a pointless
excercise due to you attempting to put the blame on everyone else
instead of where it rightly belongs...yes your beloved monkey
president. You're just, like your beloved president, another monkey.
You have learned a trick or two and that's it. That's where you are
now, using your trick or two, and you never vary...you never come up
with anything new. The same old trick or two over and over and over
again. But we others are all wide to your tricks!
Keep it up. Me, I'm gonna do as I said above and have a larf watching
you make a complete fool of yourself...over and over and over again.
WH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
10 Apr 2007 08:27:49 AM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 3:11 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:10 am, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 8, 11:07 am, "WH" <boll...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 7 Apr, 21:16, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress; Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address; Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement; Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Below is a link to an interesting article -- I hope you'll have the
intellectual honesty to read *all* of it before responding.
Who Is Lying About Iraq?
by Norman Podhoretzhttp://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
More disingenuous ***** from douglas!
Just another meaningless platitude from a leftist liar. How about some
actual refutation of the article? Are you able? I doubt it, but we'll
see, won't we?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I've given up refuting your fantasies douglas. I did it for a long
time in the past and you still say the same old ***** you said in
those days.
Obviously you haven't convinced me of anything. You come on here with
your BS, and I correct you, and you just plod along with the same old
BS as if nothing ever happened. Sudan, for instance. The first time I
talked of Sudan's genocide against Christians (and others) in the
South of Sudan, you asked me to prove it -- implying you didn't
believe 2 million people were murdered by the Islamic Republic of
Sudan. And there have been other examples of your ignorance. And I'm
supposed to take your word for anything? Forget it. I don't blame you
for saying you've given up refuting my posts, because obviously you've
got nothing.
Just parrotting on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
Just showing what was overwhelmingly believed at the time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marvin The Paranoid Android" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
09 Apr 2007 08:15:09 AM |
|
|
On Apr 7, 3:16 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;
You're off to a bad start when you have to toss out that straw-man
argument. Of course he wasn't cooperating fully but Blix didn't
suggest invading was the answer. He requested more time. Bush
wouldn't allow it -- the invasion was a unilateral decision by The
Decider.
Joe
Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the Union
address;
Bush's 16 words were retracted at the request of the CIA. The CIA
sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase
uranium. The Brits felt Iraq had attempted to buy uranium based on a
visit by an Iraqi gov't official in 1999. The Brits *assumed* that
the purpose of the visit was related to purchasing uranium since 75%
of Nigers exports are uranium. The CIA looked into this and found
nothing to suggest that that was the purpose of the visit. There was a
complete lack of hard evidence (other then the forged document).
Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement;
'Iraq ... Saddam ... Al Qaeda ... September the 11th ... WMDs ... the
lessons of September the 11th ... Saddam ... mushroom cloud over an
American city ... Al Qaeda ... '
How do you suggest that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was
responsible for the September 11th attacks?? LOL -- do this without
dodging the question by asking another question.
Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
***** Cheney to this day still distorts the intelligence suggesting Al
Qaeda was training in Iraq prior to the invasion ( I believe he's
careful with his wording to not suggest they were present prior to
Sept 11 tho ... I may be wrong).
There was a horrible amount of fear-mongering done by this
administration (yes -- I'm sure the Clinton's did it too) but it was
Cheney, Rice and Bush that jumped up and down on the panic button
every chance they could on the Sunday Morning Bobble Head Shows like
Meet The Press, etc.
The Pentagon just released a report indicating 'inappropriate' use by
the office of Douglas Feith of intelligence data deemed unreliable .
That unreliable data was leaked to the press which the admin then
pointed to as validation for their fear mongering.
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Good try but here's my point -- Clinton has nothing to do with this.
The inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a mere 3 months and were
requesting more time to look for WMDS -- strangely enough they weren't
finding any evidence of WMDs. The UNSC wouldn't OK the use of
military force at that time. Bush acted unilaterally.
