SpeedRacer 1 #1 February 1, 2008 clicky Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #2 February 1, 2008 Fear mongering seems to have worked for him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 February 2, 2008 Yep. Every leader has to have an enemy. One thing I gotta credit the Bush Administration for doign is creating an amalgam of the ways to abuse power that we've seen through the last 90 years or so. "Okay. Let's take a little bit of Wilson's isolationism/globalism. Go for Hoover's good ol' boy mentality. Take a whole lot of FDR's federal usurpation of power and money A little bit of Truman's iron fist some Eisenhower fear Some Kennedy military interventionism We'll give the LBJ bullying to Cheney Nixon's enemies list - intriguing.. We'll call it "nuke-yew-lar" like Carter Act like Reagan would like me Do a bit of warrign with Iraw like Daddy And Clinton showed how to be Teflon and really run the joint like a mob boss." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trae 1 #4 February 2, 2008 in reply to "Every leader has to have an enemy." ............................................................... We're all lucky Dubya didn't manage to pick the Chinese as his enemy when his admin was trawling around before 911. The Chinese combined with their new African allies ?? now there's an enemy the US and its allies don't want or need or perhaps could ever handle. Iraq? & Afganistan? small fry in comparison. Fear mongering leaders....yawn Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #5 February 2, 2008 Quoteclicky Maybe my memory is faulty . . . but . . . didn't you used to like GWB?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #6 February 2, 2008 um, was that meant to be a reply to ME? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #7 February 2, 2008 Remember, the Bush administration never lies. It just issues false statements out of ignorance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hausse 0 #8 February 2, 2008 I still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #9 February 2, 2008 QuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #10 February 2, 2008 QuoteQuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high. That really is a silly request, since no one at all can PROVE any of the numbers given the uncertainties involved. There are high and low estimates, and the truth is probably somewhere in between.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pulse 0 #11 February 3, 2008 I'm still very interested to find out what we will 'win' if in fact we were to actually 'win' in Iraq. I hope it amounts to more than a stuffed pony. But I have my doubts."Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #12 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high. That really is a silly request, since no one at all can PROVE any of the numbers given the uncertainties involved. There are high and low estimates, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Agreed - but he certainly had no qualms throwing numbers out there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #13 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high. That really is a silly request, since no one at all can PROVE any of the numbers given the uncertainties involved. There are high and low estimates, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Agreed - but he certainly had no qualms throwing numbers out there. So what number of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children is acceptable to you as collateral damage from US actions?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high. That really is a silly request, since no one at all can PROVE any of the numbers given the uncertainties involved. There are high and low estimates, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Agreed - but he certainly had no qualms throwing numbers out there. So what number of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children is acceptable to you as collateral damage from US actions? Wow, another strawman from the Professor... how unsurprising.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #15 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI still think the worst thing that everybody either seems to cover up or just nobody cares about is that in the war in Iraq over 2 million people have died. Everybody just says those poor american soldiers (which is obviously sad, but if you compare the numbers it seems slightly rediculose) Prove your numbers. Not even the Soros Lancet study was that high. That really is a silly request, since no one at all can PROVE any of the numbers given the uncertainties involved. There are high and low estimates, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. Agreed - but he certainly had no qualms throwing numbers out there. So what number of dead and maimed Iraqi women and children is acceptable to you as collateral damage from US actions? Wow, another strawman from the Professor... how unsurprising. Why not answer the question, and at the same time look up "strawman", you seem to be misusing the word.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #16 February 3, 2008 QuoteWhy not answer the question Sure, once you answer one (fat chance, there - for some reason, once YOU aren't asking the questions the answers seem to be somewhat....scarce)... Anyway, here it is: "Are you still beating your fiancee?" Quotelook up "strawman", you seem to be misusing the word. Hmm...true... your statements are more an outright troll than a strawman argument.