Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 the idea that lying about one's private life is somehow comparable to lying about the need to go to war bull shit matt...i compared the war of clinton to bush... screw off if you wanna misconstrue my words... Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 a very well balanced article... i can see why you have the views that you do reading that rubbish... journalism eh? Quote
erik Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 apprently you missed the whole point. i have no opinion. i read it all! i read your precious foxnes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com aljeezera, and a host of others. i read all sides of the story. ALL SIDES!!! i base my ideas and opinions once i feel i have a well rounded base. bush is a liar, that is the topic of convo. Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 erik said: apprently you missed the whole point. i have no opinion. i read it all! i read your precious foxnes.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com aljeezera, and a host of others. i read all sides of the story. ALL SIDES!!! i base my ideas and opinions once i feel i have a well rounded base. bush is a liar, that is the topic of convo. like i have said...i think that any proof of a lie is based on the opinions of jounalists... i have seen NO proof (i'm talking direct proof) that Bush lied...i admit it is likely, but i withold judgement... Quote
minx Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 you have seen no proof that bush et al lied? this is simple...no WMD = lie you'll notice that as soon as the war started the focus shifted from WMD to liberating people. Bush spent all fall fibbing Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 minx said: you have seen no proof that bush et al lied? this is simple...no WMD = lie you'll notice that as soon as the war started the focus shifted from WMD to liberating people. Bush spent all fall fibbing no WMD= lie...see...that requires some assumptions to be made...1) that bush knwe any 'proof' was false...and 2) that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... Quote
mattp Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said:bull shit matt...i compared the war of clinton to bush... screw off if you wanna misconstrue my words... I'm sorry you feel misunderstood here, Fence. I said that "they" tried to suggest that Clinton was as bad of a liar because he lied about the blow job - and I failed to point out that it was actually Cavey who tried to make that particular point. What I said was true, however. You repeatedly asserted that Bush did not lie, then you switched tactics and insisted that you were all along arguing that all politicians lie. How is that misconstruing what you said? Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 i never said he didn't lie mattP...if i did it was a mistake...i think it is entirely possible...my whole premise was how you fail to see the transgressions of clinton in kosovo (which are proven by history) but yet you see transgressions that cannot be proven yet... i admit that it is likely we will see some transgressions, but i am waiting patiently... Quote
minx Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: minx said: you have seen no proof that bush et al lied? this is simple...no WMD = lie you'll notice that as soon as the war started the focus shifted from WMD to liberating people. Bush spent all fall fibbing no WMD= lie...see...that requires some assumptions to be made...1) that bush knwe any 'proof' was false...and 2) that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... no matter how this discussion is had, there will be some assumptions. i ASSUME that since bush and powell went to the UN claiming that there were a LOT of WMD they had some reasonable intelligence data to support that. i ASSUME that since the weapons inspectors told Bush they hadn't found anything and were reluctant to say that they expected to find anything, that Bush just disregarded them b/c he had firm data that supported that decision. For me it comes down to the fact that the day before the war started it was about WMD, the day after the war started it was about liberation. Perhaps he had bad information perhaps not...either way he was still lying in my opinion. He fed us on reason and then changed w/no explanation. He was playing us, no doubt about that. I really don't think this was about WMD or liberty. Bin laden is a single person. People are much more mobile and smaller than most labs that would produce WMD....so bite me! Quote
Bronco Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 I haven't read any of this thread other than the title so excuse me if this is redundant - Politicians are liers, hellllooooooo! Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 minx said: Fence_Sitter said: minx said: you have seen no proof that bush et al lied? this is simple...no WMD = lie you'll notice that as soon as the war started the focus shifted from WMD to liberating people. Bush spent all fall fibbing no WMD= lie...see...that requires some assumptions to be made...1) that bush knwe any 'proof' was false...and 2) that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... no matter how this discussion is had, there will be some assumptions. i ASSUME that since bush and powell went to the UN claiming that there were a LOT of WMD they had some reasonable intelligence data to support that. i ASSUME that since the weapons inspectors told Bush they hadn't found anything and were reluctant to say that they expected to find anything, that Bush just disregarded them b/c he had firm data that supported that decision. For me it comes down to the fact that the day before the war started it was about WMD, the day after the war started it was about liberation. Perhaps he had bad information perhaps not...either way he was still lying in my opinion. He fed us on reason and then changed w/no explanation. He was playing us, no doubt about that. I really don't think this was about WMD or liberty. Bin laden is a single person. People are much more mobile and smaller than most labs that would produce WMD....so bite me! i will nto bite you...i dont know if you have a clue about the labs for WMD...but many of the chemical and biological labs were in tractor trailers...highly mobile if you ask me... Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Bronco said: I haven't read any of this thread other than the title so excuse me if this is redundant - Politicians are liers, hellllooooooo! thank you Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 FS: Bush did not lie toptimmy: all politicians are liars FS: exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... UE: so FS, now you're saying that Bush *did* lie? FS: no! you're miscontruing my words! he never lied! this discussion is over Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: FS: Bush did not lie toptimmy: all politicians are liars FS: exactly...i have been sayign taht the entire time... UE: so FS, now you're saying that Bush *did* lie? FS: no! you're miscontruing my words! he never lied! this discussion is over you fucking idiot...i never said bush didn't lie...i said i am reserving judgment until i can prove it one way or the other...learn to read Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: i never said he didn't lie mattP...if i did it was a mistake...i think it is entirely possible...my whole premise was how you fail to see the transgressions of clinton in kosovo (which are proven by history) but yet you see transgressions that cannot be proven yet... i admit that it is likely we will see some transgressions, but i am waiting patiently... see eagle... that is my point...as succinct as i can say it... Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... a) we started looking for bin Laden 19 months ago, not 24 b) we invaded Iraq 8 weeks ago, not 2. c) in an earlier post, you mentioned 4000 popups. I counted 7 from 6 pages perhaps you wouldn't come off as such an idiot if you got your numbers right. you're about as credible as your hero boy, shrub. Quote
Ursa_Eagle Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: i never said bush didn't lie... now this is just hilarious!!!! Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: Fence_Sitter said: that there are no weapons of mass destruction... it has only been 2 weeks... we haven't found bin laden in 2 years! chew on that... a) we started looking for bin Laden 19 months ago, not 24 b) we invaded Iraq 8 weeks ago, not 2. c) in an earlier post, you mentioned 4000 popups. I counted 7 from 6 pages perhaps you wouldn't come off as such an idiot if you got your numbers right. you're about as credible as your hero boy, shrub. you expect them to find the weapons while they are fighting a war?!?!!? what do they just say "hey stop shooting at us!?!? we have to search your country for illegal weapons!"? i think not...and the U.S. has been looking for bin laden much much much longer than that... read up kiddo... Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Ursa_Eagle said: Fence_Sitter said: i never said bush didn't lie... now this is just hilarious!!!! how so? cause yuo want to put me into a categorythat i wont fit into? Quote
mattp Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: you expect them to find the weapons while they are fighting a war?!?!!? what do they just say "hey stop shooting at us!?!? ... In a word, yes. Didn't they say he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Didn't they make a big deal about how our troops had to carry gas masks and special suits to protect themselves because he was likely to use these things against us even if it meant he would kill lots of civilians in the process? Weren't our soldiers almost certainly ordered to look for and secure any such weapons? Meanwhile, do you want to fill us in on the Kosovo lie? Quote
To_The_Top Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Fence_Sitter said: Ursa_Eagle said: Fence_Sitter said: i never said bush didn't lie... now this is just hilarious!!!! how so? cause yuo want to put me into a categorythat i wont fit into? Careful there fence, you're sounding like Tomcat.... Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 mattp said: Fence_Sitter said: you expect them to find the weapons while they are fighting a war?!?!!? what do they just say "hey stop shooting at us!?!? ... In a word, yes. Didn't they say he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons? Didn't they make a big deal about how our troops had to carry gas masks and special suits to protect themselves because he was likely to use these things against us even if it meant he would kill lots of civilians in the process? Weren't our soldiers almost certainly ordered to look for and secure any such weapons? Meanwhile, do you want to fill us in on the Kosovo lie? if you were saddam, would you hide the weapons on the likely attack paths of the coalition forces, or would you hide them in the desolate marshland or teh scortching dessert? the only really inhabited parts of iraq are in the middle and branch out from baghdad...the rest are unpopulated as the environment is not really that condusive to big city growth...that leaves the rest of the country...a large portion able to be utilized for weapons storage... these are places where the troops have not gone yet...they have merely gone between the cities (after the initial movement into the cities) tha tis why... Quote
vegetablebelay Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 Meanwhile....back in Iraq.... http://www.thecia.net/users/stewarte/realhussein.swf Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted May 15, 2003 Posted May 15, 2003 i will give you a hint about the kosovo lie... clinton entered for what reason? humanitarian aid? correct? to end the tyranny of a n oppresive ruler... the real reason has to do with russia...its not that hard to find out...also, why wouldn't he pick out rwanda which a the time was far more oppressive than in kosovo? 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.