What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Republicans try but can't change history

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
NFBW wrote: Correll told us that he would be fine had the peaceful disarming of Iraq worked and the decision to invade was not made by W and that meant SH was not removed from power. Yes, Correll told us what he believed to be true about his position at the time, admitting that war was not necessary if certain conditions were met - and peacefully disarming Iraq was one of those conditions. 21SEP12-POST#554

Correll wrote: IF, Saddam had been able to provide evidence that his wmds had been destroyed and support for the invasion collapsed and the decision was made to NOT invade Iraq, I would have been fine with that. - I realized at the time, that invasion was a costly gamble. NOT doing it would have been fine with me too. 21MAY22-POST#1013

NFBW wrote: I understand full well that a hypothetical question is based on supposition, opinion, personal belief or disbelief, or conjecture, and not facts. It is not based on reality. It can deal with actions and scenarios that might happen, or something that might not have happened. 21SEP12-POST#554

NFBW 21SEP12-POST#544 wrote: So why is Correll pissing and moaning like this?

Correll wrote: DIscussing a hypothetical does not mean that I considered it a true, viable alternative. - Normal people understand that. 21SEP10-POST#548

NFBW wrote: Of course I understand that the (peaceful disarming Iraq) scenario that Correll created in his very own hypothetical question, did not happen. but Correll cannot ethically change his answer to the very hypothetical question he provided because he is no longer comfortable with the fact that his answer exposes a huge weakness in the BIG LIE regarding Iraq that Correll has been spreading going on for nearly to two decades. 21SEP12-POST#554


NFBW wrote: So with that explanation, I must ask, if Correll wishes to change his answer from “ I would have been fine with that” to “ I would have NOT have been fine with that” Correll should man up and say it instead of pissing and moaning about what others do not understand. 21SEP12-POST#564


You need to clarify what you think is the conflict in my words, down to two sentences. Your current style gives you too much wiggle room to sleaze away when I crush your stupid point.


I will not respond to a point you have not clearly made. I've made that mistake with lefties before. You people are too dishonest and without shame.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
NFBW wrote: There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose - to disarm Iraq of WMD. - Do you ever back up your nation building lie with anything? You are a liar. 21SEP09-POST#532

Correll wrote: "ONE TRUE PURPOSE" - Dude. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES. 21SEP09-POST #534

NFBW wrote: The point on the table was that…….. “the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq has only ONE TRUE PURPOSE - to disarm Iraq of WMD”. …….And @Correll’s best shot at refuting that irrefutable fact is ……. “NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES”.……..What is that. Correll is lying because there is no fucking way that an idiot like Correll speaks for every single human being on the planet. And me citing the exact language that is written in the AUMF has absolutely nothing to do with people ‘thinking like machines” . Its called reading and understanding the most important historical and legal document produced in the ramp up to war in Iraq. But that is reality and Correll does not rely upon reality or any of the facts produced by reality in hIs perpetuation of his big lie that nation building was part of the reason Iraq was invaded and the IraqIs are to blame that the invasion was a failure. 21SEP12-POST#562

NFBW wrote: So the question I asked 21SEP09-POST#532 - if Correll ever backs up his nation building lie with anything, goes unanswered. Well the answer was absurd - “thinking like machines” - what kind of idiot am I dealing with here. 21SEP12-POST#562
 
Last edited:

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
NFBW wrote: There was no national debate whether to invade Iraq or not, including justifying war based on nation building as a strategic military tactic against terrorists, that took place ending with the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq with only one true purpose - to disarm Iraq of WMD. - Do you ever back up your nation building lie with anything? You are a liar. 21SEP09-POST#532

Correll wrote: "ONE TRUE PURPOSE" - Dude. NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES. 21SEP09-POST #534

NFBW wrote: The point on the table was that…….. “the AUMF that was passed in October 2002 authorizing the use of military force against Iraq has only ONE TRUE PURPOSE - to disarm Iraq of WMD”. …….And @Correll’s best shot at refuting that irrefutable fact is ……. “NO ONE IS BUYING YOUR BULLSHIT THAT PEOPLE THINK LIKE MACHINES”.……..What is that. Correll is lying because there is no fucking way that an idiot like Correll speaks for every single human being on the planet. And me citing the exact language that is written in the AUMF has absolutely nothing to do with people ‘thinking like machines” . Its called reading and understanding the most important historical and legal document produced in the ramp up to war in Iraq. But that is reality and Correll does not rely upon reality or any of the facts produced by reality in hIs perpetuation of his big lie that nation building was part of the reason Iraq was invaded and the IraqIs are to blame that the invasion was a failure. 21SEP12-POST#562

