blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Apparently you don't. See the post just by ib1- that's another point for me.
What do you redeem you poiints for .. or are they just as meaningless as they appear?
Despicable Dems...
- Thread starter NOVA
- Start date
What do you redeem you poiints for .. or are they just as meaningless as they appear?
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
I redeem my points to claim victory over my liberal opponents, of course.
maineman
Banned
So he's a bigger pussy than you? Nice job raising him.
the fact that I am better in golf than he is (and, no doubt, than YOU are, for that matter
) does not make him a pussy... it just makes me a better golfer..
And your link is far left wing blog bullshit....hardly the place to do factfinding...
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay, one more time for the mentally challenged and those in the cheap seats: All the quotes you produced reflect the BELIEFS of both parties that Hussein was hording WMD's and was a "world" threat even after the initial deconstruction of his stockpile and manufacturing capability by the first UN Inspection team after the Gulf War. With good reason...for years including the Reagan 2 terms we sold him the stuff necessary to create the weapons. This is why Clinton maintained all the policies set up by Daddy Bush.....no fly zones, embargos, strategic bombing, and PLACING UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS ON SITE IN IRAQ.
Try sticking with the initial subject...mis-stating the debate and then claiming some righteous explanation ain't gonna work....(non-sequitur crap)
#1 This ain't about Reagan or Daddy Bush.... You moron.....it's called HISTORY.....history affects the present. In order for someone to make all the ignorant statements regarding Iraq that you have, one would have to be totally ignorant of recent history. That's why I'm schooling you...and why you are so resistant to the truth.
Now, during his 2 terms, the GOP berrated Clinton on his "inaction" against Hussein's violations of UN agreements.....and when Clinton interrupted the inspectors with a bombing of what turned out to be a aspirin factory, the GOP laughed and said, "Wag the Dog"!
Irrelevant spin No stupid, it's historical FACT. You can't disprove it, so you try to ignore it because it helps deconstruct your neocon bullshit fantasy about Iraq.
However, like I previously proved with a link, the GOP fought Clinton on every Congressional action that would stymie and deter anything that Hussein (or other terrorists) might be planning.
Clinton was "berated" as you put it, for doing little or nothing about Saddams ignoring UN resolutions, etc....You moron, I stated EXACTLY this above...which was total bullshit given that Clinton MAINTAINED Daddy Bush's no fly zones, embargos and strategic bombing runs. You'd know this if you actually knew a little relevent history beyond what Hannity and the WND & NewsMax pablum feed you.
but again irrelevant Yes, you and your stubborn insipidness is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=364x2045192
Now, if you examined the reports of Butler, Blix, Kay, and Duelfer, you'll note that all those on both sides who were convinced of Hussein's assets were WRONG.
Its obvious those on both sides who were convinced of Hussein's assets were WRONG....and again irrelevant
And if you examine the history, you'll note that BOTH Slick Willy and the Shrub interuppted the WMD inspectors before they completed their jobs....
====and here is where we part...
the BIG difference is that the Shrub & company went the extra mile by lying about the status of Iraq's situation in order to actually invade and occupy the country.
Logic dictates...
If the Democrats make a claim for years....including 2 administrations (Clinton and GW)....and
GW makes those SAME claims in his admin(overlapping the same timeframe).....
There are only 2 possibilities ... either BOTH are lying to the public
or
BOTH believe what they are telling the public.....
Its not possible for one to lie while the other tells the truth when they both essentially make the very same claims....in the very same timeframe
and because the Dems made the claims before Bush, its obvious that a claim of being misled by Bush is plain nonsense....
Imbecile......you keep repeating the same bullshit while IGNORING THE FACTS. Clinton maintained the military/economic containment initiated by Daddy Bush....Clinton had inspectors on the ground to sought out once and for all the suspicions of BOTH PARTIES. Clinton interrupted said inspections with a neocon GOP prodded bombing. The Shrub interrupted said inspections with an INVASION BASED ON LIES AND DECEIT OF OUR CONGRESS. Big freaking difference...one you will never acknowledge because you are an insipidly stubborn willfully ignorant neocon parrot.
www.bushlies.net
Remember, nowhere in the quotes you hold so dear is there an advocation for invasion/occupation. Got that bunky?