Clinton was not in power. Bush was the commander in chief. You seem
bent on removing all responsibility from the Commander In Chief as if
he had no power to make a clear and proper decision -- it's all the
lefts fault. FYI, I'm a conservative (of course one from Canuckistan)
but I'm not one who lightly disregards the value of Life.
Cheers!
-- Marvin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lone Ranger" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
12 Apr 2007 04:50:28 PM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2007 06:15:09 -0700, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandroid@hotmail.com> wrote:
Bush's 16 words were retracted at the request of the CIA. The CIA
sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase
uranium. The Brits felt Iraq had attempted to buy uranium based on a
visit by an Iraqi gov't official in 1999. The Brits *assumed* that
the purpose of the visit was related to purchasing uranium since 75%
of Nigers exports are uranium. The CIA looked into this and found
nothing to suggest that that was the purpose of the visit. There was a
complete lack of hard evidence (other then the forged document).
Here's an interesting article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/3891503.stm
Niger's former prime minister has said that Iraq did not try to buy
uranium, contradicting claims made in the build-up to the invasion of
Iraq. Ibrahim Mayaki told the BBC that no Iraqi delegation went to
Niger while he was foreign minister or prime minister.
An official report into UK intelligence supported the claims that Iraq
had sought to buy uranium from Niger. Although some documents backing
up this claim were shown to be forgeries, the UK has not withdrawn the
charge.
Last week's US Senate report on the intelligence leading up to the
Iraq invasion said that Saddam Hussein's government may have tried to
buy uranium from Africa.
Mr Mayaki denies allegations in the Senate report that he admitted
meeting a delegation from Iraq in 1999.
The report says that he expected to discuss uranium with the Iraqi
delegation but managed to steer the conversation in another direction.
But Mr Mayaki now says he has no recollection of such a meeting, while
he was in government from 1999-2001.
"I think this could be easily verified by the Western intelligence
services and by the authorities in Niger," he said.
--
Hi-Yo, Silver! Away!
--
The Curse of Tecumseh
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/curse.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
09 Apr 2007 07:26:30 PM |
|
|
On Apr 9, 6:15 am, "Marvin The Paranoid Android"
<marvinparanoidandr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 7, 3:16 pm, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
Some of more notorious *lies of the left* include: Saddam gave his
full cooperation to the UN weapons inspectors, only to have the evil
Bush pull them out of there while they were making grand progress;
You're off to a bad start when you have to toss out that straw-man
argument. Of course he wasn't cooperating fully
You say that now, but I remember reading various posts on this group
where posters either implied or said outright that Saddam was
cooperating. And I still hear it on occasion on leftist talk radio, or
read it in leftist blogs.
but Blix didn't suggest invading was the answer. He requested
more time. Bush wouldn't allow it -- the invasion was a unilateral
decision by The Decider.
Not exactly. Tony Blair and the Prime Minister of Spain (among others)
were involved in the decision.
Joe Wilson debunked Bush's famous 16 words in a State of the
Union address;
Bush's 16 words were retracted at the request of the CIA.
Only several months after Bush had spoken them.
The CIA
sent Wilson to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase
uranium. The Brits felt Iraq had attempted to buy uranium based on a
visit by an Iraqi gov't official in 1999. The Brits *assumed* that
the purpose of the visit was related to purchasing uranium since 75%
of Nigers exports are uranium. The CIA looked into this and found
nothing to suggest that that was the purpose of the visit. There was a
complete lack of hard evidence (other then the forged document).
The forged documents are a distraction. The forged documents had
nothing to do with Bush's use of the 16 words, which were words that
were cleared (at the time) by the CIA.
Bush is such an evil mastermind that he was able to easily
dupe a bunch of feeble Democrats into voting against their better
judgement;
'Iraq ... Saddam ... Al Qaeda ... September the 11th ... WMDs ... the
lessons of September the 11th ... Saddam ... mushroom cloud over an
American city ... Al Qaeda ... '
And don't forget all of the Clinton administration officials who were
speaking similar words prior to 2001.
How do you suggest that 70% of Americans thought Saddam was
responsible for the September 11th attacks??
