Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 276

Thread: Post all political and war topics here, part 2

  1. #201
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackfrance[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:45 PM
    [b] your pal and u.n. inspector, hans blix, said recently that he believes saddam hussein destroyed them. [/b][/quote]
    Hans Blix was far more effective at disarming Iraq than George W. Bush ever was. Just ask the families of the three U.S. soldiers who were killed over there yesterday.

  2. #202
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    i know i said i would stay out of this thread for a while... and while a week is not a long time, i just want to dip in and leave this here for you guys.

    we are all looking at this from the wrong angle - instead of focusing on the morality of the situation - we should be focusing on the PRIORITIES of the gov't spending - how much this is costing, what isn't getting funding at the expense of the war and opposed to what the US taxpayer is practically getting out of it. I don't think people really understand what a bottomless pit this is... if current rates of spending continue unabaited there will be an 11 TRILLION dollar deficit by 2011. At some point someone has to evaluate how much a democratic Iraq means to this nation and what we are willing to sacrifice to get to this point.

    [url=http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8857]What does 87 Billion Buy?[/url]

    [quote][b]"[We] want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that [they are] focused those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people." - President Bush, Jan. 6, 2003 [/b][/quote]

  3. #203
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:54 PM
    [b] i know i said i would stay out of this thread for a while... and while a week is not a long time, i just want to dip in and leave this here for you guys.

    we are all looking at this from the wrong angle - instead of focusing on the morality of the situation - we should be focusing on the PRIORITIES of the gov't spending - how much this is costing, what isn't getting funding at the expense of the war and opposed to what the US taxpayer is practically getting out of it. I don't think people really understand what a bottomless pit this is...

    [url=http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8857]What does 87 Billion Buy?[/url]

    [quote][b]"[We] want to control spending. And I hope Congress lives up to their words. When they talk about deficits, they can join us in making sure we don't overspend. They can join us and make sure that [they are] focused those items that are absolutely necessary to the American people." - President Bush, Jan. 6, 2003 [/b][/quote] [/b][/quote]
    can you please stop that 87B and what it could buy crap. americans (like the three gi's tailgator gleefully pointed out in the previous post) are giving their lives for us, here - and all it costs us, at home, is some money. that's right, some money. please note that there have not been any recent acts in our country since 9/11. every day is a blessing.

    with your 87B$ just remember they rationed gas and sugar in WWII and that cost us plenty more than dough. if we can't use our military to help us, should we disband it? that would make the middle east happy and the "internationalists" of europe happy, and china, too. it's called sacrifice and it's peanuts when compared to the horror our city has already seen. buck up or get out.

    the u.s. military isn't in business to make the world happy. it is for protecting our country, our security, our interests (you better believe oil is our interest, unless of course, you'd rather pay 6$ a gallon for gas and see what that does to our economy), and from now on, to crush international terrorism.

    i suppose you fags were running with the anti-war protesting high school students last spring before the invasion? i saw 'em up close and deemed them our country's lowest common denominator.

  4. #204
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 01:33 PM
    [b] First of all, I'm not a "fervent Democrat". I didn't even like Clinton that much and I never voted for him. I remain registered with the party only for the purpose of primary elections when I can do my part to get them away from useless Republican-Lite candidates like Lieberman and Gore. When it comes to general elections, I've voted on all sorts of parties in my area.

    It's precisely because I'm not "fervent" in my loyalty to any one party let alone a point-by-point ideology that keeps me from making ridiculous statements like "Party X can stand proud while Party Y is nothing but special interest groups". If you think there's no special interest groups guiding the Republican Party, then you're the one living the fool's paradise. 80% of the rhetoric and spin from the White House comes directly from the PNAC, with occasional "family values" toss-offs from the Christian Right.

    Face it, both major parties are dominated by coalitions, lobbyists, and special interest groups. It's why you see a lot of the same tired faces coming back into prominent Cabinet spots after all these years, a trait I personally observed more with the Republicans and their recycling of Rumsfeld and the audacity of hiring John Poindexter and Henry Kissinger to oversee the "war on terrorism". But, and you're gonna love this, they would be more noticeable because they occupied the White House a lot more since 1968 than the Democrats.

    If Clinton can admit he missed an opportunity, then good for him. He isn't coming back into office (unless, horrors, he becomes the First First Gentleman), and at least he can admit he ever once screwed up unlike Donald Rumsfeld whose blunders in the 80's have more than come home to roost.

