Liberal Talkradio Network To Launch March 31

[jimnyc]

I have not resorted to nastiness, and I'm not resorting to sarcasism to "save" my ass..

Nor did anyone claim you have...yet.

I'm being sarcastic because when I give you the quotes that anyone with a thesarus would easily read to be "imminent threats" you say I'm putting words in peoples mouth etc.. Who really cares if he uses the EXACT wording imminent or not? Urgent threat=imminent threat. How am I putting words in his mouth? How am I wrong?

First off, why not just say what he actually said instead or breaking out your trusty thesaurus?

And yes, changing someones words, even if you feel they are similar due to a thesaurus, is putting words in someone's mouth.

And lastly, Iraq WAS an urgent threat to the region. This was backed up by both Hans Blix and David Kay. It was reiterated by the majority of the democrats as well. Most liberals will try to twist the mentioned threat to say Bush said Iraq was an imminent threat to the USA. That's why it's best to quote people on what they actually said and keep it in it's original context. Of course that wouldn't help your argument though, would it?

Sorry that I don't look on sites that search the internet for doctored political photos and have profiles on them and what evidence they have to show that they were doctored before I post a funny avatar....

Hey, if you want to display your avatar showing everyone that your just a liberal sheep that takes made up stories and photos as gospel, then by all means have at it!

I will change back to the monkey one unless you think that they distorted GWB's face to look uncannily like the monkey too?

Whichever helps you through the day.

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
quotes of GWB taken from 3rd link:

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. They not only have weapons of mass destruction, they used weapons of mass destruction...That's why I say Iraq is a threat, a real threat."

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands." (note urgent threat)

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."

I DID NOT doctor any of these quotes. None! You make it sound like I doctor the quotes before posting them, I'm deriving from them that urgent threat=imminent threat. You are right! He never did use the exact wording imminent. But you make it sound like I went over and changed words in the quotes to words that I think meant the same what did I say to lead you to believe this?????????????? All of these quotes are original if you would read them you would find out that that George Bush says Iraq was an "urgent threat" "Saddam Hussein is a threat to America" etc etc you need to reread my quotes.

Oh yes it helps me through the day to see Bush next to a monkey just as it does you to see your cartoon of Kerry with some kind of Boy Scout or Forest Ranger hat on. I don't really understand the joke I have no idea what "Hanoi" stands for or means I assume it sourt of brings it all together..

 

[jimnyc]

You need to learn how to comprehend, another quality I've noticed over time that liberals tend to lack.

I never said you doctored the quotes you posted. I said you claimed Bush stated "Iraq was an imminent threat" and wondered why you wrote that as opposed to writing what he actually said. It's obvious liberals like to throw in the "imminent" part thinking it might have a more dramatic effect. It would be a nice effect if liberals would just post factual truths occassionally instead of misquotes and rhetoric.

Would it be fair of me to say that John Kerry lied by stating Saddam was still murdering people, was a direct an imminent threat to the citizens of the USA and that he knows for a fact that he has WMD?

 

[CrazyLiberal]

"And yes, changing someones words, even if you feel they are similar due to a thesaurus, is putting words in someone's mouth."

I have perfectly fine reading comprehension skills. I did not change what he said. You said I put words in his mouth I didn't there isn't a lot of comprehending to do. You're right, I was wrong about Bush's exact wording but not his intent. And I did not quote him as saying Iraw was an "imminent threat" so I put no words in his mouth. I just derived a perfectly logical meaning from the his quotes that I posted.

I really don't see the connection between John Kerry and Saddam Hussein, or for that matter your point by asking is it fair for me to say Kerry has WMDs and is threat to USA etc etc..

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
I really don't see the connection between John Kerry and Saddam Hussein, or for that matter your point by asking is it fair for me to say Kerry has WMDs and is threat to USA etc etc..

Because that's exactly what Kerry stated. Well, at least if you change a few key words with your trusty thesaurus. After all, it's perfectly logical!

 

[CrazyLiberal]

Which Kerry statement are you working with and what words are you changing to what other words that you might find in a thesaurus next to eachother? I really don't see how you can say that the difference between the meanings of the words "urgent" and "imminent" are as different in the context they were or were not being used in as Saddam Hussein and John Kerry.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
Which Kerry statement are you working with and what words are you changing to what other words that you might find in a thesaurus next to eachother? I really don't see how you can say that the difference between the meanings of the words "urgent" and "imminent" are as different in the context they were or were not being used in as Saddam Hussein and John Kerry.

My point is, why change it at all? Why would you change what he said, even if you thought it was similar?

 

[CrazyLiberal]

I admit that when I first started looking for sources and reading I though GWB had said the exact words imminent threat but he had not, you are right there is no need to change it "urgent threat" and "grave threat to america" is fine. The meaning is the same why are you getting so nit picky over wording? W/E I think we have beat this horse until it was beyond dead. And it is so off subject

I have to go to bed now I will see you tomorrow Jim.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
I admit that when I first started looking for sources and reading I though GWB had said the exact words imminent threat but he had not, you are right there is no need to change it "urgent threat" and "grave threat to america" is fine. The meaning is the same why are you getting so nit picky over wording? W/E I think we have beat this horse until it was beyond dead. And it is so off subject

I have to go to bed now I will see you tomorrow Jim.

In this case, bush said nothing different than all democrats, international figures, u.n. officials, and ex presidents have said. Good day to you.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by CrazyLiberal
"urgent threat" and "grave threat to america" is fine.

Yes, they are. "urgent threat" states that he was a threat to his people, the region, and if left unattended - perhaps the entire world. And he was a "grave threat to America". Had he acquired nukes he could have easily used them against our allies or even the USA.

Stating "imminent" means it is going to happen, and soon. Big difference, but not surprising that some can't comprehend these differences.

 

[wonderwench]

Well, Saddam is no longer a threat to anyone

And that suits me just fine.