I don't know. I never thought Saddam was involved in 9/11. I can only
suggest that many Americans are obviously more interested in Britney
Spears and Anna Nicole Smith than in what's actually going on in the
world. I don't remember anyone making the case that Saddam was
involved in 9/11.
LOL -- do this without
dodging the question by asking another question.
Bush knowingly lied about WMD intelligence; in fact, he was
even able to control foreign intelligence agencies so that they
believed his lies too!
***** Cheney to this day still distorts the intelligence suggesting Al
Qaeda was training in Iraq prior to the invasion ( I believe he's
careful with his wording to not suggest they were present prior to
Sept 11 tho ... I may be wrong).
But that doesn't explain the Democrats in Congress, or Tony Blair, or
other leaders of other nations, or President Clinton, or the Clinton
appointed CIA director, or many other Clinton officials, believing
Saddam possessed WMD.
There was a horrible amount of fear-mongering done by this
administration (yes -- I'm sure the Clinton's did it too) but it was
Cheney, Rice and Bush that jumped up and down on the panic button
every chance they could on the Sunday Morning Bobble Head Shows like
Meet The Press, etc.
Maybe because there was a general consensus among the world's
intelligence agencies that Saddam was a threat. Clinton did use the
word "threat" to describe Saddam on more than one occasion.
The Pentagon just released a report indicating 'inappropriate' use by
the office of Douglas Feith of intelligence data deemed unreliable .
That unreliable data was leaked to the press which the admin then
pointed to as validation for their fear mongering.
Yes, I'm always impressed with 20/20 hindsight.
In order to hold up their leftist lies, leftists must entirely ignore
the years that President Clinton and his administration made their
case that Saddam was a potential threat with his ongoing WMD programs.
And, of course, with their creative imaginations, leftists can ignore
anything that takes ANY bit of blame away from the evil Bush!
Good try but here's my point -- Clinton has nothing to do with this.
How can you say that? He was railing against Saddam for the last
several years of his presidency. He was going on the same kind of
intelligence that Bush was given. In fact, it was given to Bush by the
Clinton appointed CIA director, who told Bush the WMD intelligence was
a "slam dunk."
The inspectors were on the ground in Iraq for a mere 3 months and were
requesting more time to look for WMDS -- strangely enough they weren't
finding any evidence of WMDs. The UNSC wouldn't OK the use of
military force at that time. Bush acted unilaterally.
Stop using the word unilaterally. How do you dismiss Tony Blair so
easily? Or all the leaders of other nations who agreed with the
decision? And before you (or someone else) call all those nations
banana republics, I don't think Australia qualifies as a banana
republic. Nor does Poland, nor Italy, nor several other European
nations.
Clinton was not in power. Bush was the commander in chief. You seem
bent on removing all responsibility from the Commander In Chief as if
he had no power to make a clear and proper decision --
Not true. In fact, it's many other posters here who want to remove all
responsibility from Congress, and place all responsibility on Bush.
Bush certainly warrants his share of responsibility, but he did not do
this alone. He had a lot of help. And that's all I'd like some of the
deniers on this group to acknowledge. Congress and the Presidency are
co-equal branches of government in this country. They have different
responsibilities, and one of Congress' responsibilities is to either
give or deny the President authorization for the use of military
force. Then, of course, the President can still act without
authorization, but Congress could quickly put a stop to it by refusing
to renew any funding. They each have tremendous power, but neither has
unlimited power.
it's all the
lefts fault. FYI, I'm a conservative (of course one from Canuckistan)
but I'm not one who lightly disregards the value of Life.
As if I am? I hate the loss of innocent life. I detest the terrorists
in Iraq who are targeting innocent Iraqis in an effort to cause the
American people to lose their will to win in Iraq. I want those
terrorists defeated.
So -- here's where we are: because the general consensus of
intelligence agencies was that Saddam was a threat, Congress approved
the use of military force to remove Saddam from power. And Bush (along
with Blair and others) used that authority. And we're there now. Now
what? Quit? Surrender? And what do you think will happen in Iraq if we
do that?
