I know better to beleive it as absolute fact, but it is interesting to say the least.GATOR591957 wrote:
You're equating fox news and facts. I believe that's an oxymoron. Like peace force.Darth_Fleder wrote:
How dare you try to cloud the issues with facts!usmarine2005 wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202277,00.html
LMAO, yeah ask them that. Also don't forget to ask why the kill their own people,in Iraq, indiscriminately I might add, why they killed civilians in Spain, the UK, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Russia, Africa, South America, not to mention the foiled attacks on Canada etc......BN wrote:
I have plenty of inclination to do something about it. You can start my asking these people “why are you terrorists?” That would be a good start. Deal with the issues at a grass roots level. And they don’t attack the USA because you are free. That is just crap.lowing wrote:
My favorite line...."I don't support terrorism".........I hear it alot..........You don't support it, but have no inclination to DO anything about it. lol
Fighting fire with fire does not work. It’s typical, hose everyone down with a machine gun and hope you got some of the terrorists, conservative rubbish.
Are liberals the only ones with enough brain capacity to think in this situation?
Also ask why Bin Laden put out another video urging the killing of the Shiites by the Sunnis.
The best part of your post is the assumption that they would ACTUALLY give you an answer that would satisfy and justify their actions in your liberal assed thinking.
Here in the courts of civilized and developed societies, "burden of proof" lies with the accusatory party or plaintiff, typical lib practice is to determine guilt based upon the serious implications of the charge as opposed to factual evidence.BN wrote:
DISPROVE IT CONSERVATIVE[n00b]Tyler wrote:
god there is so much true stuff that when ppl see it that support bush can only say: PROVE IT LIBERAL
should be easy, yeah?
there can be no serious implications without factual evidence. That's just as true for conservatives. It depends who is in power.
I will say out of personal experience, lefties tend to be logical and have an opposing argument: the basis of growth in undersanding is understanding both sides. Righties tend to be limited to 1 or 2 sentences of whatever intended only to make a person look bad so others won't take them seriously, regardless of validity. They'd rather have their little circle where everyone always agrees on everything. In that case, they need a shepherd.
I will say out of personal experience, lefties tend to be logical and have an opposing argument: the basis of growth in undersanding is understanding both sides. Righties tend to be limited to 1 or 2 sentences of whatever intended only to make a person look bad so others won't take them seriously, regardless of validity. They'd rather have their little circle where everyone always agrees on everything. In that case, they need a shepherd.
That's a pretty big generalization. There are right wingers like the ones you describe, just as there are left wingers that call soldiers baby-killers or what have you, but to say that most or all of them are like that is a fallacy. I have met many conservatives that were intelligent and open-minded, and I suspect that there are many more out there I have yet to meet.Spumantiii wrote:
there can be no serious implications without factual evidence. That's just as true for conservatives. It depends who is in power.
I will say out of personal experience, lefties tend to be logical and have an opposing argument: the basis of growth in undersanding is understanding both sides. Righties tend to be limited to 1 or 2 sentences of whatever intended only to make a person look bad so others won't take them seriously, regardless of validity. They'd rather have their little circle where everyone always agrees on everything. In that case, they need a shepherd.
granted, I'm just speaking from recent personal experience. I don't mean everyone is like that.
Bush was just on Larry King, talking about the human condition in Korea.
Bush was just on Larry King, talking about the human condition in Korea.
I'll catch back up later on other questions thrown my way. But with respect to Military funding, it appears we have a shortffall. Where are the republicans on this issue? $500M shortfall for Army bases. But thank goodness we have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Those are some pretty f'ed up priorities.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13741752/
When are you wingers going to wake up to the fact that the GOP doesn't give a rats ass about the actual people in the military if it gets in the way of bidness? Do you need to see a congressman actually take cash from an infantryman and hand it over to a no-bid contract winner? I know it throws your understanding of the cosmic universe into a tailspin but sometimes you just have to look at the facts.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13741752/
When are you wingers going to wake up to the fact that the GOP doesn't give a rats ass about the actual people in the military if it gets in the way of bidness? Do you need to see a congressman actually take cash from an infantryman and hand it over to a no-bid contract winner? I know it throws your understanding of the cosmic universe into a tailspin but sometimes you just have to look at the facts.
So the burden of proof is on your government for the following claims about Iraq, yes?kr@cker wrote:
Here in the courts of civilized and developed societies, "burden of proof" lies with the accusatory party or plaintiff, typical lib practice is to determine guilt based upon the serious implications of the charge as opposed to factual evidence.
Mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq
aluminum tubes being purchased by Iraq to enrich uranium
Attempted purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger
Four tons of VX nerve gas "located" in Iraq
Long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons
Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons
Chemical Decontamination Vehicles located inside Iraq
Rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq
Iraq had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax
Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles
To quote Rummy "We know where they are [WMD's]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"
nice back peddling. lol can ya walk backwards as well??Spumantiii wrote:
granted, I'm just speaking from recent personal experience. I don't mean everyone is like that.
Bush was just on Larry King, talking about the human condition in Korea.
"keep being a cocksucker, ignoramus. And leave your goddamn name, coward". <-------Spumantiii quote lol
Last edited by lowing (2006-07-06 19:04:27)
So what’s your tactic? Kill em all, let Allah sort them out?lowing wrote:
LMAO, yeah ask them that. Also don't forget to ask why the kill their own people,in Iraq, indiscriminately I might add, why they killed civilians in Spain, the UK, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Russia, Africa, South America, not to mention the foiled attacks on Canada etc......
Also ask why Bin Laden put out another video urging the killing of the Shiites by the Sunnis.
The best part of your post is the assumption that they would ACTUALLY give you an answer that would satisfy and justify their actions in your liberal assed thinking.
That sure as hell is not working at the moment.
Newsflash Lowing - america, as a superpower, is going the way of the Dodo. I would start preparing for that ie stop pissing other countries off.
slander away lowing if it's all you're good for. It's fairly obvious that karma was in response to someone who negged me saying this:
"President Bush didn't lie. Iraq had a part in it and he had plenty of info to base it on. Screw you for sucking cock and being liberal. "
don't blame me for assuming it was you, since all you seem to want to do is complain that someone disagrees with you, 'liberal assed thinking' . I apologize for assuming it was you, so can you grow up now
"President Bush didn't lie. Iraq had a part in it and he had plenty of info to base it on. Screw you for sucking cock and being liberal. "
don't blame me for assuming it was you, since all you seem to want to do is complain that someone disagrees with you, 'liberal assed thinking' . I apologize for assuming it was you, so can you grow up now
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-06 19:23:24)
Who cares? He isn't getting impeached, there fore it does NOT matter. The whole of the BF2S community could vote YES and he STILL WOULD NOT BE IMPEACHED. STOP BICKERING and let this thread die!
I won't be "Taking it elsewhere". This is a stupid thread, let it die.
I won't be "Taking it elsewhere". This is a stupid thread, let it die.
Last edited by Ben>You (2006-07-06 19:44:13)
this is a debate, in the debate section. You don't have to contribute if you don't want to. But I would like to say that regardless of whatever happens it is an important topic which merits discussion. People look to gain insights from other opinions. How can you ever expect to learn anything otherwise?
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-06 19:47:51)
There is no simple answer to that question BN, all I know is, as a western society we have taken the fight to the enemy, and I am proud that we are not just going to stand still and let ourselves be destroyed by Islamic terrorism.BN wrote:
So what’s your tactic? Kill em all, let Allah sort them out?lowing wrote:
LMAO, yeah ask them that. Also don't forget to ask why the kill their own people,in Iraq, indiscriminately I might add, why they killed civilians in Spain, the UK, Philippines, Australia, Japan, Russia, Africa, South America, not to mention the foiled attacks on Canada etc......
Also ask why Bin Laden put out another video urging the killing of the Shiites by the Sunnis.
The best part of your post is the assumption that they would ACTUALLY give you an answer that would satisfy and justify their actions in your liberal assed thinking.
That sure as hell is not working at the moment.
Newsflash Lowing - america, as a superpower, is going the way of the Dodo. I would start preparing for that ie stop pissing other countries off.
Newsflash BN.......ALL of our countries the way we know them, are going to go the way of the Dodo if we don't start pulling our heads out of the sand.....
He's right, you know.
apology accepted,Spumantiii wrote:
slander away lowing if it's all you're good for. It's fairly obvious that karma was in response to someone who negged me saying this:
"President Bush didn't lie. Iraq had a part in it and he had plenty of info to base it on. Screw you for sucking cock and being liberal. "
don't blame me for assuming it was you, since all you seem to want to do is complain that someone disagrees with you, 'liberal assed thinking' . I apologize for assuming it was you, so can you grow up now
I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but c'mon......."ASK" them why they are killing every civilian that gets in their way on every continent on the globe, and hope for a reasonable answer that justifies this shit??...........gimme a break.
