Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 but matt... i haven't found proof that bush knowingly lied... that is my point...it is all about intentions...he was given a facts sheet which was flawed... we CANNOT know if he knew this or not...i wish to reserve my judgment until i know more facts... Quote
mattp Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: hmm...4,000 pop-ups that must be the answer... Â Gotta love those pop-ups. Maybe if we play our cards right, Jon and Tim will set up this site to generate a bunch of that kind of stuff. "The world's tiniest horsecock" and "Your computer is infected -- you need the spray fest eliminator or you'll never get it to shut down." That'd be cool. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 for sure...but i am proud of them for not toally selling out to ads....i woulda! to timm@y and jon Quote
MysticNacho Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Of course they lied. Didn't anyone else see the switch all of a sudden from WMD to "freeing the Iraqi's"??? Instead of hearing news articles about "the terrible threat we are in from Saddam's weapons" we heard about the terrible plight of the Iraqi people. Don't get me wrong, Saddam needed to go, but since when have we ever cared about the plight of the Iraqi people? If we really cared about them, we wouldn't have betrayed them and left them to be slaughtered in '91. Quote
E-rock Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 [\sniveling] But but but we're just righting our past wrongs [\sniveling] Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 MysticNacho said: Of course they lied. Didn't anyone else see the switch all of a sudden from WMD to "freeing the Iraqi's"??? Instead of hearing news articles about "the terrible threat we are in from Saddam's weapons" we heard about the terrible plight of the Iraqi people. Don't get me wrong, Saddam needed to go, but since when have we ever cared about the plight of the Iraqi people? If we really cared about them, we wouldn't have betrayed them and left them to be slaughtered in '91. Â that was a necessity in either of two ways...1) he knew and was just covering up...2) he realized taht the document was fake, so he went to his secondary reason for ousting saddam... it is not like he wanted a war... he gave an extreme amount of time too first allow saddam to give his "state of the nukes" and later so that he would leave... are you really taht angry about being deceived? or just being deceived by a repub.? every president has lied to you...from kennedy railing lines in the oval to watergate, monika, vietnam, korea, kuwait, kosovo the lsit goes on forever... i just know that you were a lil' less vocal when it was your leader clinton...i know you say that you are non-opartisan...bull shit..then answer my question...do yuo see the colrrelation between kosovo and iraq? that will tell you if you are a partisan tool or not... Quote
mattp Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: that was a necessity in either of two ways...1) he knew and was just covering up...2) he realized taht the document was fake, ... Â So like I said, it sounds like you think the ends justify the means. You and Mr. Bush may be right that it was a good idea to invade Iraq -- we shall see. Â But they lied - and you apparently agree that it looks as if they lied, although you offer as an excuse the possibility that they were merely misinformed. You seem to think that is OK, but I don't like it. If they lied I don't like it and if they were making national policy decisions based on "misinformation" that could easily be debunked, I like it even less. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 i KNOW it was a good idea... i think we should invade rwanda and other nations that rigorously persecute their citizens. but, i feel that the whole western world must be united in this... have you seen the bodies from the latest mas grave where many were buried alive? this happens all over the world and i liken it to the holocaust...partisan discrepancies aside, this should be somehting we all shuold agree on.... Quote
j_b Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 it is not like he wanted a war....  he wanted nothing short of getting his way (all the way), even if that included going to war as is evident from year old neocon documents and military preparations for such an eventuality  he gave an extreme amount of time too first allow saddam to give his "state of the nukes" and later so that he would leave  only in an attempt to get broad international support for military actions (with us or against us). obviously most people were not fooled. moreover he could have given all the time imaginable, it would not have procured nukes the iraqis did not have.  Quote
j_b Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 somehting we all shuold agree on.... Â what we should first agree on, is to not support repressive regimes/factions whenever it suits our purpose, then we can talk talk about existing dictatorships. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 j_b said: it is not like he wanted a war....  he wanted nothing short of getting his way (all the way), even if that included going to war as is evident from year old neocon documents and military preparations for such an eventuality  he gave an extreme amount of time too first allow saddam to give his "state of the nukes" and later so that he would leave  only in an attempt to get broad international support for military actions (with us or against us). obviously most people were not fooled. moreover he could have given all the time imaginable, it would not have procured nukes the iraqis did not have.  that is pure opinion that they have no nukes... i thouroughly disagree... i believe that they do have them... based on the speeches of saddam and the tactics of his 'government' Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 j_b said: somehting we all shuold agree on.... Â what we should first agree on, is to not support repressive regimes/factions whenever it suits our purpose, then we can talk talk about existing dictatorships. Â i completely agree...and i think it has been our bigest mistakes ... only time will tell if we will learn form this...but i am thinking that we will not... Quote