NFBW wrote: So the question I asked 21SEP09-POST#532 - if Correll ever backs up his nation building lie with anything, goes unanswered. Well the answer was absurd - “thinking like machines” - what kind of idiot am I dealing with here. 21SEP12-POST#562


You got a point, state in in clear english, not this insane self quoting shit you got going on here.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
1. Then what is the point of this line of discussion?

Because you lied when you said you were not aware at the time of the FACT that W had the option to avoid war if Afghanistan was being disarmed peacefully.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
Because you lied when you said you were not aware at the time of the FACT that W had the option to avoid war if Afghanistan was being disarmed peacefully.


I assueme you mean Iraq.


You are obviously just talking shit now.


I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.



It seems likely that you, having failed at all your other attempts, are now trying to gin up some...something, from out of context quotes on that, and my discussion of hypotheticals with you.


Bad faith bad actors like you, are why most people refuse to discuss hypotheticals.


Why are you so driven to spread hate and racism in America?
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
I
I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed.
it does not matter what you “believed”about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
I
it does not matter what you “believed”about peacefully disarming IRAQ. You lied when you said you were not aware of the fact that W had the option. You are a liar. That is the point.


YOu are focusing on a tree, so that you can avoid the forest, ie that you have revealed that you are here to troll, that you have no concern about this issue, other than how you can use it to smear White Christian Americans.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
YOu are focusing on a tree,


NO - I am focusing on a liar and that would be you. Lying is detrimental to the survival of my country and the continuation of our Democratic process. So it is import to confront liars - and specifically those who lie about why W invaded Iraq’s
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
NO - I am focusing on a liar and that would be you. Lying is detrimental to the survival of my country and the continuation of our Democratic process. So it is import to confront liars - and specifically those who lie about why W invaded Iraq’s


Are you sure you didn't want to mention how I am white and Christian in that post? Cause smearing those groups is really your goal here.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
Are you sure you didn't want to mention how I am white and Christian in that post? Cause smearing those groups is really your goal here

I only smear white Christians that lie. Christians of any color should not lie.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
I only smear white Christians that lie. Christians of any color should not lie.


You have admitted that you agree with the principle of collateral damage. That makes all you whining about it, bullshit.

AND that you almost ALWAYS lump that in with extensive repetitions of your enemies being White and Christian,


that shows that your motive AND goal, is bigotry and racism and hate and division.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
You have admitted that you agree with the principle of collateral damage.

NFBW wrote: Only when war is necessary to remove a real threat after all peaceful means have been exhausted such as disarming Iraq peacefully with support of the UN. 21SEP14-POST#572

NFBW wrote: You on the other hand support collateral damage because you are special (white, christian and racist) and you support killing Iraqis when they were no threat and you tell the UN they can go fuck themselves. 21SEP14-POST#572

Correll wrote:,I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983. reposted by NFBW 21SEP14-POST#572
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. The six out of ten Americans that were not racist RIGHT WING warmongers told pollsters just before the invasion started that they believed that it was realistically possible for Saddam to be disarmed peacefully.
21SEP14-POST#573
 
Last edited:

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
AND that you almost ALWAYS lump that in with extensive repetitions of your enemies being White and Christian,

NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have voted for white Christians and one black Christian twice to be President since the days of Tricky Dicky. My mother was white and Christian bless her heart. 21SEP14-POST#574
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
NFBW wrote: Only when war is necessary to remove a real threat after all peaceful means have been exhausted such as disarming Iraq peacefully with support of the UN. 21SEP14-POST#572

NFBW wrote: You on the other hand support collateral damage because you are special (white, christian and racist) and you support killing Iraqis when they were no threat and you tell the UN they can go fuck themselves. 21SEP14-POST#572

Correll wrote:,I am "special" in being an American Citizen. I have the Right of Sovereignty, and thus, can, as part of America wage war against enemies like Iraq, and the UN can go fuck itself.? POST#983. reposted by NFBW 21SEP14-POST#572


Excellent taking quotes out of context and then lying about the context.