American Civil War - A unified USABN wrote:
Fighting fire with fire does not work. It’s typical, hose everyone down with a machine gun and hope you got some of the terrorists, conservative rubbish.
Phillipine-American War - Despite putting down the rebellion, Phillipines still fights for US when Japan invades.
World War II
Germany and Japan - Smashed them to bits, yet rebuilt them in the end.
Those are just within the last 200 years, want me to go further?
To keep this topic going, fighting fire with fire works, but you do so by providing an outlet that, Hey! perhaps fighting no longer is the best.
Spumantiii wrote:"President Bush didn't lie. Iraq had a part in it and he had plenty of info to base it on. Screw you for sucking cock and being liberal. "
Proof please.
Proof please.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-07 08:17:02)
Funny thing about disarmament agreements, as they are the military equivalent of being found guilty of a crime and being put on parole or under house arrest, they place burden of proof on a party already found guilty to prove that they were in compliance.BN wrote:
So the burden of proof is on your government for the following claims about Iraq, yes?kr@cker wrote:
Here in the courts of civilized and developed societies, "burden of proof" lies with the accusatory party or plaintiff, typical lib practice is to determine guilt based upon the serious implications of the charge as opposed to factual evidence.
Mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq
aluminum tubes being purchased by Iraq to enrich uranium
Attempted purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger
Four tons of VX nerve gas "located" in Iraq
Long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons
Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons
Chemical Decontamination Vehicles located inside Iraq
Rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq
Iraq had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax
Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles
To quote Rummy "We know where they are [WMD's]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"
You don't check in with your parole officer, you get bitch slapped, your ankle bracelet doesn't show you as being back inside your house by the designated curfew, you get bitch slapped.
Whether it was because he actually had weapons, or because he didn't and wanted all his neighbors to keep thinking he was "da shit", burden of proof was Hussein's responsibility, as in this case it was as if he had already been convicted of a crime, and proving his disarmament was his equivalent to checking in with his parole officer, he had over a decade to provide such proof, he failed, he was bitch slapped.
Convenient for us no?
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 09:14:00)
Slapped, that's what you call invading his country, overthrowing his government, killing his sons. Slapped???kr@cker wrote:
Funny thing about disarmament agreements, as they are the military equivalent of being found guilty of a crime and being put on parole or under house arrest, they place burden of proof on a party already found guilty to prove that they were in compliance.BN wrote:
So the burden of proof is on your government for the following claims about Iraq, yes?kr@cker wrote:
Here in the courts of civilized and developed societies, "burden of proof" lies with the accusatory party or plaintiff, typical lib practice is to determine guilt based upon the serious implications of the charge as opposed to factual evidence.
Mobile bio-weapons labs in Iraq
aluminum tubes being purchased by Iraq to enrich uranium
Attempted purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger
Four tons of VX nerve gas "located" in Iraq
Long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons
Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons
Chemical Decontamination Vehicles located inside Iraq
Rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq
Iraq had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax
Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles
To quote Rummy "We know where they are [WMD's]. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat"
You don't check in with your parole officer, you get bitch slapped, your ankle bracelet doesn't show you as being back inside your house by the designated curfew, you get bitch slapped.
Whether it was because he actually had weapons, or because he didn't and wanted all his neighbors to keep thinking he was "da shit", burden of proof was Hussein's responsibility, as in this case it was as if he had already been convicted of a crime, and proving his disarmament was his equivalent to checking in with his parole officer, he had over a decade to provide such proof, he failed, he was bitch slapped.
Convenient for us no?
I'm not saying his sons deserved to live, I just find the word slapped out of context for what we did compared to the crime.
and thus the smack was layed down upon him, and he was low, and we saw that it was good?
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 12:15:03)
Kracker I know you're joking, but the rest of the world sees these forums and says, typical Americans.kr@cker wrote:
and thus the smack was layed upon him, and he was low, and we saw that it was good?
Still like the sig though.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-07-07 11:23:19)
then ye shalt cry out, why hast thou smitten me? Thine smack be the fruit
and then the frogs came *upon his people and he was smitten again.
Lol
and then the frogs came *upon his people and he was smitten again.
Lol
Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-07-07 11:30:23)
And the kr@cker spake and sayeth "Nay, careth not the American", for he be racist and of narrowmind, and having lain with his own sister, and of little knowledge, and his neck was red as of the babboon's ass, and lo he became drunk.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 11:40:55)
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.