I’m not Bosda, but I think he was commenting unfavorably on John Carter’s apparent belief that being in control is what’s important while exhibiting no concern about whether we’re heading in the right direction.
That just shows how bad a president he really is. Even out of those people ignorant enough to believe Iraq had strong ties to al Qaeda, he still didn’t get all their votes. Think about that: 64% believe his lies about why we invaded Iraq, but even then he only got 51% of the vote. Just imagine how an informed populace would have voted. :eek:
you beat me to it. . RTFA Spoofe, you numbskull.
Or it means that the war in Iraq was not the only issue concerning voters. Some of us are actually able to have two different thoughts at the same time.
Bingo.
Hey Bos! (and other concerned citizens) My post was directed solely at the OP, who has once again posted statistics and then claimed they say things they do not.
Then he once again insulted everybody that does not agree with him by calling them “gucks”.
One again he implys that he is more intelligent than the masses of the great unwashed, and once again he…
Oh well, you get the idea.
Anyway, my post should in no way be considered an indorsement of current public policy. If I decide to engage in a serious policy discussion, I probably won’t include a “stick out tongue” smiley.
Alot of people died before Hitlers regime was defeated, does that mean it was not worth it?
The Shia and Kurds are no longer oppressed, and I’ll grant the fact the Sunnis have been disenfranchised, but at least the other communities are trying to reach out to them, but they’re free from a tyrannical Baa’thist regime which would of destroyed Iraq eventually.
This assumes in the majority of cases, living in a state without a repressive apparatus and prospect of free democratic government is very worthwhile.
I would have thought that “gucks” was a snide reference to James Guckert, the gay prostitute who posed as Jeff Gannon, a “journalist” who was admitted to the White House press corps so he could lob softball questions to the president.
I guess not, though. Too bad.
That really is the perfect summary. You could play a recording of OBL condemning Saddamn and calling him an apostate (which he did), and it wouldn’t matter. Belief is impervious to data, as I’ve said many times. My only question: Is it willful ignorance? If yes, they’re immoral, and you can take a clear stand against that. But what if it’s no? What the hell do you do then? You can’t reason with the Borg. I suppose one can only wait to be attacked, such that the moral position of defense is established. Until then, you watch with dismay.
(Checking the rules) Yup. The first poster to mention Hitler loses.
Besides, bombs going off outside your mosque every week doesn’t count as oppression? Mass and serial murders of policemen and judges isn’t oppression? Gosh, I’m glad they’re not oppressed. Whew.
As Griffen pointed out, my OP exactly backs up my assertions. But I know that you used the term “lying fuck” because you think that will add credence to all the nothing you have to argue with. Whereas all it does is let me and all the others who read this thread know what sort of person you are – the sort of person who will use any opportunity to smear a political opponent, even saying things he knows is untrue. You’re well suited for a role in the Bush White House, I’ll give you that.
I confess. Through my secret liberal control of the Harris organization, I made them come up with stats I like. It’s grand to be so powerful.
Georgia.
Yeah, I was wondering about that one myself. It sounds badly phrased, or misquoted. Who would doubt that Saddam WANTED to get his hands on WMD’s? Hell, he gassed some Kurd villages back before Gulf War I. The key term would be, “was in imminent danger of getting WMDs and would have used them on the US or its allies.” That’s kinda what the Bushies were saying before the war. But as there’s not such statement in the cite, I didn’t comment on that one.
Disagree. But there’s reasonable room for debate on this one. Requires knowing the final outcome of the war, which we’re yet far from.
The other two positions are positions I’d take so there is little point in commenting on them. We are essentially in agreement.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, some were prolly willing to let George slide on Iraq so long as he fought the terrible scourges of Social Security and steroids in baseball.
Well, since it’s directed at me, I’ll respond. First of all, show me where the stats mean something differnet from what I said they did. Be specific. You can do it – can’t you? And try for Ghod’s sake to point out substantive differences, differences where my intent was clearly to mislead, not nitpicks.
I did not call everyone who disagreed me a guck, I defined gucks quite clearly in my response to Lux Fiat, and it would exclude you and everyone on this board, since most of you clearly get your news online and from other sources that are more “in depth” than TV talking heads.
All you need to do is take a shower, and you’re right outta that unwashed demographic. A LIBERAL shower … BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
If by this you mean you have nothing to contribute, we already knew that.
I did a Google search to see if I could find a listing of hate radio stations, but had not luck. Guedss there’s no such official FCC designation. I did find a list of things said by particular hate radio speakers. See if this link does’t curdled your onions:
Uh, is your middle name “Normal” by any chance?
When we deciding whether Iraqis are ‘better off’ now, do we include the dead ones or not? :dubious:
Or the ones in prison camps? The ones who have been tortured? The ones who are maimed and disabled for life? Who have lost family members?
I doubt very much if they feel that they are ‘better off’ after America’s illegal invasion of their country.