...........................
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
Cheers...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani Bell" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
10 Apr 2007 06:58:00 PM |
|
|
On 9 Apr 2007 17:26:30 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
HA! I can't believe it! You *apologized* to me yesterday for taking
my words outta context and twisting them to your benefit...now here
you are, above doing it AGAIN! Unreal.
Again.. what I *did* say is that the people you have been debating
with for months, some even YEARS *did* keep it purely political (and
some do still try), but when every avenue has been exhausted (after
months, and even YEARS), some see that any rational debating tactics
they use when conversing with you has become a futile effort. Yet you
keep it up and keep it up (and seeing as they *are* human), naturally
when (after months or years), the see that you are a hopeless case,
unable to see what is bloody obvious to the rest of us, personal jibes
come out when it's clear that you won't budge. But you can't say that
the others have not given you AMPLE amounts of facts and reliable
content to strongly support their side of the debate.
But after a long periods of time - it becomes evident that debating
you has become a waste of time, and that is when the personal jibes
come into play...when *every other attempt* hasn't worked.
In closing: Don't bother twisting my words again; I won't let you get
away with it and ultimately you'll end up looking the fool.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
10 Apr 2007 09:38:21 PM |
|
|
On Apr 10, 4:58 pm, Dani Bell wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:26:30 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
HA! I can't believe it! You *apologized* to me yesterday for taking
my words outta context and twisting them to your benefit...now here
you are, above doing it AGAIN! Unreal.
Again.. what I *did* say is that the people you have been debating
with for months, some even YEARS *did* keep it purely political (and
some do still try), but when every avenue has been exhausted (after
months, and even YEARS), some see that any rational debating tactics
they use when conversing with you has become a futile effort.
I see. And why shouldn't I feel exactly the same way about them? For
instance, I've had to put up with the irrational leftist lie that the
invasion of Iraq was all about stealing Iraq's oil. It was NEVER about
oil. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the fact the oil revenue
is going to the Iraqi government is documented proof of that fact. Yet
posters here are STILL droning on that it was all about stealing oil!
Why should I believe that lie, just because a group of fringe leftists
on usenet believe it? Can you give me an explanation?
Yet you
keep it up and keep it up (and seeing as they *are* human), naturally
when (after months or years), the see that you are a hopeless case,
unable to see what is bloody obvious to the rest of us, personal jibes
come out when it's clear that you won't budge.
I see. You think I should budge and believe the invasion was all about
stealing Iraq's oil? Why should I do that? Because a group of fringe
leftists believe it with all their *heart*?
But you can't say that
the others have not given you AMPLE amounts of facts and reliable
content to strongly support their side of the debate.
I can say that I've given as much or more to support my side of the
debate. Why should I believe anyone who would lie about your country
wanting to steal Iraq's oil? Why should I believe someone who would
say that -- someone who would hate his own country so much that he
would support that viscious lie?
But after a long periods of time - it becomes evident that debating
you has become a waste of time, and that is when the personal jibes
come into play...when *every other attempt* hasn't worked.
I see. So when they get frustrated because their lies of the left
don't work on me, then they have to start making it personal about me?
In closing: Don't bother twisting my words again; I won't let you get
away with it and ultimately you'll end up looking the fool.
There was truth in your words, and the way I interpreted them. No
fringe leftist is going to change their mind even with all the facts I
have provided. And when they get frustrated with me because their lies
of the left don't work on me, they'll start calling me names. That may
not have been the way you meant it, but that's the reality of it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dani Bell" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
12 Apr 2007 02:12:15 PM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2007 19:38:21 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:58 pm, Dani Bell wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:26:30 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
HA! I can't believe it! You *apologized* to me yesterday for taking
my words outta context and twisting them to your benefit...now here
you are, above doing it AGAIN! Unreal.
Again.. what I *did* say is that the people you have been debating
with for months, some even YEARS *did* keep it purely political (and
some do still try), but when every avenue has been exhausted (after
months, and even YEARS), some see that any rational debating tactics
they use when conversing with you has become a futile effort.
I see. And why shouldn't I feel exactly the same way about them? For
instance, I've had to put up with the irrational leftist lie that the
invasion of Iraq was all about stealing Iraq's oil. It was NEVER about
oil. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the fact the oil revenue
is going to the Iraqi government is documented proof of that fact. Yet
posters here are STILL droning on that it was all about stealing oil!
Why should I believe that lie, just because a group of fringe leftists
on usenet believe it? Can you give me an explanation?
Steven, there were NO WMD'S found in Iraq. Not a one. So, suffice to
say, maybe our government DID invade for the oil! Maybe it's not a
lie. Also, has it ever crossed your mind that Bin Laden was
supposedly the most wanted man in the world...then within a snap of a
finger he was essentially forgotten about? Does that sit right with
you? It doesn't sit right with me.
I may not know as much about politics as many of you guys do, but I do
know that 1+1 equals two; but the Bin Laden situation equals FOUR! And
the lack of WMD's in Iraq equals SEVEN! And I also have a nose. I
know when I smell *****. And I know something is *very* wrong
here.
Yet you
keep it up and keep it up (and seeing as they *are* human), naturally
when (after months or years), the see that you are a hopeless case,
unable to see what is bloody obvious to the rest of us, personal jibes
come out when it's clear that you won't budge.
I see. You think I should budge and believe the invasion was all about
stealing Iraq's oil? Why should I do that? Because a group of fringe
leftists believe it with all their *heart*?
You believe whatever you want. We live in a free country. I am not
telling you to act or behave in any certain way (that's your mum's
job!), but calling the others *liars* is getting personal, no? And
that's what your problem as of late seems to be, no? The personal
jibes. Yet you yourself are also indulging in it.
I agree with the others btw, I also think the invasion was either #1.
for the oil - or #2. Just because psycho nut-bag Bush was gung-ho to
start a war (ANY war). He *did* say: "I'm a war President" in one
of his speeches.
Not to mention that after 9/11 Bin Laden was ALL that was ever talked
about; he was the main focus ALL over the world. Then suddenly, out
of nowhere he was forgotten - he was "no longer a priority."
So, how does it go from Bin Laden being all we ate for breakfast,
lunch, dinner and midnight snack ..to being utterly and completely
irrelevant. Utterly and completely forgotten about? Why was ALL the
focus turned to Saddam Hussein and Iraq? And Saddam's supposed WMD's?
A scape-goat perhaps?
Turns out there NEVER WAS ANY WMD'S!!!!
So, at that blood shed was for, guess what it was for, Steven?
It was for JACK *****! Natta.
Now can you understand why your opponents here get a bit *****
when debating you?
But you can't say that
the others have not given you AMPLE amounts of facts and reliable
content to strongly support their side of the debate.
I can say that I've given as much or more to support my side of the
debate. Why should I believe anyone who would lie about your country
wanting to steal Iraq's oil? Why should I believe someone who would
say that -- someone who would hate his own country so much that he
would support that viscious lie?
Not a single American on this group hates his or her country. Not a
one. We love our country. If we didn't love our country we wouldn't
be so emotional and disheartened about it's downfall. We wouldn't
want so badly to return it to it's prior state. We wouldn't be so
sickened by the lunatics that are currently running it.
But after a long periods of time - it becomes evident that debating
you has become a waste of time, and that is when the personal jibes
come into play...when *every other attempt* hasn't worked.
I see. So when they get frustrated because their lies of the left
don't work on me, then they have to start making it personal about me?
Again! You are again using my words and twisting them to your
benefit. Don't do that. I will call you on it every time.
And as I said previously, *you* get personal on them too. Maybe not
to the same extent. But I see the under the breath remarks from you
directed their way.
In closing: Don't bother twisting my words again; I won't let you get
away with it and ultimately you'll end up looking the fool.
