I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not.
What gives you the right to lie like that?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Republicans try but can't change history
- Thread starter Astrostar
- Start date
I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not.
What gives you the right to lie like that?
NFBW wrote: Everything you say in 21SEP20-POST#609 Is a lie. The discussion about ānormalā was as it relates to your estrangement from reality when it comes to knowledge and knowable facts in regards to the ramp up to the March 2003 Wās decision to invade Iraq. HERE Is WHAT WENT DOWN for the record. 21SEP20-POST#615
i stopped reading here. You are lying even more now. My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines.
You are drifting more and more into the realm of nonsense, as you search for excuses to keep spamming your anti-American, and anti-White and anti-Christian hate.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines. 21SEP22-POST#622
NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: What was that (your specific) ādifferent reasonā prior to the actual start of the invasion on March 19, 2003? 21SEP22-POST#623
NFBW wrote: Your answer cannot be ānation buildingā because you have told me that you didnāt support ānation buildingā until after W took down the government in Iraq in order to find the WMD that was allegedly being hidden there. So what is your ādifferent reasonā ? 21SEP22-POST#623
NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: What was that (your specific) ādifferent reasonā prior to the actual start of the invasion on March 19, 2003? 21SEP22-POST#623
NFBW wrote: Your answer cannot be ānation buildingā because you have told me that you didnāt support ānation buildingā until after W took down the government in Iraq in order to find the WMD that was allegedly being hidden there. So what is your ādifferent reasonā ? 21SEP22-POST#623
Correll wrote: My reference to normal was the way people make decisions based on many factors, while you keep trying to pretend they are like machines. 21SEP22-POST#622
NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: What was that (your specific) ādifferent reasonā prior to the actual start of the invasion on March 19, 2003? 21SEP22-POST#623
NFBW wrote: Your answer cannot be ānation buildingā because you have told me that you didnāt support ānation buildingā until after W took down the government in Iraq in order to find the WMD that was allegedly being hidden there. So what is your ādifferent reasonā ? 21SEP22-POST#623
Yeah, we covered that repeatedly.
Why are you pretending we did not? Are you still trying to milk the stupid Wally gig, to just keep spamming your hate?
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not. 21SEP22-POST#622
NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to respond to the fact that you and I are in full agreement as shown below? Your pissing and moaning has included that I took your words out of context to make it look like we are in agreement. But itās true that we are in agreement on not supporting the invasion going in but supporting the troops on the nation building after the disastrous decision that W made to kick the inspectors out and start the war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP22-POST#625
Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428
NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that donāt we? I donāt see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615
NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to respond to the fact that you and I are in full agreement as shown below? Your pissing and moaning has included that I took your words out of context to make it look like we are in agreement. But itās true that we are in agreement on not supporting the invasion going in but supporting the troops on the nation building after the disastrous decision that W made to kick the inspectors out and start the war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP22-POST#625
Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428
NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that donāt we? I donāt see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615
Last edited:
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Yeah, we covered that repeatedly
NFBW WROTE: You are a liar because you have not told us what the ādifferent reasonā other than NATION BUILDING made you support the invasion prior to the start from one side of your forked tongue while the other side of your forked tongue says you didnāt support the decision to invade going in? 21SEP22-POST#626
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: It is obvious from all that Correll posts, that he cannot explain how he did not support the invasion going in for any reason, on the one hand but he supported it, going in, for a different reason that was not WMD related or to do nation building. He is tangled in his own web of lies about the ramp up to war in Iraq in MARCH 2003. 21SEP22-POST#627
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: It is obvious from all that Correll posts, that he cannot explain how he did not support the invasion going in for any reason, on the one hand but he supported it, going in, for a different reason that was not WMD related or to do nation building. He is tangled in his own web of lies about the ramp up to war in Iraq in MARCH 2003. 21SEP22-POST#627
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240
NFBW wrote: Do you, Correll have a date or event specific for when the FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE? Was it the date that the AUMF was passed? If so, you can type three letters Y E S or iF NO then type the date you have off the top of your head that you think it took place. That will be easier than pissing and moaning that you gave an answer already and itās been covered. 21SEP22-POST#628
NFBW wrote: Do you, Correll have a date or event specific for when the FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE? Was it the date that the AUMF was passed? If so, you can type three letters Y E S or iF NO then type the date you have off the top of your head that you think it took place. That will be easier than pissing and moaning that you gave an answer already and itās been covered. 21SEP22-POST#628
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: The case for war was not solely based on wmds. you are now lying. Again. 21JUN07-POST#1519
Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240
NFBW wrote: You donāt have to speculate Correll that W āwould have had a difficult time going to warā because W revealed that he was prepared and willing to back off on the push and necessity for war if Iraq had been determined by the UNSC to be disarmed. W drafted and circulated a DRAFT RESOLUTION that said exactly what had to happen for W to make the decision that there would be no war and SH could stay in power. See partial transcript below: 21SEP22-POST#629
āāā Partial Text of UN draft resolution setting March 17 deadline for disarmament By Associated Press, 3/7/2003
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of Resolution 1441 (2002);
2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by Resolution -687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such i 03MAR07-DRtoUNSConIRAQ āāā
NO WAR @Correl IF āāon or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems āā
Correll wrote: As events and discussions continued AFTER THE FORMAL CASE FOR WAR WAS MADE, President Bush allowed himself to be painted into a corner, where if Saddam had provided undeniable proof that he was disarmed, that he would have had a difficult time going to war, with that one pound weight removed. 21AUG18-POST#3240
NFBW wrote: You donāt have to speculate Correll that W āwould have had a difficult time going to warā because W revealed that he was prepared and willing to back off on the push and necessity for war if Iraq had been determined by the UNSC to be disarmed. W drafted and circulated a DRAFT RESOLUTION that said exactly what had to happen for W to make the decision that there would be no war and SH could stay in power. See partial transcript below: 21SEP22-POST#629
āāā Partial Text of UN draft resolution setting March 17 deadline for disarmament By Associated Press, 3/7/2003
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
1. Reaffirms the need for full implementation of Resolution 1441 (2002);
2. Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3. Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by Resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by Resolution -687 (1991) and all subsequent resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such i 03MAR07-DRtoUNSConIRAQ āāā
NO WAR @Correl IF āāon or before 17 March 2003, the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under Resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems āā
Last edited:
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP22-POST#612
NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW wrote: As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalistsā Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW 21SEP23-POST#6 wrote: I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this:
āāā Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called āreligious voteā for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who donāt attend church, compared to those who do.
BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020ā
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
www.lsu.edu
Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church. 20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A āāā
NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW wrote: As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalistsā Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#6
NFBW 21SEP23-POST#6 wrote: I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this:
āāā Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called āreligious voteā for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who donāt attend church, compared to those who do.
BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020ā
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
Explaining the Religious Vote for Trump
New research by Louisiana State University (LSU) sociologists indicate it wasnāt Christian nationalism that drove churchgoersā Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church. 20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A āāā
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: In my context, I was making a point about your inability to understand how normal people think, ie with multiple factors considered and complexity and nuance. 21SEP22-POST#612
NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW wrote: As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalistsā Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631 wrote: I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this:
āāā Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called āreligious voteā for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who donāt attend church, compared to those who do.
BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020ā
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
www.lsu.edu
Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church. 20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A āāā
END of NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW wrote: I do not believe that you Correll get to classify yourself as a normal person who thinks and regards me as a not normal person who cannot understand and appreciate you and your refined complexity. There are a lot of you, but you do not represent any kind of majority that makes you normal and those unlike you to be grouped as abnormal and too stupid to understand your nonsense. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW wrote: As a white non-churchgoing Christian nationalist Trump supporter your expressed thoughts are obsessively filled with lies and with shaded facts that you insist that anyone calling out your lies simply cannot understand the nuance and complexity of how an unchurched white Christian nationalistsā Trump supporting mind works. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW wrote: I contend that your secular belief that America was founded as a white Protestant Christian nation combined with your incomprehensible moral justification and nonchalant ambivalence for the killing of a single Muslim inhabitant of Iraq let alone half a million, for the purpose of nation building by use of deadly American military power and force combined with your false accusations against the peaceful Black Lives Matter protests combined with your refusal to accept that Trump lost the 2020 election due to fraudulent votes cast by large numbers of black voters in major cities excludes you from being considered a normal person. 21SEP23-POST#631
NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631 wrote: I think you should be the poster TRUMP child for sociological studies such as this:
āāā Explaining the religious vote for Trump
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The researchers were not surprised to see how Christian nationalism drove a big part of the so-called āreligious voteā for Trump in 2016, but quite surprised to see that the connection was so strong for voters who donāt attend church, compared to those who do.
BATON ROUGE, November 9, 2020ā
Research News - New research by LSU sociologists indicate it wasn't Christian nationalism that drove churchgoers' Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
Explaining the Religious Vote for Trump
New research by Louisiana State University (LSU) sociologists indicate it wasnāt Christian nationalism that drove churchgoersā Trump vote in 2016. Rather, surprisingly, Christian nationalism was important among non-churchgoers.
Christian nationalism is thought to have been an important factor in the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016--and likely drove many of his supporters to the polls in 2020. Now, new research shows Christian nationalist support of Trump isn't tied to religious institutions or attending church on a regular basis. Instead, it's tied to not attending church. 20SEP09-CN-LSU-unchurched-A āāā
END of NFBW 21SEP23-POST#631
Last edited:
Colin norris
Platinum Member
- Apr 25, 2021
- 10,427
- 4,109
- 928
- Banned
- #632
1. They were not "white nationalists", you are a lying asshole.
2. Lefty agitators being responsible is a reasonable suspicion. We've seen one on tape.
3. Most republicans are happy to agree that the 1/6 riot, was a riot and that it was a violent crime.
4. YOu are a lying asshole.
They were white supremeists and republicans. Not one Democrat participated and you have no evidence to support that. You are a lying hate filled pig.
You've had 6 months to openly condemn it and castigate trump for it but you sat on your hands through sheer loyalty to the idiot. You are a patriots bootlace.
Now you're rooting for a return of the fascist idiot.
You loopies are enough to make people vomit. You're a disgrace to the nation.
CNN, the leader in fake news fact checking? LOL!
Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.www.cnn.com
Because history is what it is. Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
We know better! It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States. Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are: enemies of the American people.
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: DJT can spout off about his personal opinion, and that is fine. I clearly disagree with him. 21AUG21-POST#3294
DJT SEPTEMBER 22 2021 wrote: āBush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," Trump wrote 21SEP22-DJT-email trashingW
NFBW wrote: IF I agree with DJT that āBush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," does that make me a ānormal person ā or is that more of the same America trashing and anti-Christian hate that youāve been sniffing out. 21SEP23-POST#634
DJT SEPTEMBER 22 2021 wrote: āBush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," Trump wrote 21SEP22-DJT-email trashingW
NFBW wrote: IF I agree with DJT that āBush is the one who got us into the quicksand of the Middle East and, after spending trillions of dollars and killing nearly a million people, the Middle East was left in worse shape after 21 years than it was when he started his stupidity," does that make me a ānormal person ā or is that more of the same America trashing and anti-Christian hate that youāve been sniffing out. 21SEP23-POST#634
NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 24,301
- 4,765
- 245
Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid. Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216
NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635
Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639
surada asked Correll : What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq? 21MAY22-POST#1010
Correll wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016
Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne.
NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635
Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639
surada asked Correll : What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq? 21MAY22-POST#1010
Correll wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016
Correll wrote: But yes. believing that the Iraqis were yearning for Freedom and Democracy was pretty stupid. Next time we should just put some sane person on a throne. POST #216 November 17 2015 15NOV17-POST#216
NFBW wrote: Will the real Correll please stand up? 21SEO23-POST#635
Correll wrote: Newt Gingrich and Charles Krauthammer made a convincing argument and got me to believe that an Arab population was ready to support a democratic government, and that such a functioning nation in the middle of the ME would be our answer to Islam. 21MAY11POST#639
surada asked Correll : What exactly did you hope to gain by war on Iraq? 21MAY22-POST#1010
Correll wrote: A functioning Muslim democracy in the middle of the Middle East, as a counter argument to the ideas of Islamic Fundamentalism. 21MAY22-POST#1016
Muslims have their own consultative forms like Shoura Council and Majlis.. Its arrogant as hell to think the US can jam them up to be like us.