j_b Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 that is pure opinion that they have no nukes... i thouroughly disagree... i believe that they do have them... based on the speeches of saddam and the tactics of his 'government' Â the point of having nukes is deterence. if they had nukes they would have given indication of owning them to prevent an attack. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 j_b said: that is pure opinion that they have no nukes... i thouroughly disagree... i believe that they do have them... based on the speeches of saddam and the tactics of his 'government' Â the point of having nukes is deterence. if they had nukes they would have given indication of owning them to prevent an attack. Â they did (in my opinion) sadam said that if the U.S. attacked, they would be sorry and that they had a 'secret' that would 'change things'... that is what i got out of the situation Quote
toptimmy Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 I cant beleve people are fighting about lying polititions. I am not a crook. Reagan crying at natzi grave. No new taxes. I didnt inhale. I did not have sex with that woman. These people are for sale and power hungry.Get over it! Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... Quote
EWolfe Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 The horse is dead - the whip is frayed to it's last thread.... Quote
allthumbs Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Are you losers still beating off this dead horse? Shit!!!!!!!!! I'm drunk on Dwayner Mickeys and say, "Politics fucking sucks ass - both parties and those faggot kanadian parlimentarians too". Quote
AlpineK Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 MisterE said: The horse is dead - the whip is frayed to it's last thread.... Â huh, It's nutty sometimes when I see a thread at 8AM that's 1 page long, and I come home and its 6 pages long. Then I try and read it and after 2 pages all I see is...he lied, no he lied, no he lied,...etc. Â You're all a bunch of suckers. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... Â I thought you've been saying that he hasn't lied... Quote
EWolfe Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: Fence_Sitter said: exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... Â I thought you've been saying that he hasn't lied... Â STFU!!! Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: Fence_Sitter said: exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... Â I thought you've been saying that he hasn't lied... Â this is the last time!!! i will not presume to know anything...from the begining my point has been to wait and see... if you have the reding comprehension of a 9 year old or you just aren't reading my posts.... quit commenting on them if you cant understand my baisic premise...bubye Quote
mattp Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 It won't work, Ursa. Mr. Fence, like way too many Americans, refuse to look at the facts of the situation because they don't want to question their fearless leader. Yesterday we saw a couple guys repeatedly assert that Bush was not a liar while refusing to address the specific examples given. After this was pointed out, like ten times, they changed their argument to say that all politicians lie, and they say that Clinton was just as bad because he lied about a blow job and about not inhaling. Realizing that this is rediculous - the idea that lying about one's private life is somehow comparable to lying about the need to go to war - Fence told us that Clinton lied about Kosovo but he is unable to tell us what Clinton said that was a lie or when he might have said it. You can't have a logical discussion with these guys. That is why Alpine K says we're all a bunch of suckers, I bet. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 mattp said: It won't work, Ursa. Mr. Fence, like way too many Americans, refuse to look at the facts of the situation because they don't want to question their fearless leader. Yesterday we saw a couple guys repeatedly assert that Bush was not a liar while refusing to address the specific examples given. After this was pointed out, like ten times, they changed their argument to say that all politicians lie, and they say that Clinton was just as bad because he lied about a blow job and about not inhaling. Realizing that this is rediculous - the idea that lying about one's private life is somehow comparable to lying about the need to go to war - Fence told us that Clinton lied about Kosovo but he is unable to tell us what Clinton said that was a lie or when he might have said it. You can't have a logical discussion with these guys. That is why Alpine K says we're all a bunch of suckers, I bet. Â 3 words... 1)pot 2)kettle 3)black Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.