*sigh*PRiMACORD wrote:
How the fuck is this propaganda.Not wrote:
Posting propaganda has nothing to do with beginning a level discussion.
Thats BUSH speaking and making himself look like a jackass, as usual.
As i once said, effective anti-Bush propaganda occurs whenever he opens his mouth.
I never thoguth he attacked Iraq for 9/11. But he did lie to american people. Read the link, read what treasure secretary said, it is all about oil, Bush and his partners don't give a shit for Iraq people being oppressed by a dictator, he was after oil. So, he lied to everyone. Doesn't that deserve an impeachment?Not wrote:
Exactly what does this have to do with the original post?sergeriver wrote:
This is an interview former Treasure Secretary of Bush gov. gave to CNN. Read what he said about why US was planning to attack Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/
Look. The original poster thinks Bush is an idiot. He also seems to think they Bush lied to us about going into Iraq because they planned 9/11.
Please watch this video another time and LISTEN to the question he's asked. He's asked what Iraq had to do with 9/11 specifically. To which he replied "Nothing." This is the truth and it always has been. I don't know what you all thought was going on, but we invaded AFGHANISTAN as a response to 9/11. Not Iraq. Iraq was an agenda completely seperate from 9/11. Yes, it involved terrorism as we were told, but not a direct link to 9/11. So why anyone thinks this makes him look stupid is beyond me. If anything, it makes the people who think this video is big news look stupid. Had you thought this entire time that we were going after bin Laden in Iraq? Judging by some of your responses, I'm sorry to say that yeah, I think that's maybe what was going on in your head for the last few years.
People, get real. Is the war a mistake? Yeah probably, at least I think it is. But this video is just absolutely nothing to get wound up about. It says nothing new that the adminsistation hasn't been saying since the start.
He's got a bad breath too? Cmon man!PRiMACORD wrote:
How the fuck is this propaganda.Not wrote:
Posting propaganda has nothing to do with beginning a level discussion.
Thats BUSH speaking and making himself look like a jackass, as usual.
As i once said, effective anti-Bush propaganda occurs whenever he opens his mouth.
sergeriver wrote:
The man himself is a joke. I think he looks less moron when he is impersonated in SNL. I can't believe there's still people defending this guy. He's one of the greatest frauds of America's history. All of you who defend him, should feel shame for yourselves for having such a president. Cmon dude, wake up. This isn't a conspiracy theory like you always say. This is natural him. I'm surprised this guy sold so much bullshit and so many people bougth his propaganda. Pray for an impeachment or just wait til 08. This guy belongs to jail.
Fact, they didn't harbor terrorists until we attacked them. So, you're saying we started the war on terrorism.fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless of the fact that Bush isnt as eloquent as speaker as we are used to, is a moot point. . .
Iraq IS A PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR! Any one who harbors/is a terrorist IS a potential target!
Lets put it this way, if we didnt deal with him in 2003, it would only be a matter of time until we would have had to deal with him in the future!
No, I am saying "The War on Terror" is anyone, any state, any organization that engages in terrorist activity is a potential target. Its the doctrine of the current war on terror, I am just writing what Bush said in his state of the union address. Saddam was a homegrown terrorist, a hitman, and a thug of the Baath party. He rose to power through terror, and administered terrorism accross Iraq, therefore, is a terrorist and a target!GATOR591957 wrote:
Fact, they didn't harbor terrorists until we attacked them. So, you're saying we started the war on terrorism.fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless of the fact that Bush isnt as eloquent as speaker as we are used to, is a moot point. . .
Iraq IS A PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR! Any one who harbors/is a terrorist IS a potential target!
Lets put it this way, if we didnt deal with him in 2003, it would only be a matter of time until we would have had to deal with him in the future!
What is "freedom" as you refer to it here?fadedsteve wrote:
However, the WORLD, not just the USA will have to deal with Iran and Syria. They are the enemies of freedom(along with N. Korea) and need to be dealt with eventually.
i'm also wonderingThe_Shipbuilder wrote:
What is "freedom" as you refer to it here?fadedsteve wrote:
However, the WORLD, not just the USA will have to deal with Iran and Syria. They are the enemies of freedom(along with N. Korea) and need to be dealt with eventually.
Perhaps its the freedom of the United States to police the world? I dunno, I'm shootin in the dark here.CommieChipmunk wrote:
i'm also wonderingThe_Shipbuilder wrote:
What is "freedom" as you refer to it here?fadedsteve wrote:
However, the WORLD, not just the USA will have to deal with Iran and Syria. They are the enemies of freedom(along with N. Korea) and need to be dealt with eventually.
Hah. Like there's a single man on this forum that hasn't become more stubborn because of it.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
I don't agree with everything the President says and does, and no one in their right mind is "pro-war".
