posted 07-23-2003 02:15 PM            

man I remember when chemtrails first started up it was full of nuts but atleast they were rightwing nuts !

sheesh

btw, eggs you have serious mental problems....

posted 07-23-2003 02:20 PM            

Bush and his creepy crew of liars.

posted 07-23-2003 05:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastwalker:
[B]The question is not even whether British intelligence was faulty or not. We do not yet know that British intelligence was faulty because their assertions were not based on the forged document you are referring to. MI-6 had many other sources, and they are still standing by that intelligence. To state that the intelligence is KNOWN to be false is a lie, by your own definition. We do not yet know that…and you are therefore guilty of hypocrisy. You are assuming something to be a lie without fact to back your assumption up.

---

No, I am using the actions of Bush's aides and advisors to show that the information they used to make the statement in Bush's SOTU address was not the truth. If it was so bulletproof, why then are so many falling on their swords to protect Bush?

That, coupled with much that has been shown in the media, a media who up until this story about the forged documents really broke, was pretty much behind Bush 100% in regards to the war in Iraq, shows to me that something is wrong with the entire situation.

I never claimed to have the whole picture, but we are not being shown the truth. Make all the personal attacks you want, if you fail to use logic and reason you are simply showing yourself to be another mindless drone of the state.

posted 07-23-2003 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

No, I am using the actions of Bush's aides and advisors to show that the information they used to make the statement in Bush's SOTU address was not the truth. If it was so bulletproof, why then are so many falling on their swords to protect Bush?;

---

Now wait a minute. You can’t logically have it both ways. You can’t say Bush is personally responsible for lying (in a statement that was subsequently proven to be correct) and now claim that his aids and advisors are responsible for the statements…Which is it? Are Bush’s aids and advisors responsible for the accuracy of the statement, or is Bush? Furthermore, how can someone knowingly “lie” when they are saying something they believe to be correct….when they are trusting advisors to give them truthful information? Answer; They can’t! A lie requires that the liar knows the truth and is KNOWINGLY and consciously stating something they KNOW to be false. This is not what Bush did on two counts that you admit to now. Firstly, as you admit by proxy, the statement itself cannot be a lie because it is “technically correct”. Secondly, the statement cannot be a lie because Bush trusted his advisors to give him truthful information. There was no knowing intent to deceive according to your own unwitting admission. How could there be a knowing intent to deceive on the part of Bush when Bush trusted the information from his advisors? Bush was truthfully making a statement which he trusted to be true, and which later was proven to be true and correct. The British still stand by their intelligence that Saddam attempted to purchase Uranium from Africa, as Bush TRUTHFULLY said in his SOTU address. Damn….you people are not only ignorant, you are maliciously ignorant.

Let’s talk about what is REALLY going on here. Upon examination, a rational person quickly sees that the whole concept of attacking Bush over 16 words is a basket case of desperate stupidity, that just doesn’t make any sense, like the entire leftist/ liberal rationale…..except as an indication of lack of Democrat ideas as an election approaches. They have nothing they stand for, no reason why anyone should vote for them…so they have to resort to making these stupid, non-sensical attacks that are not based on reality….because they have absolutely nothing else.

As to people falling on their swords, I don’t think an aid admitting responsibility for ignoring the CIA memos is falling on their sword. It could just happen to be the truth. Did you ever think of that? I think the true mistake here is Bush sending out people to apologize for including the irrelevant, inconsequential statement in the SOTU address in the first place. The 16 words are true. No need to apologize. They are also not the rationale for the war, not even an incidental or supplemental argument for the war as the lying left so desperately wants you to believe, so those words are inconsequential and meaningless.

quote:

---

That, coupled with much that has been shown in the media, a media who up until this story about the forged documents really broke, was pretty much behind Bush 100% in regards to the war in Iraq, shows to me that something is wrong with the entire situation.

---

The media has never been behind Bush. The idea that you thought they were shows a profound level of ignorance on your part. The mainstream media has always sided with Democrats but they had to create the illusion of objectivity over the war because they knew it would be tantamount to ratings suicide to appear to be against the war when the American people were overwhelmingly behind it. The so-called mainstream media hates Bush, Republicans and conservative thought, but they love ratings. Stirring up controversy gets ratings. That’s why they are doing this. No mystery here. The media is the lap dog of the Democrats…They have always been…They are overwhelmingly biased towards leftist ideas, that’s why Democrats don’t have to pay for getting their propaganda out there. The media is all too willing to do it for free. It’s about time you woke up and smelled the bacon.

quote:

---

I never claimed to have the whole picture, but we are not being shown the truth. Make all the personal attacks you want, if you fail to use logic and reason you are simply showing yourself to be another mindless drone of the state.