This reminds of a debate I had with mm awhile back....seems you lefties think because the exact words, "invasion" and/or "occupation" were not used that those 2 threats were off the table....in reality, the warnings the Dems were giving about Saddam contained all manner of threats of war....without using the word "war"....
No stupid......because you believe something is NOT grounds for invasion....which is why you don't find ANY Dem in your quotes advocating such. Which is why they passed HJ Res 114......which the Shrub subsequently violated (read it, genius.) by NOT meeting the burden of proof.
We can and do describe violating a women and we instinctively know we're talking about rape, though never uttering the word "rape"....
We can and do describe taking money from a victim at gunpoint and we instinctively know we're talking about robbery, though never use the phrase "I robbed him"....its just not necessary.....
Saddam heard the saber rattling by Clinton and the Dems and knew exactly what could happen with the US...though I don't think he ever took Clinton as a serious threat....so this ..."they didn't say invasion or occupation" is nothing more than a red herring....a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the topic ...
A fantastic amount of bullshit to try and justify your steadfast support of long disproven neocon mantras. Pity the FACTS are there to make a complete full of you. You're done.....
Okay, one more time for the mentally challenged and those in the cheap seats: All the quotes you produced reflect the BELIEFS of both parties that Hussein was hording WMD's and was a "world" threat even after the initial deconstruction of his stockpile and manufacturing capability by the first UN Inspection team after the Gulf War. With good reason...for years including the Reagan 2 terms we sold him the stuff necessary to create the weapons. This is why Clinton maintained all the policies set up by Daddy Bush.....no fly zones, embargos, strategic bombing, and PLACING UN WEAPONS INSPECTORS ON SITE IN IRAQ.
Try sticking with the initial subject...mis-stating the debate and then claiming some righteous explanation ain't gonna work....(non-sequitur crap)
#1 This ain't about Reagan or Daddy Bush.... You moron.....it's called HISTORY.....history affects the present. In order for someone to make all the ignorant statements regarding Iraq that you have, one would have to be totally ignorant of recent history. That's why I'm schooling you...and why you are so resistant to the truth.
Now, during his 2 terms, the GOP berrated Clinton on his "inaction" against Hussein's violations of UN agreements.....and when Clinton interrupted the inspectors with a bombing of what turned out to be a aspirin factory, the GOP laughed and said, "Wag the Dog"!
Irrelevant spin No stupid, it's historical FACT. You can't disprove it, so you try to ignore it because it helps deconstruct your neocon bullshit fantasy about Iraq.
However, like I previously proved with a link, the GOP fought Clinton on every Congressional action that would stymie and deter anything that Hussein (or other terrorists) might be planning.
Clinton was "berated" as you put it, for doing little or nothing about Saddams ignoring UN resolutions, etc....You moron, I stated EXACTLY this above...which was total bullshit given that Clinton MAINTAINED Daddy Bush's no fly zones, embargos and strategic bombing runs. You'd know this if you actually knew a little relevent history beyond what Hannity and the WND & NewsMax pablum feed you.
but again irrelevant Yes, you and your stubborn insipidness is.
http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=364x2045192
Now, if you examined the reports of Butler, Blix, Kay, and Duelfer, you'll note that all those on both sides who were convinced of Hussein's assets were WRONG.
Its obvious those on both sides who were convinced of Hussein's assets were WRONG....and again irrelevant
And if you examine the history, you'll note that BOTH Slick Willy and the Shrub interuppted the WMD inspectors before they completed their jobs....
====and here is where we part...
the BIG difference is that the Shrub & company went the extra mile by lying about the status of Iraq's situation in order to actually invade and occupy the country.
Logic dictates...
If the Democrats make a claim for years....including 2 administrations (Clinton and GW)....and
GW makes those SAME claims in his admin(overlapping the same timeframe).....