However, we can RESOLVE issues a hell of a lot quicker while being united - agree to disagree - but we need to stand behind our word to the Iraqi's as well as others who are suffering and dieing for their freedoms.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
Do you think that bashing Bush is anti-american? Bush is the president, who knows why, not America. So, I think calling someone a rock coz disagrees with the president, is forgetting the freedom of speech. Stop saying that Bush is concerned for the suffering and freedom of that people. He doesn't give a shit for 'em.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
I don't agree with everything the President says and does, and no one in their right mind is "pro-war".
However, we can RESOLVE issues a hell of a lot quicker while being united - agree to disagree - but we need to stand behind our word to the Iraqi's as well as others who are suffering and dieing for their freedoms.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
your sig is the worst I have ever seen! Here's some karma for being awesome.Marinejuana wrote:
Colfax get over it. The administration has fed our country so much propaganda, lies, smokescreens, and other bullshit that the majority of us do not believe any of this fabricated garbage belongs in a "serious" debate forum. Insisting that the president's defenses be taken seriously, or even coming to the defense of the president yourself, I think is something like playing devil's advocate for Hitler. Both of them killed people to expand their power and influence. End of story. It really angers me to think of how many otherwise friendly Americans will suspend their judgements on a man like the president while he is guilty of dropping bombs on people for money(the oil economy). He is a criminal. Sort of like Saddam Hussein but on a giant global scale.
Last edited by P581 (2006-08-23 08:11:33)
Kabbom, I fail to see how you can tell me that I am not a debater. Especially since this had been our sole interaction up to this point. For those uninterested in following the link, the exchange goes like this:AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
Let's put it in perspective:The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Kabbom, I fail to see how you can tell me that I am not a debater. Especially since this had been our sole interaction up to this point. For those uninterested in following the link, the exchange goes like this:AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
KABBOM: [claims to have read a court ruling, implores others to read it to see why we are incorrect]
SHIPBUILDER: Can you provide a link? I am ignorant about that sort of thing
KABBOM: [seems to get defensive] Do your own homework. It was in newspapers and I saw it on TV.
SHIPBUILDER: I'm not trying to mess with you. "I'm trying to see your side of the issue." Please post a link.
And the discussion ended there.
Kabbom, could you explain, using our sole previous interaction linked above, how I am a "rock" and "not a debater"? I used no aggressive, nor sarcastic, nor offensive language with you in my sincere request for a link. I even PMed my request for a link to you in case you missed it in the forums. I don't think that's indicative of a "rock" unable to debate. You ignored me, and now insult me.
I'm starting to think that you never read that court ruling in the first place, and you resent me for requesting a link to the court ruling because you couldn't find it after that. Am I now a "bad person" in your mind because of this? Please, answer for yourself.
That's a fact? They didn't harbor terrorists until we attacked? Wow! Provide any proof to that claim? No? Thought not.GATOR591957 wrote:
Fact, they didn't harbor terrorists until we attacked them. So, you're saying we started the war on terrorism.fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless of the fact that Bush isnt as eloquent as speaker as we are used to, is a moot point. . .
Iraq IS A PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR! Any one who harbors/is a terrorist IS a potential target!
Lets put it this way, if we didnt deal with him in 2003, it would only be a matter of time until we would have had to deal with him in the future!
Good question.The_Shipbuilder wrote:
What is "freedom" as you refer to it here?fadedsteve wrote:
However, the WORLD, not just the USA will have to deal with Iran and Syria. They are the enemies of freedom(along with N. Korea) and need to be dealt with eventually.
This comment AAFC posted has nothing to do with calling him Anti-American. He's simply saying there's no point in trying to express your own opinions with him because he's completely set into his own, and rather than think about what you're saying he'll just be condescending and circle around the issues to get back to the "Lawl Bush iz teh l0zer!" point.sergeriver wrote:
Do you think that bashing Bush is anti-american? Bush is the president, who knows why, not America. So, I think calling someone a rock coz disagrees with the president, is forgetting the freedom of speech. Stop saying that Bush is concerned for the suffering and freedom of that people. He doesn't give a shit for 'em.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
I don't agree with everything the President says and does, and no one in their right mind is "pro-war".
However, we can RESOLVE issues a hell of a lot quicker while being united - agree to disagree - but we need to stand behind our word to the Iraqi's as well as others who are suffering and dieing for their freedoms.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
QFEKmarion wrote:
Stupid Britsh inteligence, they screw us everytime..lol J/K
Wow from a site called crooksandliars.com There can't be any spin on that site.
If you go looking for shit you just might stink.
A fair point.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Let's put it in perspective:The_Shipbuilder wrote:
Kabbom, I fail to see how you can tell me that I am not a debater. Especially since this had been our sole interaction up to this point. For those uninterested in following the link, the exchange goes like this:AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Look people! The_Shipbuilder is a Bush basher and not a debater. There is no open mindedness to change with this guy and all you are doing is giving him good practice at "come backs" to be used on someone else.