---

I have seen no signs of logic and reason from any one of you lefties. You are a tool for the leftist agenda…and you don’t even know it. You accuse me of that which you are guilty. My logic not been proven incorrect. Instead of addressing my logic you obscure it with 5 pages of irrelevant posts…you attempt to change the subject and I have to keep trying to put you back on track. Your reasoning, in contrast, has been proven flawed. Think about it…what I’m telling you here is not a personal attack. See for yourself…Read back the tread to observe that what I’m saying is absolutely true.

quote:

---

You happened to find a little niche from where you can safely defend your political paradigm from, and I can't see a way to get you out of it, so I will simply move on and waste no more time on you.

---

And what little niche would that be? If you are referring to the indisputable facts that the 16 words were NOT a lie, as you and people like you are currently falsely claiming, for no other purpose than an attempt to assassinate Bush’s character, then you have to understand that this is not a little niche. This is a current event that you leftist idiots won’t get off of. As soon as you have your stupid arguments blown out of the water, however you want to move on and just let the idea of guilt by accusation remain. Like I said, this argument has no basis in truth. All the Democrats are trying to do is baselessly demonize the president so they can regain power. Then, when a conservative Republican correctly tries to deal with the facts, you run away because you know the facts are your enemy. It was never your intent to get at facts. You know your arguments are baseless lies. Your only purpose is to destroy Bush at all costs. Well…it’s about time Republicans grew a backbone and didn’t let you demonocratic piss-ants get away with it. This is not a niche….it is only the first step in dealing with each one of your false accusations about Bush, one by one.

In this particular instance, we’ve established that you and your ilk cannot answer the question, just as I’ve been saying all along. Where in the statement did Bush lie? The correct answer is that there was no lie there…See the problem is that in accepting that fact, you have to accept the truth. Leftists do not deal in truth, therefore you could not answer the question honestly.

The question remains un-answered. My point remains valid. This thread is about questions that leftist idiots can't answer. Well named, wasn't it?

posted 07-23-2003 07:15 PM            

"I'm Fastwalker and I love to twist everyones words around to appear that Bush is not a liar..even though he is."

And a murderer.

Like I said...Talking to you is like clapping with one hand.

If the media is biased at all it's towards the NEO-CON agenda.

Thus far they have been complete lapdogs of Bu$h's policies.

But...you can't blame the media for what BUSH HAS DONE.

posted 07-23-2003 07:27 PM            

Point is Mech; just because I make a statement, does that make it true? If this is the sum total of your intellectual argument, that just making inflammatory statements without even addressing actual facts or the points you disagree with on a true or factual level, makes them true by just the weight of the accusation alone, then I guess the above statement is true as well....(I realize that was a run-on ten dollar sentence...but deal with it).

posted 07-23-2003 07:32 PM            

If you want to protect liars and people that are ruining this country and pulling out it's constitutional foundation and roots..be my guest.

I will oppose it 100% at every opportunity.

Bu$h the liar has to go.

posted 07-23-2003 07:52 PM            

And so far, you have not established that Bush lied about anything. That's what we are dealing with first on this thread. We are examining each accusation you are making about Bush lying, one at a time, as a point that leftist idiots like yourself, cannot answer questions honestly and cannot back up their claims when their accusations are examined in the harsh light of honest truth. So far, you haven't been able to back up the claim that Bush's 16 words in the SOTU address was a lie. In fact, we've now established that Bush’s statement was indisputable truth.

You know what that means Mech? That means people like you who claim Bush is a liar are liars themselves. We haven't yet established where Bush lied about anything yet, starting with the leftist accusation about the 16 words.

Your other baseless and outrageous accusation is that Bush is a murderer. Well in 3500 posts, you sure haven't proven or backed up that claim. You haven't even shown reasoning beyond making a baseless outrageous statement….that’s how completely shallow you are.

Like I said, Mech is a flaming homosexual who likes to rape family pets and appear on Jerry Springer. People are far more likely to believe that baseless statement than your baseless statements because you have absolutely NO credibility at this point. I have credibility whether you like it or not, because I have backed up each statement I make with logic you haven’t been able to counter yet. In fact, I’ve noticed that none of you lefties even try. You change the subject, try distraction or leave in a huff. My claim that lefties cannot and will not face truth remains valid as evidenced by your own responses.