Concern yourself with Christian fundamentalism and leave other countries alone to come into modernity in their own unique way.
Krauthammer was an idiot propagandist.
Otis Mayfield
Diamond Member
- Sep 17, 2021
- 4,904
- 4,821
- 1,893
Fact check: Some Republicans have tried to rewrite the history of January 6. Here's how | CNN Politics
When the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6 convenes for the first time, it will be against a backdrop of Republican objections and falsehoods.
Because history is what it is. Despite the efforts of Trump and his Cult members in Congress to rewrite it to reflect positively on Trump, theirs is a lost cause.
Trump and his disciples, since January 6 have tried over and over to convince the American people that the insurrection was caused by Antifa, was a peaceful event with lots of love in the air or was just a guided tour of the Capital building.
We know better! It was an aggressive attempt by white nationalists, inspired by Trump, to take over the government of the United States. Anyone who sees it in a different light is not a loyal, patriotic American, but rather is a Trump disciple who places him above the Constitution of the United States and the welfare of the majority of the American people.
Today's congressional hearing will expose the Trump people who tried to storm the Capital for what they really are: enemies of the American people.
'We won this election, and we won it by a landslide'
'We will stop the steal'
'We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen'
'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'
'We are going to the Capitol'
Idiot threw gasoline on a fire. He should at least be force to pay all the legal fees of the people he duped.
Correll wrote: I'm interested in where you got off taking my comment completely out of context and pretending that it meant something it did not. 21SEP22-POST#622
NFBW wrote: Are you ever going to respond to the fact that you and I are in full agreement as shown below? Your pissing and moaning has included that I took your words out of context to make it look like we are in agreement. But itās true that we are in agreement on not supporting the invasion going in but supporting the troops on the nation building after the disastrous decision that W made to kick the inspectors out and start the war that ended up killing half a million Iraqis. 21SEP22-POST#625
Correll wrote: I did not support the invasion until AFTER THE FACT, and gave my support to the nation building once we were committed as a nation. 21SEP03-POST#428
NFBW wrote: By the way I did not support the invasion going in, however I gave my support to our fighting men and women in uniform to their nation building process once we were committed as a nation. So we agree on that donāt we? I donāt see anything out of context. 21SEP20-POST#615
We have covered all of that ad nauseum.
What we have no discussed in your increasingly use of dishonestly to give yourself a...pretense to spew your anti-American, anti-white and anti-Christian bigotry and hate.
I'm serious. How do you justify that to yourself? DO you tell yourself this is a game so lying is ok?
Do you tell yourself, since your goal is undermining Evul America, that the ends justify the means?
What is your justification for your increasingly bad behavior?
NFBW WROTE: You are a liar because you have not told us what the ādifferent reasonā other than NATION BUILDING made you support the invasion prior to the start from one side of your forked tongue while the other side of your forked tongue says you didnāt support the decision to invade going in? 21SEP22-POST#626
Yeah, i did. A lot. You are now just lying a lot.
Do you realize that when you lie in a debate, you are admitting that you know you have lost the debate?
NFBW wrote: Normally being unconvinced about the reason for launching the invasion of Iraq would cause a person to affirm that they did not support it going in. 21SEP18-POST#597
Correll wrote: Because my support for the war was for a different reason and because it is not yet clear if that reason will bear fruit or not. 21SEP19-POST#601
NFBW wrote: It is obvious from all that Correll posts, that he cannot explain how he did not support the invasion going in for any reason, on the one hand but he supported it, going in, for a different reason that was not WMD related or to do nation building. He is tangled in his own web of lies about the ramp up to war in Iraq in MARCH 2003. 21SEP22-POST#627
We covered all of that. I see two possibilities at this point in time.
1. YOu really can't deal with the nuance and complexity of normal human thinking. In which case seek medical advice.
2. YOu are just talking shit, to give yourself an excuse to spam your bullshit. In which case, stop being an asshole.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 558
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 74
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 352
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 35
- Poll
- Replies
- 126
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8073
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-