Did you Support War in Iraq??

[NotfooledbyW]

If you believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of,

Language means nothing to you does it?


I am not judging you as though you knew something that I said you were not aware of… I’m judging you for not knowing many
“somethings” that any concerned citizen should have been aware of when giving a lying President his or her support and tacit approval for deciding to kill half a million Iraqis in order to disarm Iraq through war.

You cannot discuss the ‘somethings’ and all the facts that support them. That is your mistake.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I can't explain it down anymore.

Because it is absurd.

 

[Correll]

So, you believe that I was not paying close enough attention at the time and thus, was mistaken?

I believe you when you said you weren’t paying attention, ...

Then how do you justify judging me as though I knew something that you admit that I did not know?


Cause, it seems the only two possible answers are either A. because "I just want an excuse to attack my partisan enemies", or B. because "I have a serious personality disorder".

 

[Correll]

If you believe that, then to judge me as though I knew something you just said that I was unaware of,

Language means nothing to you does it?


I am not judging you as though you knew something that I said you were not aware of… I’m judging you for not knowing many
“somethings” that any concerned citizen should have been aware of when giving a lying President his or her support and tacit approval for deciding to kill half a million Iraqis in order to disarm Iraq through war.

You cannot discuss the ‘somethings’ and all the facts that support them. That is your mistake.

Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars.

NOt, this weird focus on proving that your partisan enemies are "bloodthirsty" or harping on them being "Christian" or waxing poetic on the suffering of the iraqi children.


ALL of that, makes it look like you are just using this whole issue as, some sort of weapon, either for partisan or ideological or sadistic reasons.

 

[Correll]

I can't explain it down anymore.

Because it is absurd.

No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.

You would have to take my facts down to reject what you call ‘my thinking. You cannot do that because you are oblivious to facts based rationality. One example of that is your insistence that the killing of half a million Iraqis was necessary and justified on the basis that SH was given a final opportunity by W to get his WMD shit together with the world but he chose to poke the bear instead of taking it. The ‘poked the bear’ argument is a lie. Rational humans do not base their arguments and thinking on lies. You have a serious problem with being rational because you are allergic to facts.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars.

We don’t need more facts based debate about the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq.

We need you to make it part of your character and a requirement for your participation in our democracy to be done honorably instead of the white Christian nationalist tribal rote you are immersed in.

Thats all. Seek facts and engage them. The debates will get it right with regard to wars if your tribe could do that consistently and honorably.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

what "connection" ? For some people the confederate flag represents
patriotism for the erstwhile southern states---

Do you think this rebel:traitor flag flying dude is convinced he is a patriot?


According to the Vice report, the plan by Chris Pohlhaus, 34, involved shooters targeting the nation's truck drivers in the hope that it would create economic chaos.

Neo-Nazi shared plot with followers to use snipers to bring America 'to its knees': report

A former Marine who encouraged fellow neo-Nazi's to move to Maine and make a "white future" for themselves by creating a white ethnostate, also shared a video with his followers with a proposal to use snipers to bring America "to its knees," Vice News is reporting.According to the Vice report...

www.rawstory.com

According to Vice's Ben Makuch, the ex-military man sat before a Confederate flag in his video and detailed his plan.

Writing that Pohlhaus described his proposal as one that could "easily disrupt the United States' supply chain," Makuch quoted the self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi telling his fans, "It's easy to stop trucks. You don't need anybody; you barely need anyone. Twenty five dudes. Twenty five dudes trained with a (rifle)," before adding, "Each one of those guys shoots and moves and hides, shoots two truckers a day. That's 50 truckers (shot) every day

 

[irosie91]

what "connection" ? For some people the confederate flag represents
patriotism for the erstwhile southern states---

Do you think this rebel:traitor flag flying dude is convinced he is a patriot?


According to the Vice report, the plan by Chris Pohlhaus, 34, involved shooters targeting the nation's truck drivers in the hope that it would create economic chaos.

Neo-Nazi shared plot with followers to use snipers to bring America 'to its knees': report

A former Marine who encouraged fellow neo-Nazi's to move to Maine and make a "white future" for themselves by creating a white ethnostate, also shared a video with his followers with a proposal to use snipers to bring America "to its knees," Vice News is reporting.According to the Vice report...

www.rawstory.com

According to Vice's Ben Makuch, the ex-military man sat before a Confederate flag in his video and detailed his plan.

