1,748 Days since the Declaration Of "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"

[Dr Grump]

If so, when? I have, many a time. I recognize that sometimes I can be overly self-righteous, I've missed your posts on the same...

They are sprinkled here and there. Not often, but they are there...not just on this board, but on other boards I post on.

 

[Annie]

They are sprinkled here and there. Not often, but they are there...not just on this board, but on other boards I post on.

Can you give us a hint? I'm not asking for a link. As to myself, it was that GW was a 'conservative' I ate lots of crow on that one. Still pulling feathers out of my throat.

 

[Dr Grump]

Can you give us a hint? I'm not asking for a link. As to myself, it was that GW was a 'conservative' I ate lots of crow on that one. Still pulling feathers out of my throat.

Wouldn't have a clue where they are. I know I've eaten crow on a couple of occasions with Gunny.....much to his amusement and my chargin. Mind you, there are other people I'd much rather NOT eat crow...

There is one particular board that I puruse where I've had to on a couple of occasions with somebody I'd usually walk over broken glass in bare feet than admit he was right, but it happens on occasion I guess..

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Wilful blindndess. The Democrats knew about the lies but it suited them politically to go along with them. Only a few stood on principle and opposed the invasion because they knew of the lies. Those who went along with it for political purposes are hypocrites and undeserving of public office.

HAHHAHAHHA, rationLIESing?? If what you say is true, then what a bunch of spineless whimps you guys have elected in your party.

Funny thing is the one with the most principle in the DEMS is Lieberman, who is gun ho for supporting the war.

One last thing, your buddy Clinton and his wife were already screaming about kicking saddam out without claimiing anything about oil, but did talk up WMD's and saddams threatening posistion globally. So, if it is lies, then it started with you guys. OUCH !!!!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How? By asking nicely?.

Pretty much. If we offered market price or even a bit more, he would have gladly sold to us



The region was stable, he invasion has made the region unstable..[/QUOTE]
The region is stable? Kuwait? Palestinians shooting bombs into Israel? Civil ware in Lebanon? Iran threatening to get nukes, and Israel blowing up one of Irans attempts to get nukes. You call that stable?

Can you clear this up, it doesn't make sense - not having a shot at you but I don't understand your point.
Bush lied. He is still lying. He has no credibility with most of the American people and certainly the world has an extremely low opinion of him.

BLah, blah, blah. It has never been proven he lied.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

are you really suggesting that Bush did not convey the impression that Saddam had links to 9/11, or that he did not have stockpiles of WMD's that he would give to AQ?

Did he actually say it or just convey the impression? The "conveyed impression" is merely your OPINION, which does not constitute a lie. Me suggests you go back and learn the definition of LIE, and how to prove it was done. Hint, an OPINION proves NOTHING>

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I think Dick Cheney and his cabal are arseholes. But they are smart arseholes. ...

So President Bush is stupid, but his VP is smart? Werent you on board with saying they are running the war badly, ineptly? So, are the smart, or stupid? Please make up your mind.

They are never deliberately going to say something they cannot prove. Are they going to IMPLY certain things without including provable intent in their actions? Of course they are.

That they implied something is strictly your opinion, which is worthless anyways, especially since you are motivated by bitterness towards the right.

Your whole premise is based on "they have openly said there was no connection between Sadman and 9-11 therefore any insinuation they implied otherwise is incorrect". Using that analogy Clinton never had sex with Monica and the Menendez brothers never killed their parents because they said so....

What a stupid, STUPID analogy. Saddam or OBL are the culprits, not President BUsh. Clinton and the brothers were the perps, denying their own involvement. Did they state that YES, they did the crime, and then insuate later that they didnt? That would be idiotic, course that doesnt slow you done in the slightest.

Politicians lie, manipulate and wordsmith every day. If you want to sit on your high horse because Bush et al never came out and said 9-11 and Sadman were connected then that is fine. ...

Which means he didnt lie. WOW, we finally got one of you to admit defeat !!!
Personally, I don't believe for one instance YOU believe that. You just want to make your cheap point because you think it is easily provable. All you have proved is that Bush and Cheney never said that exact words. That doesn't prove anything. There is enough evidence (IMO) that they manipulated the situtation enough that 70% of Yanks believed there was some sort of connection.

BTW, you STILL haven't offered an opinion as to why that number exists. Why? I don't think you are interested in debate. You want to make cheap points and take the Holier-Than-Thou attitude, which as stated, is wearing thin.



There are quite a few posts on this board where I have admitted to being wrong or compliemented a poster from another political persuasion on their point. Why do I get the impression if I trolled through your 450+ posts I won't find ONE occasion where you have done the same? Having posted on messageboards for the best part of six years I know when I see one of those arrogant, I-am-smarter-than-everyone-else kinda posters. You fit that to a T...

Well, someone has to be the smartest.

By the way, President BUsh didnt even need to lie, much less do it, as you admit above, the legal reason for invading was provided by Saddam breaking the cease fire/treaty agreement. He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,

 

[Dr Grump]

So President Bush is stupid, but his VP is smart?