    But that still doesn't excuse Bush and his supposedly underfunded intelligence bureaus -- who nonetheless had some data on the 9/11 hijackers and allegedly have all this dope evidence about Saddam's immediate threat to the USA -- also failing for 9 months leading up to 9/11. And not being able to find OBL since, though they let his family fly around the country happy-assholing after 9/11 while the rest of us were sitting on the ground with canceled flights. Where's Bush's apology for giving the Taliban $50 million early in 2001 for the War on Drugs? Some of that money is probably helping fund OBL's current hideout and colostomy machine, wherever the hell they are.

    The bottom line is, Bush had to come out with an official denunciation of the 9/11 - Saddam thing. Why do you think he did that? Maybe because he realizes the American public isn't buying his snake oil the way they were in 2002 to bomb anybody in the Middle East we could justify to avenge the WTC deaths? They did nothing for a year of dropping these AQ-Saddam rumors to disclaim that obvious association because they wanted the public to connect Saddam to 9/11 and draw up enough bile to stomach 100's of billions of dollars and now hundreds of troop deaths for an "urgent" cause.

    And here you guys are crowing like mad trying to show how this latest news somehow is the liberals' fault. Where is that massive WMD program, btw? And when do we get to invade Syria? [/b][/quote]
    I have addressed the WMD thing so many times it amazes me that you atill bring it up. What did you expect, clearly marked warehouses?

    Jet Set - that $50 million you refer to is more like $250 million and it was given to aid programs in Afganistan to help their people. It was not simply handed to the Taliban for the war on drugs like you and Michael Moore bilthely assert. You are being reduced to Moore-ish talking points, all while ripping on Ann Coulter, funny.


    The American public is very stupid. Bush never once said or implied that Saddam was behind 9-11. And he also never said there is no link between Saddam and terror, in fact, he stressed that there was and a link between Saddam and AQ.

    Where are the WMD is a very good question. If Saddam had answered it, perhaps this could have been avoided. He didn't, so we invaded because 12 years was long enough, especially in light of the fact that Saddam supports terror and terrorism is and has been a threat to our security and national interests. You know all of this. The only possible reason you would glibly write "where are the WMD" is to score political points for a party you claim not to be a member of, but yet remain registered with.

    You blame Bush for "missing the signs" prior to 9-11 on one side of your mouth, then blame him for over-reacting to a threat on the other side. If Ashcroft and company rounded up the 9-11 hijackers prior to the attack and detained them and told everyone they planned on bringing the towers down and that possibly tousands of Americans with them, you would have called him a fear-mongering fascist - so spare me your veil of academic and disinterested objectivity and good sense.

    I never ONCE said the liberals are to blame for the American public connecting Saddam to 9-11. YOU demand "proof" of it before you'd ever even consider a strategic alliance, even though more evidence of this exists than you realize. You think the Praque thing is wrong because State says so, yet discount other evidence coming out of State because it is politically expedient to do so. The Czech gov't STILL is adamant that the meeting took place and I wonder how you can bow to State's tracking of Atta on this particular issue, yet RIP it for every other pre 9-11 piece of intel.

    I posted a link with just some of the evidence showing links from Saddam to AQ and regardless of your rants, David Kay will present a report on the progress of the WMD search within the month.

    Tailgators - you are just not a serious thinker and I don't respect you, although I do like you. You are not capable of any exchange that is deeper than mere talking points that you've read and parrot endlessly. Sorry.

  5. #205
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:54 PM
    [b] we are all looking at this from the wrong angle - instead of focusing on the morality of the situation - we should be focusing on the PRIORITIES of the gov't spending - how much this is costing, what isn't getting funding at the expense of the war and opposed to what the US taxpayer is practically getting out of it... [/b][/quote]
    Deficit or constant attacks by ME whackos in the future.

    You decide.

    The success of the attack on 9-11 without a response (whether you think justified or not) would guarantee more.

    Deficits can be reversed, deaths of innocent Americans can't be.

    Debate that!

  6. #206
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    SackFrance calling people "fags" is not how civilized people debate. Im not gonna justify your reply with a response and no one else should either until you clean it up and get a grip.

    Weeb implicit in your statement is the idea that a stable Western-style democracy in Iraq will elimanate US terrorist threat... i don't see the connection. the 9-11 hijackers were Sauds and Al_Q hung out in Afghanistan if preventing another 9-11 is the goal, shouldn't be have taken care of those hotspots first? Both of these places are still teeming with terrorists, yet Iraq is a greater priority? WHY?