There was truth in your words, and the way I interpreted them. No
fringe leftist is going to change their mind even with all the facts I
have provided. And when they get frustrated with me because their lies
of the left don't work on me, they'll start calling me names. That may
not have been the way you meant it, but that's the reality of it.
Hey, use my words as they are WRITTEN. Again: do not twist them.
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
12 Apr 2007 06:45:20 PM |
|
|
On Apr 12, 12:12 pm, Dani Bell wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007 19:38:21 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:58 pm, Dani Bell wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 17:26:30 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
HA! I can't believe it! You *apologized* to me yesterday for taking
my words outta context and twisting them to your benefit...now here
you are, above doing it AGAIN! Unreal.
Again.. what I *did* say is that the people you have been debating
with for months, some even YEARS *did* keep it purely political (and
some do still try), but when every avenue has been exhausted (after
months, and even YEARS), some see that any rational debating tactics
they use when conversing with you has become a futile effort.
I see. And why shouldn't I feel exactly the same way about them? For
instance, I've had to put up with the irrational leftist lie that the
invasion of Iraq was all about stealing Iraq's oil. It was NEVER about
oil. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the fact the oil revenue
is going to the Iraqi government is documented proof of that fact. Yet
posters here are STILL droning on that it was all about stealing oil!
Why should I believe that lie, just because a group of fringe leftists
on usenet believe it? Can you give me an explanation?
Steven, there were NO WMD'S found in Iraq. Not a one. So, suffice to
say, maybe our government DID invade for the oil! Maybe it's not a
lie.
So you believe Hillary Clinton was lying when she said Saddam had
rebuilt his WMD programs and had given sanctuary to terrorists,
including Al Qaeda members? Or what about all the other Democrats,
including those who said they didn't listen to Bush for their WMD
intelligence, but went directly to Clinton officials, who convinced
them Saddam was a threat?
Also, has it ever crossed your mind that Bin Laden was
supposedly the most wanted man in the world...then within a snap of a
finger he was essentially forgotten about? Does that sit right with
you? It doesn't sit right with me.
He wasn't forgotten. There are still troops in Afghanistan. But after
all the bombing they did of the places they thought he might be
hiding, what more was there to do about him? He's stuck in some cave
somewhere, putting out occasional scratchy video tapes from his old
video camera. He can't even put out a DVD.
I may not know as much about politics as many of you guys do, but I do
know that 1+1 equals two; but the Bin Laden situation equals FOUR! And
the lack of WMD's in Iraq equals SEVEN! And I also have a nose. I
know when I smell *****. And I know something is *very* wrong
here.
You're asking me to repeat myself here. I have a response for
everything you have to say on this topic. I've posted those responses
here repeatedly. I suppose that's why everyone else has taken to
writing about me rather than the topic.
Yet you
keep it up and keep it up (and seeing as they *are* human), naturally
when (after months or years), the see that you are a hopeless case,
unable to see what is bloody obvious to the rest of us, personal jibes
come out when it's clear that you won't budge.
I see. You think I should budge and believe the invasion was all about
stealing Iraq's oil? Why should I do that? Because a group of fringe
leftists believe it with all their *heart*?
You believe whatever you want. We live in a free country. I am not
telling you to act or behave in any certain way (that's your mum's
job!), but calling the others *liars* is getting personal, no? And
that's what your problem as of late seems to be, no? The personal
jibes. Yet you yourself are also indulging in it.
I've been called a liar by membes of this group since (just about) the
day I arrived.
I agree with the others btw, I also think the invasion was either #1.
for the oil - or #2. Just because psycho nut-bag Bush was gung-ho to
start a war (ANY war). He *did* say: "I'm a war President" in one
of his speeches.
Not to mention that after 9/11 Bin Laden was ALL that was ever talked
about; he was the main focus ALL over the world. Then suddenly, out
of nowhere he was forgotten - he was "no longer a priority."
So, how does it go from Bin Laden being all we ate for breakfast,
lunch, dinner and midnight snack ..to being utterly and completely
irrelevant. Utterly and completely forgotten about? Why was ALL the
focus turned to Saddam Hussein and Iraq? And Saddam's supposed WMD's?
