Lies just a reminder for those with memory issues

Yeah Bush treatened them and cut off aid money and some of them still would not join his "coalition of the willing". go figure.

LMAO you joke of a debater.
Read what you wrote...
Cut off aid....LMAO...aid from the US.....while asnwering questions about why we are the leaders in things like this...aid from the US...
LMAO....your debating skills are pathetic.

Because I am correct I need no debating skills. Perhaps you need understanding skills?

Why do we lead?
Because we force others to follow.
How do we force them to follow?
Becuase they count on us for aid..and we use it as leverage.
You idiot...maybe their need for our aid is the reason we are always the leader.
You really need to think about it.
 
Both parties tried to convince the world that saddam was a threat.

Now that he is dead, he is no longer a threat so that is good.

Bush gets credit for killing him.
 
Becasue if we do not take the lead, no one will...and then we will either have to do it ourselves or cease to exist in time...or

I guess you learned very little from the lessons taught before the second world war.

Considering a liberal democrat was teaching these lessons, I'm wondering who has the more serious "memory issues."
old.gif

Are you serious?
You refer to Hitler as a liberal democrat?
You truly need to re-evaluate who you are and how you think.
What's so hard to comprehend that Nazi is short for "National Socialist"?

Seems quite straight forward to me.
 
You should know by now Yank that no other country will get off its ass to do anything unless we lead the way. They all wait for us to assume the responsibility as well as providing the bulk of the army and money the blood and guts.

You are right...I do KNOW this. What I can no longer comprehend is WHY we do it?

Becasue if we do not take the lead, no one will...and then we will either have to do it ourselves or cease to exist in time...or

I guess you learned very little from the lessons taught before the second world war.

Oh please.....I can still see NO reason why we had to do ANYTHING. They had SCUD missiles for crying out loud. NK's missiles are only a little better and the Iranian missiles are better yet. But we chose to get bogged down in Iraq????
 
LMAO you joke of a debater.
Read what you wrote...
Cut off aid....LMAO...aid from the US.....while asnwering questions about why we are the leaders in things like this...aid from the US...
LMAO....your debating skills are pathetic.

Because I am correct I need no debating skills. Perhaps you need understanding skills?

Why do we lead?
Because we force others to follow.
How do we force them to follow?
Becuase they count on us for aid..and we use it as leverage.
You idiot...maybe their need for our aid is the reason we are always the leader.
You really need to think about it.

Already have. Rented friends/allies are not worth crap.
 
Fuck you asshole...You're one of those who know I've been against the Iraq invasion from the outset.

You're the phoniest lying fuckbag of them all.

Did most Democrats vote against the Iraq war authorization or not? What am I lying about?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate,

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phony lying hack fuckbag.

Holy fuck, you're even dumber than I thought and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

You cut this quote IN HALF!!??

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate, and 61% opposed in the House

And you know what that adds up to? 147 Democrats voting against the war 110 voting for it.

So what again was my lie when I said MOST DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE WAR??
 
democrats talked about Saddam's intentions and his development of capabilities whereas
team Bush talked about the absolute certainty of stockpiles of WMD's.
Total lie...Democrats also spoke of WMDs as though they were an absolute certainty.

Go back and re-read #10 before you further embarrass yourself.
a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.
The current subject is the SENATE vote.

Pretty weak attempt at diversion.
 
So what again was my lie when I said MOST DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE WAR??

If the dems can claim bipartisanship for 1 republican voting to get something out of committee and a mandate once they get all their people bribed to vote for health care... sure, this kinda definition works for me.
 
Did most Democrats vote against the Iraq war authorization or not? What am I lying about?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate,

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phony lying hack fuckbag.

Holy fuck, you're even dumber than I thought and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

You cut this quote IN HALF!!??

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate, and 61% opposed in the House

And you know what that adds up to? 147 Democrats voting against the war 110 voting for it.

So what again was my lie when I said MOST DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE WAR??
Way to move the goalposts, asshole.