  7. #207
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    "SackFrance calling people "fags" is not how civilized people debate. Im not gonna justify your reply with a reponse and no one else should either until you clean it up and get a grip."

    ooh, lookey here, big bad football fan offensed by the term "fags". what position did you play on the soccer team?

    keep in mind that it's not half as offensive as using american combat dead as fodder for political gain. (see one of tailgator's previous)

    btw, declaring debates crude and uncivil is a more effective than your actual arguments. keep it up.

  8. #208
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:14 PM
    [b] The American public is very stupid. Bush never once said or implied that Saddam was behind 9-11. [/b][/quote]
    Did we expect clearly marked warehouses? No, but why don't we start with just the locations that Colin Powell showed the slides of to the UN Security Counsel. Let's start there. What was really at these locations? Why won't they just answer that!?

    5-ever I really don't give a damn if you respect me or not. I just believe as Shakespeare wrote that "brevity is the soul of wit" I choose to communicate in this forum in a concise manner. It really is the most effective way of getting your point across on a messageboard.

    You on the other hand just drone on and on. Your posts are as long as one of Fidel Castro's speeches and usually just as devoid of context. I'm glad your satisfied at being a bi-polar windbag. Good for you!

    Lastly, on several occasions Bush implied that Iraq had a role in the criminal attacks of September 2001.

  9. #209
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb+Sep 19 2003, 03:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Spirit of Weeb @ Sep 19 2003, 03:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--bitonti[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:54 PM
    [b] we are all looking at this from the wrong angle - instead of focusing on the morality of the situation - we should be focusing on the PRIORITIES of the gov&#39;t spending - how much this is costing, what isn&#39;t getting funding at the expense of the war and opposed to what the US taxpayer is practically getting out of it... [/b][/quote]
    Deficit or constant attacks by ME whackos in the future.

    You decide.

    The success of the attack on 9-11 without a response (whether you think justified or not) would guarantee more.

    Deficits can be reversed, deaths of innocent Americans can&#39;t be.

    Debate that&#33; [/b][/quote]
    thank you weeb. well said, oh, there&#39;s not much to debate when you actually see our country&#39;s side for what it really is.

  10. #210
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackfrance[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:35 PM
    [b] keep in mind that it&#39;s not half as offensive as using american combat dead as fodder for political gain. [/b][/quote]
    Actually exploiting the deaths of the victims of September 2001 and of our soldiers is what Bush does best. (remember his aircraft carrier flightsuit stunt?)

  11. #211
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Sep 19 2003, 03:37 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Sep 19 2003, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--jets5ever[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:14 PM
    [b] The American public is very stupid. Bush never once said or implied that Saddam was behind 9-11. [/b][/quote]
    Did we expect clearly marked warehouses? No, but why don&#39;t we start with just the locations that Colin Powell showed the slides of to the UN Security Counsel. Let&#39;s start there. What was really at these locations? Why won&#39;t they just answer that&#33;?

    5-ever I really don&#39;t give a damn if you respect me or not. I just believe as Shakespeare wrote that "brevity is the soul of wit" I choose to communicate in this forum in a concise manner. It really is the most effective way of getting your point across on a messageboard.

    You on the other hand just drone on and on. Your posts are as long as one of Fidel Castro&#39;s speeches and usually just as devoid of context. I&#39;m glad your satisfied at being a bi-polar windbag. Good for you&#33;

    Lastly, on several occasions Bush implied that Iraq had a role in the criminal attacks of September 2001. [/b][/quote]
    saddam has a huge role in anti-american terrorist foment. he had to go. no questions, we can&#39;t afford to keep naked havens of terrorism and rogue middle eastern states afloat to harbor al-qaeda.

    he had a f&#39;ing role.

    why can&#39;t you understand that? remember that slime muhamad atta, #1 mug of the TERRORISTS (no, a-hole, not mere criminal) he had meetings with iraqi agents in the time leading up to the attacks. is this proof? no. is this alone (along with a heck of a lot of coincidences) enough to act on? most americans think so. but you and al franken know better, right?

  12. #212
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    7,991
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:37 PM
    [b] I just believe as Shakespeare wrote that "brevity is the soul of wit" I choose to communicate in this forum in a concise manner.