A scape-goat perhaps?
Turns out there NEVER WAS ANY WMD'S!!!!
So, at that blood shed was for, guess what it was for, Steven?
It was for JACK *****! Natta.
Now can you understand why your opponents here get a bit *****
when debating you?
Yes, because I make them look at facts they'd rather ignore.
But you can't say that
the others have not given you AMPLE amounts of facts and reliable
content to strongly support their side of the debate.
I can say that I've given as much or more to support my side of the
debate. Why should I believe anyone who would lie about your country
wanting to steal Iraq's oil? Why should I believe someone who would
say that -- someone who would hate his own country so much that he
would support that viscious lie?
Not a single American on this group hates his or her country. Not a
one. We love our country. If we didn't love our country we wouldn't
be so emotional and disheartened about it's downfall. We wouldn't
want so badly to return it to it's prior state. We wouldn't be so
sickened by the lunatics that are currently running it.
I actually understand that feeling. That's how I felt when Jimmy
Carter was President -- except things were a lot worse then, because
the economy was the worst economy I've ever experienced. And the US
Embassy in Tehran was held hostage for well over a year. As for now,
I'm not happy with the way the war has gone. There are many things I
wish would have been handled differently. And as I have said several
times -- knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have supported the
invasion. But it happened, with the help of many Democrats and leaders
of other nations, who all believed Saddam was a threat. We're there
now, and I believe it's in the best interest of the world that Iraq be
allowed to keep it's democracy -- the democracy the Iraqi people have
voted for.
But after a long periods of time - it becomes evident that debating
you has become a waste of time, and that is when the personal jibes
come into play...when *every other attempt* hasn't worked.
I see. So when they get frustrated because their lies of the left
don't work on me, then they have to start making it personal about me?
Again! You are again using my words and twisting them to your
benefit. Don't do that. I will call you on it every time.
And as I said previously, *you* get personal on them too. Maybe not
to the same extent. But I see the under the breath remarks from you
directed their way.
In closing: Don't bother twisting my words again; I won't let you get
away with it and ultimately you'll end up looking the fool.
There was truth in your words, and the way I interpreted them. No
fringe leftist is going to change their mind even with all the facts I
have provided. And when they get frustrated with me because their lies
of the left don't work on me, they'll start calling me names. That may
not have been the way you meant it, but that's the reality of it.
Hey, use my words as they are WRITTEN. Again: do not twist them.
There is truth in the way you wrote the words. And there is truth in
the way I interpreted them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Lies of the Left |
12 Apr 2007 04:54:15 PM |
|
|
On Apr 13, 5:12 am, Dani Bell wrote:
On 10 Apr2007 19:38:21 -0700, "Steven Douglas"
<dste...@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 10, 4:58 pm, Dani Bell wrote:
On 9 Apr2007 17:26:30 -0700, "Steven Douglas" <dste...@flashmail.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the thoughtful reply rather than joining the personal
attacks that are flying around the group (because that's all they've
got, as Dani acknowleged).
HA! I can't believe it! You *apologized* to me yesterday for taking
my words outta context and twisting them to your benefit...now here
you are, above doing it AGAIN! Unreal.
Again.. what I *did* say is that the people you have been debating
with for months, some even YEARS *did* keep it purely political (and
some do still try), but when every avenue has been exhausted (after
months, and even YEARS), some see that any rational debating tactics
they use when conversing with you has become a futile effort.
I see. And why shouldn't I feel exactly the same way about them? For
instance, I've had to put up with the irrational leftist lie that the
invasion of Iraq was all about stealing Iraq's oil. It was NEVER about
oil. The oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the fact the oil revenue
is going to the Iraqi government is documented proof of that fact. Yet
posters here are STILL droning on that it was all about stealing oil!
Why should I believe that lie, just because a group of fringe leftists
on usenet believe it? Can you give me an explanation?