There are only 2 possibilities ... either BOTH are lying to the public
or
BOTH believe what they are telling the public.....
Its not possible for one to lie while the other tells the truth when they both essentially make the very same claims....in the very same timeframe
and because the Dems made the claims before Bush, its obvious that a claim of being misled by Bush is plain nonsense....
Imbecile......you keep repeating the same bullshit while IGNORING THE FACTS. Clinton maintained the military/economic containment initiated by Daddy Bush....Clinton had inspectors on the ground to sought out once and for all the suspicions of BOTH PARTIES. Clinton interrupted said inspections with a neocon GOP prodded bombing. The Shrub interrupted said inspections with an INVASION BASED ON LIES AND DECEIT OF OUR CONGRESS. Big freaking difference...one you will never acknowledge because you are an insipidly stubborn willfully ignorant neocon parrot.
www.bushlies.net
Remember, nowhere in the quotes you hold so dear is there an advocation for invasion/occupation. Got that bunky?
This reminds of a debate I had with mm awhile back....seems you lefties think because the exact words, "invasion" and/or "occupation" were not used that those 2 threats were off the table....in reality, the warnings the Dems were giving about Saddam contained all manner of threats of war....without using the word "war"....
No stupid......because you believe something is NOT grounds for invasion....which is why you don't find ANY Dem in your quotes advocating such. Which is why they passed HJ Res 114......which the Shrub subsequently violated (read it, genius.) by NOT meeting the burden of proof.
We can and do describe violating a women and we instinctively know we're talking about rape, though never uttering the word "rape"....
We can and do describe taking money from a victim at gunpoint and we instinctively know we're talking about robbery, though never use the phrase "I robbed him"....its just not necessary.....
Saddam heard the saber rattling by Clinton and the Dems and knew exactly what could happen with the US...though I don't think he ever took Clinton as a serious threat....so this ..."they didn't say invasion or occupation" is nothing more than a red herring....a deliberate attempt to divert attention from the topic ...
A fantastic amount of bullshit to try and justify your steadfast support of long disproven neocon mantras. Pity the FACTS are there to make a complete full of you. You're done.....
Sorry bunky...but you can't bullshit your way out of this....YOU DIDN'T READ THE INFORMATION FROM THE SITE I LINKED. Had you done so, you would have noted that it is a collection of quotes from Press conferences, releases from the Shrub & company compared to documented facts from reputable newspapers, gov't agencies and gov't officials. In effect, the Shrub & company are caught contradicting themselves and the very agencies that produce the information they refer to. But you're too cowardly to deal with the truth. www.bushlies.net Well, I've reduced you to mere repetition and fanciful story telling to avoid the truth and the logic derived from ALL the facts. You're done.
I see you're more than a little obsessed with some character from this aol site....did he regularly pwn you too or is it just some strange kinky queer thing between you guys....
you're good for a giggle now and then....
Ahhh...never mind...its really none of my business in the first place....I dont' know or give a rats ass about either of you really...
------------------------
So why bring up all this superfluous crap when the debate centers on "did Bush lie" and if he did "how does a pinhead reconcile the infamous Dem quotes" that precede Bush by years....
Thats the gist of the debate and your strawman, off topic rants, ain't gonna change it....
What was believed in the years 1996 up to and including most of 2003 is right before your eyes...just open them....
Clinton believed what he said, his entire administration agreed with him and Bush did nothing but continue with the same beliefs....
Of course we now know they were wrong and thats beside the point...
Whats obvious is, the Democrats were badgering Bush to act on Saddam and his non-exist ant WMD...all you gotta do is freekin' read what the Dems are saying....
[From October 2002 NIE]
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)
Iraq has maintained its
chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and
invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of
most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its
ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to
deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad
it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a
year.
All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on
tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable
of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly
enriched uranium per year.
And that covers the facts...but you must realize...it ain't my job to educate you
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html
you're good for a giggle now and then....
Ahhh...never mind...its really none of my business in the first place....I dont' know or give a rats ass about either of you really...
------------------------
So why bring up all this superfluous crap when the debate centers on "did Bush lie" and if he did "how does a pinhead reconcile the infamous Dem quotes" that precede Bush by years....
Thats the gist of the debate and your strawman, off topic rants, ain't gonna change it....
What was believed in the years 1996 up to and including most of 2003 is right before your eyes...just open them....
Clinton believed what he said, his entire administration agreed with him and Bush did nothing but continue with the same beliefs....
Of course we now know they were wrong and thats beside the point...
Whats obvious is, the Democrats were badgering Bush to act on Saddam and his non-exist ant WMD...all you gotta do is freekin' read what the Dems are saying....
[From October 2002 NIE]
Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction
We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and
restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as
well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if
left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during
this decade. (See INR alternative view at the end of these
Key Judgments.)
Iraq has maintained its
chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and
invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of
most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program.
Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its
ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to
deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad
it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a
year.
All agencies agree that about 25,000 centrifuges based on
tubes of the size Iraq is trying to acquire would be capable
of producing approximately two weapons' worth of highly
enriched uranium per year.
And that covers the facts...but you must realize...it ain't my job to educate you
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html
There is no denying the intell was incorrect....no agruement at all...but that beside the point....just as Clinton, Bush acted on his beliefs...so did Clinton....and their beliefs were undeniably wrong, as was the intell
These NIEs by our own intell. agreed with the assessments of all the major intelligence agencys of France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, etc....the entire world believed Iraq was a danger and possessed WMD...the Dems had been saying that same thing for years, why?, because of our own NIE's and shared intell from other countries MOST AGREED that was the fact....
In the face of what happened to the WTC and other terrorists acts worldwide, what is the most prudent course of action?
Believe that Iraq wasn't a threat because Blix failed to find WMD?
or
Believe our 16 Intelligence Agencys, along with most of the worlds intelligence conclusions.. that Iraq had WMD ?
These NIEs by our own intell. agreed with the assessments of all the major intelligence agencys of France, Russia, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, etc....the entire world believed Iraq was a danger and possessed WMD...the Dems had been saying that same thing for years, why?, because of our own NIE's and shared intell from other countries MOST AGREED that was the fact....
In the face of what happened to the WTC and other terrorists acts worldwide, what is the most prudent course of action?
Believe that Iraq wasn't a threat because Blix failed to find WMD?
or
Believe our 16 Intelligence Agencys, along with most of the worlds intelligence conclusions.. that Iraq had WMD ?
maineman
Banned
even if one believed that Saddam DID have WMD's.... believing that a secular, baathist, pan-arab regime woud give those WMD's to an extremist, wahabbist, islamic organization whose very credo was the destruction of regimes like Saddam's is insane.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, you report only what you favor. Pay attention master mind.....the 2002 NIE report was ass backwards wrong! It IGNORED the findings of the IAEA 1998 report and subsequent 2002 report. Oberserve and learn, you pathetic neocon hack:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/s98-1172.htm
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaIraq/unscreport_110403.pdf
For a willfully ignorant neocon hack like yourself to presume to "educate" any would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Careful, you're using logic based on historical fact.....that's like sunlight to a vampire for the willfully ignorant neocon parrot. What they fail to acknowledge is that all the Dem belief resulted in inspectors, embargos, strategic bombings and no fly zones....and HJ Res 114, which the Shrub violated.
the 2002 NIE report was ass backwards wrong! ??????????
Of course its was wrong...we know that you fuckin' numbskull....
but in 2002 it was the considered opinion of 16 US intelligence agencys....they didn't believe it was wrong then....
Just how stupid are you?....What we know as facts NOW has absolutely no freekin bearing on what was believed THEN.....
You stupidity is beyond the norm even for a pinhead.....
Decisions made in 2002 were not made with knowledge gained in 2003 or 2004 or later, you fool.....you're right in one thing...there is no damn way I or any one else can educate you...I don't think therapy would even help you....
you bore me....please put me on ignore....I don't need to suffer assholes like you...I own enough pinheads now , you're just an extra.