    Lastly, on several occasions Bush implied that Iraq had a role in the criminal attacks of September 2001. [/b][/quote]
    There is a colossal difference between "brevity is the soul if wit" and "throwing ridiculous statements out there and doing absolutely ZERO to substantiate them." Your last sentence above being a perfect example.

    You are completely irrelevant in the realm of meaningful debate. 5ever pegged you...

  13. #213
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    52
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Sep 3 2003, 04:03 PM
    [b] Ann Coulter is a burned out ex-deadhead who a) doesn&#39;t know s--t from shinola B) shouldn&#39;t be taken seriously. [/b][/quote]
    and who the hell are you?

    you&#39;re bitonti, the know it all liberal. how many books did you sell?

    you talk about her like she doesn&#39;t matter, she does. she calls out the elite and backs up argument with actual fact.

    factual argument should be taken seriously and yet...this bothers you. when you have no argument, just insult. right? liberals do it on every level, from the watercooler to washington, dc.

  14. #214
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by shakin318[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:47 PM
    [b] You are completely irrelevant in the realm of meaningful debate. [/b][/quote]
    Meaningful debate??

    shakin...Get a grip dude this is just a messageboard nothing more. I not here for a debate I&#39;m just posting my opinions.

  15. #215
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by sackfrance[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 03:51 PM
    [b] when you have no argument, just insult. right? liberals do it on every level, [/b][/quote]
    Yeah you refer to people as "fags" and various other names but it&#39;s just the liberals who just throw insults. <_<

  16. #216
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:53 PM
    [b] I not here for a debate I&#39;m just posting my opinions. [/b][/quote]
    True, very true. The only problem is you are posting Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd&#39;s opinions and passing them off as examples of original thought in a transparent and lame attempt to score political points, fueled by your intense and dogmatic animus towards George Bush which has no basis in fact. You emote and confuse it with rational thought...you are a cartoon character.

  17. #217
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever+Sep 19 2003, 03:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (jets5ever @ Sep 19 2003, 03:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:53 PM
    [b] I not here for a debate I&#39;m just posting my opinions. [/b][/quote]
    True, very true. The only problem is you are posting Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd&#39;s opinions and passing them off as examples of original thought in a transparent and lame attempt to score political points, fueled by your intense and dogmatic animus towards George Bush which has no basis in fact. You emote and confuse it with rational thought...you are a cartoon character. [/b][/quote]
    Now you&#39;re pissing me off&#33;

    I dare you to Provide even one example of where I posted anything written by Dowd of Krugman and tried to pass it off as my original thought.

    Could you please tell us about your degees again? You know how we all love that story&#33;

  18. #218
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Sep 19 2003, 03:04 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Sep 19 2003, 03:04 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -jets5ever@Sep 19 2003, 03:58 PM
    [b] <!--QuoteBegin--tailgators[/i]@Sep 19 2003, 02:53 PM
    [b] I not here for a debate I&#39;m just posting my opinions. [/b][/quote]
    True, very true. The only problem is you are posting Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd&#39;s opinions and passing them off as examples of original thought in a transparent and lame attempt to score political points, fueled by your intense and dogmatic animus towards George Bush which has no basis in fact. You emote and confuse it with rational thought...you are a cartoon character. [/b][/quote]
    Now you&#39;re pissing me off&#33;

    I dare you to Provide even one example of where I posted anything written by Dowd of Krugman and tried to pass it off as my original thought.

    Could you please tell us about your degees again? You know how we all love that story&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Take it easy dude, it&#39;s just a friggin internet chat room - I&#39;m not interested in debate, I am just posting my opinions. ;)

  19. #219
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    sackfrance im not offended by the word fag im offended when dip****s like you hide behind your keyboard and insult people with it like you are some sort of internet champion. tough guy ain&#39;tcha.

    i didn&#39;t realize selling books was all one had to do to be respected. by your standards Michael moore and hillary clinton are worthy of respect&#33;&#33;&#33;

    hey man Its a known fact that Ann Coulter has attended at least 67 Dead shows. Her head is twisted on copious amounts of acid, balloons and ditch weed. Now she is a conservative guru CONNING legions. How nice for her. She&#39;s got a great racket and i wish her well.

    ---

    meanwhile. How about the new digs. I like how Sooth gave us an entire forum to duke it out. Spacious we can really spread out

  20. #220
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Take it easy dude, it&#39;s just a friggin internet chat room - I&#39;m not interested in debate, I am just posting my opinions. ;) [/b][/quote]
    Fine except that you&#39;re calling me a plagiarist, and thats bull****&#33;

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us