Pages: 1 2

 

2006-09-22 11:21:07
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6934|Canada
Bush lied
that's all that matters
he is not trustworthy

Bush SAID he doesn't care to look for Osama anymore
how does that leave you feeling ,it is no longer a priority to him, is that right?
After justifying Iraq, can you now agree that Osama is no longer a threat?

How is it that all terrorists across the globe are considered "linked to Al-Qaida"
and Osama is no longer a priority?  Does that make sense to you?  Now can you see how easy it is to use Al-Qaida as a scapegoat to detain people?  Why not Osama but Saddam?  Why are there 250 000 disabled war veterans?  Why did we not put a leash on Israel?

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-22 11:28:48)

2006-09-22 11:32:55
GATOR591957
Member
+84|6879

ATG wrote:

1st,  read the articles in these three links.
2nd, be honest; do you still stick by the mantra “Bush Lied People Died”


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007540
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/pollack
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re … p?ID=23264

We can be reasonable people and disagree about the war. But to demean yourself by spewing tired rehashed argument that have little basis in reality only takes away your credibility.

(s)I think it was a mistake to put boots on the ground.
It was not a mistake to take extreme military action. My complaint is that the war should be widened to include Syria and  Iran. (/s)


* edit
tweaked to be less controversial.
Now please read the articles.
ATG repect you, but:  http://www.bushlies.net/
2006-09-22 19:53:13
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6966|US
One nuclear weapon is enough to ruin a continent's economy.  The EMP from a nuclear bomb destroys unhardened electronics.  All a rogue nation would need to do is detonate it at high altitude.  One medium sized bomb could effectively destroy any electronics within several hundred miles.  A large bomb could wipe out electronics over more than half of the continental US (to give you an idea of range).

Gator, there are so many "lies" on that site that I am forced to believe that much of it is out of context, misquoted, or spun.  I looked through a number of rather vague descriptions of Bush's lies.  Quite a few seemed to refer to events out of order or happening so close together that no system could have been put in place in the time-frame required.  It would appear that the author is grabbing every odd sounding quote and explaining the "Lies" behind it, or that he is one of the most informed and astute political commentators and researchers in the nation. 


"Bennet Kelley is an attorney with an Internet company in Southern California.  He has been active in Democratic politics for over 25 years and was the Co-Founder and National Co-Chair of the Democratic National Committee's Saxophone Club from 1992 -1998.  Kelley is the author of "George Bush: False Prophet of the Christian Right," which appears in Big Bush Lies: 20 Essays and a List of the 50 Most Telling Lies of George W. Bush (RiverWood Books 2004), a regular contributor to the Los Angeles Daily Journaland Democratic Underground.com and publisher of AltarBoysForKerry.com."  A little bit biased too...Sic'em Kelley!
2006-09-22 20:02:23
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6926|Canberra, AUS

=JoD=Corithus wrote:

No, I rather enjoy logical debate with democrats, those who can intelligently display their view points, supported by actual evidence.  You, rarely have anything new to add to the conversation, that isn't unjustified anti-americanism, or simply arguements for the sake of arguing.  The inherient problem with chemical or biologial weapons is very simple: nature.  A nice breeze, or hell, even a rain storm can significantly reduce the effects of any chemical or biological agent.  A nuke, however, annihilates everything and everyone in its burn zone.  The weapons used on Japan in the 40's to destory cities, are weaker than the tactical weapons now, theorized to be used against troop concentrations.  And yes, even though the JDF isn't "technically" an armed force, their tanks, planes, and ships would still not fare too well on the recieving end of a nuke.
I read somewhere that

'It is easier to protect [citizens] from nuclear weapons [than chemical weapons], and the effects are shorter-lived'.

But nukes are scarier because of their number, their sheer power and their 'portabillity'.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2006-09-22 20:41:24
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6781|Global Command
+ the boomability
2006-10-03 11:35:15
~wOw~Adopted.Son
Member
+3|6995|So CA

Bubbalo wrote:

Hey dumbass, this thread is the first time I've heard 3 of those "slogans", and "Bush is stupid" is hardly a slogan.
Bubbalo, thanks for making my point so effortlessly. Lefties don't think, they name call.

ANY country with nuclear weapons is a nuclear power. If the weapon exists, it can be delivered in any manner, say in a container aboard a ship. It is grossly naive to think that aggressors like Iran and paranoids like N. Korea will not use them just because you wish it so.

Last edited by ~wOw~Adopted.Son (2006-10-03 11:36:06)

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard