Libs Need to Wake Up to the Power of Hatred

[deaddude]

Gab, CA Lib, If you can't tell, you are not helping your argument. Dogma like "war of hate" does not hold up in an argument for either side here. All it does is piss off the other side and affirm its beliefs. Try arguing logically. Now yes 18 is better than 1700. Kathianne knows this as well as anyone. However your argument was unfortunately preceded by your first post which was nothing but dogma.

Clinton was bad but if you cant see what bush is doing to this nation you must be wearing blinders.

This statement is vague and will be torn apart by almost anyone on this board, what exactly is Bush doing to the country? How? Why is it bad?

I see more hatred on the conservative side than the liberal side but I bet all muslims are laughing at all the hatred within the US period.

Another vague statement which makes sweeping generalities about Libs, Cons, and Muslims in one sentence.

Bush will eventually get more of our soldiers killed than saddam ever dreamed of but saddam was the bad gfuy right?

Not only is this vague (exactly how many soldiers did Sadam dream about killing) but it also makes a prediction which you have no evidence to back up.

This got them thinking that you are a troll, one to be toyed with for entertainment purposes until you get banned for an explosian of expletives

Try to stay away from being vague, when you make a claim try to be able to back it up with a link, and don’t worry about being Liberal: if you present your arguments intelligently and civilly the Cons will argue back in kind.

 

[freeandfun1]

Wouldn't call that condescending, rather realistic reply to your totally naive way of addressing the situation. Cutting and running is not going to work. That much should have been made 9/11-WHICH IS NOT IMPLYING ANY CONNECTIONS BETWEEN THAT ACTUAL EVENT AND IRAQ, RATHER THE CONNECTIONS OF APPEASEMENT AND TERRORISM IN THE MACRO.

Exactly.

Let's review the past...

February 26, 1993 - 1st WTC Bombing - No response by USA

April 19th, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing - No response by the USA

(I list this one as I have read enough from reliable sources that I am convinced Iraqi military personnel that came here as released POW refugees after the first Gulf War assisted Timothy McVeigh and Nichols)

June 25, 1996 - Khobar Towers Bombing - No response by USA

August 7, 1998 - US Embassy Bombings, Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania - No reponse by USA

October 12, 2000 - U.S.S. Cole, Port of Aden, Yemen - No response by the USA

September 11, 2001 - NYC and Pentagon - Helluva response.

Notice. Before we responded after 911, the US was being attacked on average, once every 1.7 years. If you take out OK City, it was on average, 2.1 years.

Since 911 we have not been attacked. Yet the libs will argue that there is no connection between our response this time and the fact we haven't been attacked since even though the record proves our lack of response in the past is what has led to more attacks.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Well, that 1,700 killed in the WOT has occurred over a three-year period, and hundreds of thousands on their side have been killed during that same period. On 9/11/01, the terrorists killed almost 3,000 innocent Americans in a single day! On TV I saw innocent people jump to their deaths because they had no other alternative. Too bad you have forgotten that. Bush is trying to prevent that from happening in our country again, and I pray to God that he is successful. Those serving in the military want to take the fight to the terrorists. You don't hear them bitching and moaning about their lot in life. You libs are just a bunch of chicken-hearted cowards when it comes to war. Clinton, the draft dodger, sure was an appropriate leader for you. And don't respond with your made-up lies that Bush was a draft dodger too. He served as a pilot in the Texas National Guard. Your made-up "facts" on that situation didn't work.

In addition to the almost 3,000 killed on 9/11/01, the terrorists killed hundreds of Americans in attacks during the Clinton Administration with absolutely no response. Clinton would get on TV following every attack and say that we were going to hunt down those responsible and bring them to justice. Did it ever happen? No, it never happened. It was all just words. Clinton had no intention of going after them. Why didn't we hear you libs bitching and moaning at that time about how terrible that was? If you're so concerned about the 1,700 killed in the WOT, why weren't you concerned about the innocent hundreds who were killed by the terrorists during Clinton's administration? Enough of your tripe already!

 

[Annie]

Gab, CA Lib, If you can't tell, you are not helping your argument. Dogma like "war of hate" does not hold up in an argument for either side here. All it does is piss off the other side and affirm its beliefs. Try arguing logically. Now yes 18 is better than 1700. Kathianne knows this as well as anyone. However your argument was unfortunately preceded by your first post which was nothing but dogma.



This statement is vague and will be torn apart by almost anyone on this board, what exactly is Bush doing to the country? How? Why is it bad?



Another vague statement which makes sweeping generalities about Libs, Cons, and Muslims in one sentence.



Not only is this vague (exactly how many soldiers did Sadam dream about killing) but it also makes a prediction which you have no evidence to back up.

This got them thinking that you are a troll, one to be toyed with for entertainment purposes until you get banned for an explosian of expletives

Try to stay away from being vague, when you make a claim try to be able to back it up with a link, and don’t worry about being Liberal: if you present your arguments intelligently and civilly the Cons will argue back in kind.

Yes, I would say that this is good advice.

 

[5stringJeff]

I would favor that but it wont happen, or at least I dont think it will.
thing is we are supposedly protecting our country from terrorism right? so how does Iraq pose more of a threat than Iran or North Korea?

We are not supposedly protecting the US from terrorism, we are protecting the US from terrorism. And Iraq's connection with terrorists in general, and al-Qaeda specifically, are well documented. So it was logical to defeat Saddam in order to lessen the worldwide terrorist threat.

I agree with you that Iran is another large supporter of terrorism, and I'm sure they are on the short list.

 

[Gunny]

Clinton was bad but if you cant see what bush is doing to this nation you must be wearing blinders. I see more hatred on the conservative side than the liberal side but I bet all muslims are laughing at all the hatred within the US period.

Bush will eventually get more of our soldiers killed than saddam ever dreamed of but saddam was the bad gfuy right?

It isn't what Bush is doing to this Nation .... it's what the left is doing to this Nation. Hatred from the left is polarizing this Nation, and the Islamic extremsits play on that hatred everyday. So no, they aren't laughing. They're just using you. If you could see beyond your hatred for a President, you'd realize it.

 

[Stephanie]

It isn't what Bush is doing to this Nation .... it's what the left is doing to this Nation. Hatred from the left is polarizing this Nation, and the Islamic extremsits play on that hatred everyday. So no, they aren't laughing. They're just using you. If you could see beyond your hatred for a President, you'd realize it.

I second that ..........