Simple terms; The_Shipbuilder is a rock, in no uncertain terms! You can either beat your head against the rock or you can choose to beat the rock against your head. However, at the end of the day it's still a rock.
Let's not be a "The_Shipbuilder". Let's be above this and aspire to do better!
Kaboom.
KABBOM: [claims to have read a court ruling, implores others to read it to see why we are incorrect]
SHIPBUILDER: Can you provide a link? I am ignorant about that sort of thing
KABBOM: [seems to get defensive] Do your own homework. It was in newspapers and I saw it on TV.
SHIPBUILDER: I'm not trying to mess with you. "I'm trying to see your side of the issue." Please post a link.
And the discussion ended there.
Kabbom, could you explain, using our sole previous interaction linked above, how I am a "rock" and "not a debater"? I used no aggressive, nor sarcastic, nor offensive language with you in my sincere request for a link. I even PMed my request for a link to you in case you missed it in the forums. I don't think that's indicative of a "rock" unable to debate. You ignored me, and now insult me.
I'm starting to think that you never read that court ruling in the first place, and you resent me for requesting a link to the court ruling because you couldn't find it after that. Am I now a "bad person" in your mind because of this? Please, answer for yourself.
1} Start at the beginning of your original post - it's not open for debate - in every sense it's a statement - you used this forum to bash the President {deserved or not, freedom of speech or not} - no debate in that...
No, it's definitely a negative. You make this clear in your final para.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
2) Taking a passive-aggressive tone towards me doesn't change your views. My view of you as a "rock" is neither negative or positive. It's my analogy of your solid stance and conviction of your statement of views.
Let me recap: in the only other post where we've had any prior interaction, I asked you sincerely for a source. I think it's clear I was asking in earnest to try to learn more. In fact I even said "I am ignorant" about stuff like judge selection. Clearly I didn't ask because I was asking a loaded question of "fuck you I don't believe you where's your source". Yet you fail to entertain my request, and instead get snappy and defensive with me.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
3} Still can't get over a post on a topic from another thread? Who's trying to inflame things??? You want to see my side of it - pff. I posted my objective view of things based on other sources of information - what I didn't do is close my mind to anyones views {agree or disagree}, hence a debate.
Never asked you to "do my homework". I was interested in what you posted, and asked if you could provide a link so I could go do my homework.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
5} I'm still not doing your homework.
I don't hate Bush.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
at least be honest with us and say "YES!, I hate President Bush and my post will always reflect that". In return I will state "I do support the President of the United States however, I do not agree with everything he says or does" - fair deal?
I tried to gain wisdom from you last time, and that went nowhere. Ah well.AAFCptKabbom wrote:
There is a huge difference in baiting a person and debating a person - one will end-up gaining wisdom and the other gets what he gets based on the bait he uses. You got what you were fishing for - move on.
Why do you end all your posts with "kaboom"?AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Kaboom.
Actually, I was not debating. I was pointing out that this is a dead debate and spam.P581 wrote:
also this topic sucks, after having read most of the posts I have come to the conclusion that only a very small portion of this website actually know anything about debating.
By your definition we (US) and Israel are both terrorist states. Now what.fadedsteve wrote:
No, I am saying "The War on Terror" is anyone, any state, any organization that engages in terrorist activity is a potential target. Its the doctrine of the current war on terror, I am just writing what Bush said in his state of the union address. Saddam was a homegrown terrorist, a hitman, and a thug of the Baath party. He rose to power through terror, and administered terrorism accross Iraq, therefore, is a terrorist and a target!GATOR591957 wrote:
Fact, they didn't harbor terrorists until we attacked them. So, you're saying we started the war on terrorism.fadedsteve wrote:
Regardless of the fact that Bush isnt as eloquent as speaker as we are used to, is a moot point. . .
Iraq IS A PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR! Any one who harbors/is a terrorist IS a potential target!
Lets put it this way, if we didnt deal with him in 2003, it would only be a matter of time until we would have had to deal with him in the future!
Saddam is a byproduct of the war on terror, he is a terrorist and got taken out, plain and simple. . . . If any of you DONT think Saddam is a terrorist, then you need to go back to history class, or talk with an Iraqi who lived under his regime. The war in Iraq has unfortunately empowered Iran and Syria to broaden their terror campaign against us and Israel/ rest of western civ. However, the WORLD, not just the USA will have to deal with Iran and Syria. They are the enemies of freedom(along with N. Korea) and need to be dealt with eventually. Negotiations and sanctions have done nothing to deter either of these two nations from dropping their support for world wide as well as regional terrorism.
Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-09-13 14:03:32)