Yep.

Werent you on board with saying they are running the war badly, ineptly? So, are the smart, or stupid? Please make up your mind.

One does not necessarily lead to the other. Politicians should let generals run wars....

What a stupid, STUPID analogy. Saddam or OBL are the culprits, not President BUsh. Clinton and the brothers were the perps, denying their own involvement. Did they state that YES, they did the crime, and then insuate later that they didnt? That would be idiotic, course that doesnt slow you done in the slightest.

No being the brightest bulb in the socket, you would think it stupid. My point is that the brothers nor Clinton admitted their guilt. The only evidence in both cases was circumstantial. Good circumstantial, but circumstantial nonetheless..

Which means he didnt lie. WOW, we finally got one of you to admit defeat !!!

Didn't he? Can you prove that?

By the way, President BUsh didnt even need to lie, much less do it, as you admit above, the legal reason for invading was provided by Saddam breaking the cease fire/treaty agreement.

Israel and North Korea break UN resolutions all the time. When do you invade them?

He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,

Well, if he didn't have them it's pretty hard to provide proof. As for your last statement - and you call me stupid....lol...

 

[maineman]

Did he actually say it or just convey the impression? The "conveyed impression" is merely your OPINION, which does not constitute a lie. Me suggests you go back and learn the definition of LIE, and how to prove it was done. Hint, an OPINION proves NOTHING>

clearly, it is my opinion that he lied. I cannot prove that he lied anymore than you can prove he told the truth.

the definition of lie I am operating with is: something intended or serving to convey a false impression; Now if you want to believe that the false impression that WAS conveyed, the false impression that was essential if there was to be the preponderance of public support necessary to launch a major war, was conveyed unintentionally, then I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No I don't. I'm offering my opinion. That is my opinion. No proof is necessary.

Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on. All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.

And why are you doing that? Because you know you cannot prove it.
It does make me wonder why you believe what you are arguing about though...
But then, its clear that you simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.

 

[glockmail]

Just a few more thousand deaths of young American soldiers and many more thousands of deaths of otherwise innocents.

Give it an honest thought, OK?

As I recall the mission that that ship was on was accomplished with stunning success, and is likely to become a training manual for future missions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Unless you can prove your opinion, then its not worth the paper you write it on. All you're doiung here, as I said before, is arguing that its a statement of opinion rather than a statement of fact so you can avoid having to prove it.

And why are you doing that? Because you know you cannot prove it.
You simply believe what you want to believe because its what you want to believe, regardless of there beng any evidence to support it.

Wait, they will post their "opinion" in another thread and word it so it is taken as fact and it will be another 20 pages before you finally get them to admit they are "just" saying an opinion. Book mark this admission because they will also claim they never said any such thing and demand proof of it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait, they will post their "opinion" in another thread and word it so it is taken as fact and it will be another 20 pages before you finally get them to admit they are "just" saying an opinion. Book mark this admission because they will also claim they never said any such thing and demand proof of it.

They will also demand that -you- prove -your- opinions.

Its a one-way street with these people -- and according to them, its always going their way.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They will also demand that -you- prove -your- opinions.

Its a one-way street with these people -- and according to them, its always going their way.

Ya I love that one. They want proof from us when we have an opinion but then claim they don't have to provide any reason for their opinions cause, "they are just opinions"

Further Maineman has stated for the record that other peoples opinions mean nothing to him unless they happen to agree with his.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Originally Posted by Dr Grump

He never provided proof he had destroyed the WMD's. He was required to. Not the other way around where we had to find them. It is/was a situation where the presumed was that he DID HAVE THEM,

Well, if he didn't have them it's pretty hard to provide proof.

He had them in December of 1998.
When did he prove they were destroyed?

 

[glockmail]

Ya I love that one. They want proof from us when we have an opinion but then claim they don't have to provide any reason for their opinions cause, "they are just opinions"

Further Maineman has stated for the record that other peoples opinions mean nothing to him unless they happen to agree with his.

He's the biggest asshole on any board and has attacked my family, accussing me of being a pedophile against my teen-age son.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He's the biggest asshole on any board and has attacked my family, accussing me of being a pedophile against my teen-age son.

And the he gets all bent out of shape when I call him Skippy.

 

[glockmail]

There was a kid in middle school that we used to call that name. The story was that he would put peanut butter on his Johnson and have his dog lick it off.

I think "Skippy" is a fitting nick-name for a pervert like maineman.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There was a kid in middle school that we used to call that name. The story was that he would put peanut butter on his Johnson and have his dog lick it off.

This behavior was likely pioneered by MM, so you're right-- it fits.

maineman-- have you stopped letting your dog lick peanut butter off your johnson?

 

[glockmail]

This behavior was likely pioneered by MM, so you're right-- it fits.

maineman-- have you stopped letting your dog lick peanut butter off your johnson?

He lets them piss on his rugs and chew on his furniture, so I suspect that the answer would be "no".