My comment was stated in terms of the Senate action, which ended up with a 28-21 democrat vote in favor.
 
democrats talked about Saddam's intentions and his development of capabilities whereas
team Bush talked about the absolute certainty of stockpiles of WMD's.
Total lie...Democrats also spoke of WMDs as though they were an absolute certainty.

Go back and re-read #10 before you further embarrass yourself.
a majority of congressional democrats voted against the use of force resolution.
The current subject is the SENATE vote.

Pretty weak attempt at diversion.

You said democrats not just senate democrats.
 
Did most Democrats vote against the Iraq war authorization or not? What am I lying about?
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate,

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Phony lying hack fuckbag.

Holy fuck, you're even dumber than I thought and you weren't doing that well beforehand.

You cut this quote IN HALF!!??

The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was passed by congress with Democrats voting 58% in favor in the Senate, and 61% opposed in the House

And you know what that adds up to? 147 Democrats voting against the war 110 voting for it.

So what again was my lie when I said MOST DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST THE WAR??
The Senate's a very critical place...I wouldn't jump all over Dude that quickly...

You've got...what? 435 people in the House?

But only 100 in the Senate.
 
Is it a lie when you actually believe what you are saying?

Ive never understood why you liberals were so obssessed with making the claim that there were never WMDs in Iraq. It seems to me the better argument is to agree with all the worldwide intelligence (including Saddam's own statements) that their were WMDs and that the Bush administration was just too incompetant to find them and has since put our nation in grave danger.

But you guys dont argue that, why? It makes no sense. It's certainly the better argument than "He lied" when you cant prove it.
 
[ The Senate's a very critical place...I wouldn't jump all over Dude that quickly...

You've got...what? 435 people in the House?

But only 100 in the Senate.

It's called Congress and Congress had to pass the authorization. I said most Democrats voted against the authorization. Most did. Do you dispute that? I'm being a called a liar for having said that. If you want defend 'Dude's' conduct feel free.
 
Weak attempt to support Dude.
Fuck you, dickhead.

In case you missed it, I was against the invasion and have been against military empire for decades.

You, the other hand, are nothing short of a party man hack, who refuses to recognize that your favored politicians are up to their eyeballs in military interventionist empire, since at least Woodrow Wilson.
 
[ The Senate's a very critical place...I wouldn't jump all over Dude that quickly...

You've got...what? 435 people in the House?

But only 100 in the Senate.

It's called Congress and Congress had to pass the authorization. I said most Democrats voted against the authorization. Most did. Do you dispute that? I'm being a called a liar for having said that. If you want defend 'Dude's' conduct feel free.
True. You have two to tango to make Congress.

But he was referring to Senate Dems, from what I gather.
 
Is it a lie when you actually believe what you are saying?

Ive never understood why you liberals were so obssessed with making the claim that there were never WMDs in Iraq. It seems to me the better argument is to agree with all the worldwide intelligence (including Saddam's own statements) that their were WMDs and that the Bush administration was just too incompetant to find them and has since put our nation in grave danger.

But you guys dont argue that, why? It makes no sense. It's certainly the better argument than "He lied" when you cant prove it.

Argue that WMD's that no one has ever demonstrated to have ever existed actually exist?

Colin Powell went to the UN with fake pictures of non-existent WMD's. How is that not a lie?
 
Weak attempt to support Dude.
Fuck you, dickhead.

In case you missed it, I was against the invasion and have been against military empire for decades.

You, the other hand, are nothing short of a party man hack, who refuses to recognize that your favored politicians are up to their eyeballs in military interventionist empire, since at least Woodrow Wilson.

from your current arguments it would be hard to tell you were always against the war.
I guess you can be a republican apologist and still be against the war?
 
from your current arguments it would be hard to tell you were always against the war.
I guess you can be a republican apologist and still be against the war?
So, not allowing democrat dickheads like you to shift the blame for your complicity in international warmongering is now acting as an apologist for republicans?

goddamn, are you one stupid sumbitch. :rofl:
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top