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #17 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteWhy not answer the question Sure, once you answer one (fat chance, there - for some reason, once YOU aren't asking the questions the answers seem to be somewhat....scarce)... Anyway, here it is: "Are you still beating your fiancee?" Quotelook up "strawman", you seem to be misusing the word. Hmm...true... your statements are more an outright troll than a strawman argument. C'mon, you quibbled with a high estimate of Iraqi dead. So what, in your opinion, would be an acceptable number of Iraqi dead? It's a straightforward question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #18 February 3, 2008 QuoteI'm still very interested to find out what we will 'win' if in fact we were to actually 'win' in Iraq. I hope it amounts to more than a stuffed pony. But I have my doubts. What do you think that 'you' deserve to win? (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 February 3, 2008 Are you still beating your fiancee?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #20 February 3, 2008 QuoteAre you still beating your fiancee? I don't beat my fiancee and never have. However we (the US) HAVE killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. So your question is an irrelevant non-sequitur, and mine is quite pertinent to the thread. So stop being evasive. In order to further the strategic interests of the USA and the personal ambitions of the "I wannabe a war president" that you support, what is the acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #21 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteAre you still beating your fiancee? I don't beat my fiancee and never have. However we (the US) HAVE killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. So your question is an irrelevant non-sequitur, and mine is quite pertinent to the thread. So stop being evasive. In order to further the strategic interests of the USA and the personal ambitions of the "I wannabe a war president" that you support, what is the acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties. As few as possible. Perhaps you should pose the question to AQ... they're the ones blowing up retarded women in crowded bazaars.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #22 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteAre you still beating your fiancee? I don't beat my fiancee and never have. However we (the US) HAVE killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. So your question is an irrelevant non-sequitur, and mine is quite pertinent to the thread. So stop being evasive. In order to further the strategic interests of the USA and the personal ambitions of the "I wannabe a war president" that you support, what is the acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties. As few as possible. Perhaps you should pose the question to AQ... they're the ones blowing up retarded women in crowded bazaars. How many is that? 10, 100, 10,000? Of course, AQ wasn't doing anything in Iraq until we invited them in.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pulse 0 #23 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm still very interested to find out what we will 'win' if in fact we were to actually 'win' in Iraq. I hope it amounts to more than a stuffed pony. But I have my doubts. What do you think that 'you' deserve to win? I don't even know what you mean by this. I wouldn't say that anyone 'deserves' to win anything. And if it truly is a war on 'terror', how can it possibly end? Peace is going to come now? The world will no longer be 'dangerous'? When, in the history of man, has the world been 'safe'?"Any language where the unassuming word fly signifies an annoying insect, a means of travel, and a critical part of a gentleman's apparel is clearly asking to be mangled." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #24 February 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAre you still beating your fiancee? I don't beat my fiancee and never have. However we (the US) HAVE killed a lot of Iraqi civilians. So your question is an irrelevant non-sequitur, and mine is quite pertinent to the thread. So stop being evasive. In order to further the strategic interests of the USA and the personal ambitions of the "I wannabe a war president" that you support, what is the acceptable number of Iraqi civilian casualties. As few as possible. Perhaps you should pose the question to AQ... they're the ones blowing up retarded women in crowded bazaars. How many is that? 10, 100, 10,000? Of course, AQ wasn't doing anything in Iraq until we invited them in. How many? As few as possible. AQ: no, they weren't doing anything at all... other than meeting with Iraq intelligence people and training as Salman Pak...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #25 February 3, 2008 >other than meeting with Iraq intelligence people and training as Salman Pak... The carousel continues. Watch it spin round and round. "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was to stop his WMD program." "Our own inspectors said Saddam had no weapons program when we invaded. "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was because he helped Al Qaeda." "The Sept. 11 commission found no relationship whatsoever between Iraq and al Qaeda." "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was because he used poison gas against his enemies." "He did that with our support. We sold him the ingredients and gave him military intelligence that helped Saddam target Iranians." "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was that he gassed his own people and killed five thousand people in Halabja." "He did that to 'crush the insurgency.' We've killed far more people to 'crush the insurgency.' " "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was to remove a dictator from power." "We supported that dictator for years while he was gassing his own people and trying to develop WMD's." "THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The REAL reason we invaded was to stop his WMD program." And around and around. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