The only reason to do that, is if you know you are the bad guy.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. ....


We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
NFBW wrote: You are a liar. I have voted for white Christians and one black Christian twice to be President since the days of Tricky Dicky. My mother was white and Christian bless her heart. 21SEP14-POST#574


Your denial is fucking stupid. Your intent on spreading hate and anti-white racism and bigotry is clear from your actions.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. 21SEP14-POST#573

Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote: No! We are discussing your lies. You say it is your belief that it was not realistically possible for SH to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. That false belief of yours refers to realistically what you say for the sake of argument was impossible for SH to do. So for the sake of argument I have injected the truth that SH was never obliged to comply with a lie, a false belief, a stupid rejection of reality that says SH could not give convincing evidence that Iraq was disarmed because that was not in reality what he was required to do. he needed to show cooperation and not obstruct the inspectors and that is what he did. It was W that obstructed the inspectors when he told them they best get out or be potential collateral damage. 21SEP14-POST#578
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
80,773
Reaction score
19,629
Points
2,220
Correll wrote: I don't believe that it was realistically possible for Saddam to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. 21SEP14-POST#565

NFBW wrote: SH was in no way obligated to conform to your belief. He provided sufficient behavior and conduct to convince the majority on the UNSC that disarming Iraq peacefully was the proper, life saving, morally correct, and wise way to go. SH convinced a 6 to 4 majority of a Americans that he and the inspectors should be given the time needed to disarm Iraq peacefully. 21SEP14-POST#573

Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote: No! We are discussing your lies. You say it is your belief that it was not realistically possible for SH to give convincing evidence that he had disarmed. That false belief of yours refers to realistically what you say for the sake of argument was impossible for SH to do. So for the sake of argument I have injected the truth that SH was never obliged to comply with a lie, a false belief, a stupid rejection of reality that says SH could not give convincing evidence that Iraq was disarmed because that was not in reality what he was required to do. he needed to show cooperation and not obstruct the inspectors and that is what he did. It was W that obstructed the inspectors when he told them they best get out or be potential collateral damage. 21SEP14-POST#578



Your words contradict themselves. DO you believe that I am "lying" or do you believe that I am operating under a "false belief"?


Because the two are mutually contradictory and you are conflating them, and attacking me as though both are true.


You are either so extremely ignorant of the way normal people think, because of your social disorder, that you cannot even intellectually understand it, yet you insist of trying and being an asshole based on your utterly failed attempt,


OR, you are just being a dishonest troll, throwing shit at your enemies, in pursuit of your goal of spreading hate and division in America.



I repeat my question, which is it...


No, fuck that.


Exxplain to me what the fuck is wrong with you, that you are operating with TWO utterly contradictory premises, and asking me to engage in dialog with someone who is basically so out of touch with reality that they are unable to even keep a consistent narrative within a single paragraph.
 

NotfooledbyW

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
14,218
Reaction score
2,092
Points
245
Correll wrote: We were discussing my beliefs. That Saddam is not obligated to conform to my beliefs, is something only a retarded asshole would say. 21SEP14-POST#576

NFBW wrote: In my hometown we had a guy who firmly believed that he was Elvis Presley‘s son. He also firmly believed that he had been cheated out of his inheritance which led to actions that were detrimental to society. Whenever he saw a nice big shiny Cadillac with the big tail fins stopped at a stoplight he would run in front and pound on it and yell at the owner that he was driving his car, the one that Elvis his father bequeathed to him. He was clearly crazy and society has no obligation to conform to his beliefs and ignore the detrimental actions that were aroused by a false belief. 21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: Similarly, Correll has a crazy false belief that it was not be possible for SH to prove that Iraq was in fact disarmed back in 2003. That insanity helped lead to the deaths of half a million Innocent Iraqis. It led to a war that cost Americans nearly 5000 military lives and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars. 21SEP14-POST#580

NFBW wrote: We as a society because of the detrimental effects of false beliefs and absurd opinions, have an obligation to put them away. Crazy is not good for democracy as we saw on Jan6 what happens when the Trump crazies decided to run amok of reality and were violently attempting to overturn the ejection. 21SEP14-POST#580
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top