Steven, there were NO WMD'S found in Iraq. Not a one. So, suffice to
say, maybe our government DID invade for the oil! Maybe it's not a
lie. Also, has it ever crossed your mind that Bin Laden was
supposedly the most wanted man in the world...then within a snap of a
finger he was essentially forgotten about? Does that sit right with
you? It doesn't sit right with me.
I may not know as much about politics as many of you guys do, but I do
know that 1+1 equals two; but the Bin Laden situation equals FOUR! And
the lack of WMD's in Iraq equals SEVEN! And I also have a nose. I
know when I smell *****. And I know something is *very* wrong
here.
Yet you
keep it up and keep it up (and seeing as they *are* human), naturally
when (after months or years), the see that you are a hopeless case,
unable to see what is bloody obvious to the rest of us, personal jibes
come out when it's clear that you won't budge.
I see. You think I should budge and believe the invasion was all about
stealing Iraq's oil? Why should I do that? Because a group of fringe
leftists believe it with all their *heart*?
You believe whatever you want. We live in a free country. I am not
telling you to act or behave in any certain way (that's your mum's
job!), but calling the others *liars* is getting personal, no? And
that's what your problem as of late seems to be, no? The personal
jibes. Yet you yourself are also indulging in it.
I agree with the others btw, I also think the invasion was either #1.
for the oil - or #2. Just because psycho nut-bag Bush was gung-ho to
start a war (ANY war). He *did* say: "I'm a war President" in one
of his speeches.
Not to mention that after 9/11 Bin Laden was ALL that was ever talked
about; he was the main focus ALL over the world. Then suddenly, out
of nowhere he was forgotten - he was "no longer a priority."
So, how does it go from Bin Laden being all we ate for breakfast,
lunch, dinner and midnight snack ..to being utterly and completely
irrelevant. Utterly and completely forgotten about? Why was ALL the
focus turned to Saddam Hussein and Iraq? And Saddam's supposed WMD's?
A scape-goat perhaps?
Turns out there NEVER WAS ANY WMD'S!!!!
So, at that blood shed was for, guess what it was for, Steven?
It was for JACK *****! Natta.
Now can you understand why your opponents here get a bit *****
when debating you?
But you can't say that
the others have not given you AMPLE amounts of facts and reliable
content to strongly support their side of the debate.
I can say that I've given as much or more to support my side of the
debate. Why should I believe anyone who would lie about your country
wanting to steal Iraq's oil? Why should I believe someone who would
say that -- someone who would hate his own country so much that he
would support that viscious lie?
Not a single American on this group hates his or her country. Not a
one. We love our country. If we didn't love our country we wouldn't
be so emotional and disheartened about it's downfall. We wouldn't
want so badly to return it to it's prior state. We wouldn't be so
sickened by the lunatics that are currently running it.
But after a long periods of time - it becomes evident that debating
you has become a waste of time, and that is when the personal jibes
come into play...when *every other attempt* hasn't worked.
I see. So when they get frustrated because their lies of the left
don't work on me, then they have to start making it personal about me?
Again! You are again using my words and twisting them to your
benefit. Don't do that. I will call you on it every time.
And as I said previously, *you* get personal on them too. Maybe not
to the same extent. But I see the under the breath remarks from you
directed their way.
In closing: Don't bother twisting my words again; I won't let you get
away with it and ultimately you'll end up looking the fool.
There was truth in your words, and the way I interpreted them. No
fringe leftist is going to change their mind even with all the facts I
have provided. And when they get frustrated with me because their lies
of the left don't work on me, they'll start calling me names. That may
not have been the way you meant it, but that's the reality of it.
Hey, use my words as they are WRITTEN. Again: do not twist them.
Dani
And I thought "Ye Lefty" was an extinct species, yes some strange
paradoxes in life, and though there may well be an agenda, from
different groups, some of them just are not smart enough to conspire,
well effectively anyway.
But I guess you have seen the Bogan approach and experienced it, now
all we have left is the legacy of the last 7 years.
LB
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