What they fail to acknowledge is that all the Dem belief resulted in inspectors, embargos, strategic bombings and no fly zones....and HJ Res 114
Sorry Skippy...the inspectors, embargos, strategic bombings and no fly zones were in place before the "all the Dem beliefs" ..I gather you're refering to the Dem quotes...
and Res 114 didn't exist yet....so the Dem beliefs were hardly the result of something that didn't exist....
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Translation: This neocon parrot is beginning to realize just how absurd his BS looks in print once properly challenged, and it frustrates him to no end. TFB, you get back what you dish out.[/COLOR]the 2002 NIE report was ass backwards wrong! ??????????
Of course its was wrong...we know that you fuckin' numbskull....
but in 2002 it was the considered opinion of 16 US intelligence agencys....they didn't believe it was wrong then....
Wrong as usual. The NIE has long been accused of leaving out what doesn't fit the agenda of the current administration....not all allied intelligence agencies agreed with it's findings. To ignore the work of the IAEA from 1998 to 2002 borderlines on criminal negligence. And guess what Einstein? The NIE was NOT conclusive proof to justify the invasion, as you STILL had inspectors on the ground at the time the DID NOT confirm the assessment. Do some decent research next time, will ya? I'm damned tired of doing it for you, and making you to look the fool is not a bright spot in my day...I'm beginning to feel bad for you.
Just how stupid are you?....What we know as facts NOW has absolutely no fre(a)kin(g) (illiteracy is a terrible thing)bearing on what was believed THEN.....
You stupidity is beyond the norm even for a pinhead..... See above response.
Decisions made in 2002 were not made with knowledge gained in 2003 or 2004 or later, you fool No one said they did, genius...the IAEA was reporting since 1998, please READ the material offered before you type, makes you look less ignorant.....you're right in one thing...there is no damn way I or any one else can educate you...I don't think therapy would even help you.... A laughable assertion, given your demonstrated willful ignorance and poor research/comprehension skills. But do bluster on, if it makes you feel better.
you bore me....please put me on ignore....I don't need to suffer assholes like you...I own enough pinheads now , you're just an extra.
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Are you saying that there were no Dems in the Congress and senate during the Daddy Bush years? Do your homework, PLEASE. Check the terms served by the people you quoted. And I stated time and again that Slick Willy CONTINUED the policies that Daddy Bush put in....HJ Res 114 came during Clinton's years, as I said. All the people you quoted were in office at the time, you nit.
See genius, no matter how you dance, the song remains the same.....and you just look more foolish with each predictable step. You're done.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Actually, since you were unable to teach your son to be better than you at this so-called "sport", it makes you a crappy father. The Southern Man prefers athletics to pussy games like golf.the fact that I am better in golf than he is (and, no doubt, than YOU are, for that matter
maineman
Banned
I would suggest that my children are the better judge of my fatherhood than some "southern man" like you.
and I have often found that folks who suck at golf, tend to denigrate it. If you can't hit a golf ball, that's YOUR problem.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
You can suggest all you want, but his poor golf scores don't lie.
Actually, when I played golf years ago I could hit the ball quite well. But again, The Southern Man prefers athletic sports instead of a slow-paced tedious game.
maineman
Banned
my son does not score poorly at all. He is quite good... he just is not as good as his dad... who is REALLY good.
And I am sure that you were quite the golfer...
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
my son does not score poorly at all. He is quite good... he just is not as good as his dad... who is REALLY good.
And I am sure that you were quite the golfer...
Nevertheless, it is the goal of every parent to have their children exceed them, and you have obviously failed.
I never claimed to be a good golfer, just that "when I played golf years ago I could hit the ball quite well." Since it is a game that I find slow an tedious I never bothered to invest the time to perfect the skill. I don't play dominoes for the same reason.
maineman
Banned
It was always my goal to simply instill in my son a love of the game, as my father did for me. How well my son learns how to play it is entirely up to him. At this point in his life, he has not gotten as good as me... but he DOES love the game, so I succeeded.
And I am quite sure that you could hit the ball quite well...