Writing that Pohlhaus described his proposal as one that could "easily disrupt the United States' supply chain," Makuch quoted the self-proclaimed Neo-Nazi telling his fans, "It's easy to stop trucks. You don't need anybody; you barely need anyone. Twenty five dudes. Twenty five dudes trained with a (rifle)," before adding, "Each one of those guys shoots and moves and hides, shoots two truckers a day. That's 50 truckers (shot) every day

CLUB OVER-LAP

 

[Correll]

No, because I made it as clear as it can be explained. That your thinking is hard to describe rationally, is not my fault.

You would have to take my facts down to reject what you call ‘my thinking. You cannot do that because you are oblivious to facts based rationality. One example of that is your insistence that the killing of half a million Iraqis was necessary and justified on the basis that SH was given a final opportunity by W to get his WMD shit together with the world but he chose to poke the bear instead of taking it. The ‘poked the bear’ argument is a lie. Rational humans do not base their arguments and thinking on lies. You have a serious problem with being rational because you are allergic to facts.

Not what I said. ALl this time and you are still not getting it.

 

[Correll]

Then the focus of your argument should be the need to have more fact based debate in political discussions, especially regarding wars.

We don’t need more facts based debate about the ramp up to the invasion of Iraq.

We need you to make it part of your character and a requirement for your participation in our democracy to be done honorably instead of the white Christian nationalist tribal rote you are immersed in.

Thats all. Seek facts and engage them. The debates will get it right with regard to wars if your tribe could do that consistently and honorably.

And that is why your input into the issue of war or peace will be nil.

Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.

When you have no facts to rely on you must argue nonsensical non-facts that exist only in your silly head.

Its true - I do not like or condone liars. especially those that collectively lie from within a large political group. The Trump cult is a good example - just yesterday the leader of the cult told this huge lie … "this means we won the Presidential Election in Georgia." ..

I hate liars - specifically a former President who has convinced a lot of white evangelical Christians that he won the 2020 election. What kind of man lies to Christians?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Not what I said.

You didn’t say SH was poking the bear?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.

The reason that I am here does not refute the facts I have presented to you on any matter being discussed.

Nothing I write is bigoted. I reject white Christian evangelical nationalism not at all based upon their religion. My rejection is based on their white nationalism under cover of Christianity So like you they can whine when they’re white nationalism is criticized.

 

[Correll]

Not what I said.

You didn’t say SH was poking the bear?

Dude. The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears. It is hard to take you seriously.

Also, the way you insist on cutting away things and then referencing them, especially considering what a freak you are for exact wording.

You are not serious.

 

[Correll]

Because you are here just to smear your partisan and ideological enemies and groups that you are bigoted against.

The reason that I am here does not refute the facts I have presented to you on any matter being discussed.

Nothing I write is bigoted. I reject white Christian evangelical nationalism not at all based upon their religion. My rejection is based on their white nationalism under cover of Christianity So like you they can whine when they’re white nationalism is criticized.

Blah, blah, blah, how many times you going to say
'white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears.

When one’s facts are accurate and undeniable, sorry Mr. Factless, those are not smears.

 

[Correll]

The way you just seem to HAVE to pepper your statements with partisan smears.

When one’s facts are accurate and undeniable, sorry Mr. Factless, those are not smears.

Obviously I was not referring to the FACTS you mention, I was referring to the numerous partisan smears.


Why are you pretending to be too retarded to understand that?

Also, the way you cut away the previous post, before you answer it, more and more, is looking like a move to make your attempts to be dishonest easier.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?

Are you saying there is no major voting bloc in the Trump/Republican Party that is white, Christian and nationalistic.


I say “white” evangelical Christians not in any derogatory sense but in a factual sense because Americans of a white evangelical Christian affiliation had an overwhelming "trust Bush" on invading Iraq and support for the Bush doctrine of offensive war and spreading Christian culture democracy among Muslim nations because it is God’s will to do so.


Black evangelicals did not have that “trust Bush” syndrome that their fellow white evangelicals definitely had.


Write Evangelicals are responsible for the disaster of invading Iraq. Black evangelicals are not.

Black evangelicals are not nationalistic Christians. White evangelicals are nationalistic Christians. That is a distinction you should not deny. But you deny it by trying to make that accepted reality being mentioned is religious bigotry.

 

[Correll]

white nationalists" and "Christians" in the same sentence in order to conflate them like a good propagandist?

Are you saying there is no major voting bloc in the Trump/Republican Party that is white, Christian and nationalistic.

.....

What I said was clear. That you rephrased it, to change my meaning and then you addressed that, was you being a dishonest and bad faith debater.


That you feel a need to use such tactics, ALL THE TIME, is your brain dealing with the fact that you know you are in the wrong.