You, on the other hand, have no credibility because you demonstrate with each and every post that you don't have the intellectual capacity to back up even ONE argument out of over 3500 posts with anything approaching fact, logic or line of reasoning.

posted 07-23-2003 08:46 PM            

Since national Democrats have literally no agenda on which to base their upcoming presidential and congressional campaigns, they continue to carp at President Bush. While it is important to defend Bush against these specious charges, it is also time to take the offensive.

How would things be different today if Al Gore's henchmen had succeeded in hijacking the election? How will they be different if one of the nine Democratic candidates or Hillary unseats Bush in 2004?

Well, it's impossible to be sure what they would have done and would do in the future, but we can make reasonable assumptions based on positions they have already taken.

At every step, with a few brief, cosmetic exceptions, they've impeded, if not outright opposed, President Bush's efforts in the War on Terror. Based on their public statements we have a right to assume they very likely would have chosen the following courses of action and inaction (unless, of course, you prefer to believe they didn't mean what they said and were only criticizing Bush for the sake of scoring partisan politic points). They likely would have:

approached Afghanistan and its Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorist camps with extreme trepidation, based on their stated fears that we were headed for a Vietnam-like quagmire. To be honest, I can't imagine that Al Gore or any of these other Democratic presidential aspirants would have acted decisively in Afghanistan. A few volleys of cruise missiles and a lot of lectern-thumping speeches, perhaps, but definitive action against Afghanistan truly is hard to imagine.

conferred greater rights on enemy combatants in Guantanamo and elsewhere, and tied the hands of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies. We tend to overlook the extraordinary record of law enforcement and domestic security in thwarting further terrorist attacks on the mainland. The absence of attacks to this point speaks volumes, yet we hear nothing but criticism of our domestic security efforts.

conferred on France, Germany and various international bodies veto power over our decision to attack Iraq. They undoubtedly would have continued with weapons inspections in perpetuity – assuming they ever could have obtained Saddam's permission for inspectors to re-enter, keeping in mind that he didn't agree to do so until we got American troops into the theater poised to strike, which deployment they largely opposed. We may assume they would have allowed Saddam to continue to violate the U.N. resolutions with impunity.

not taken significant action on the homeland security front or military action against Afghanistan or Iraq, based on their relentless criticism of President Bush's deficit spending. It is objectively provable that Bush inherited an economy in recession, that the economy suffered dramatic losses because of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, that we've had to spend enormous sums rebuilding a military that Bill Clinton had overextended and depleted, and that the actions against Afghanistan and Iraq cost billions of dollars.
Bush's tax cuts, discounting dynamic scoring, will have played but a fractional part, if any, in increasing the deficit. So either they should tell us what part of the national security spending they would have foregone, which further wasteful domestic spending programs they wouldn't have thrown more money at despite their promises to do so, or how they would have jump-started the sluggish economy they bestowed upon President Bush. Tax increases, perhaps?

not taken military action against Iraq for the further reasons that they could not have predicted with certainty how long it would take and how much it would cost, nor guaranteed that our troops would be immune from terrorist attacks in Iraq following the initial phase of the war, nor that a suitable democratic government would emerge free of challenges and problems. This is based on their ridiculous hand wringing against Donald Rumsfeld (and others) for his refusal to predict the "unknowable" and their daily harangues that our war efforts were poorly conceived based on the casualties and difficulties that persist despite our victory. I could go on and on, but the point is that Democrats need to be held accountable for their criticisms. It's time for them to go beyond the character attacks and answer the question of what, specifically, they would have done differently.

posted 07-23-2003 08:57 PM            

that is wrong to rightwing fascists who exult in deaths of american troops in Iraq/ without cause.

Not invading a sovereign nation
without cause

is something conservative cultists obsess over.

Wrong to let Saddam/ bush family ally continue to do as the US has enabled him to do.

Why did not we invade Kruschev's RUSSIA or Mao's China or rescue Camobodians from Pot Pol?

Because those rightwing dictatorships (and their genocides) served the goals of the New World Order conservatives.

Decimation of non-white populations in service to rockefeller NWO goals.

Wealthy whites ruling over all others.

posted 07-23-2003 09:04 PM            

Someone please wake Shitoga up from his drug induced stupor and ask him what the hell he's talking about and how it pertains to reality...Then call the men in the white suits. I'm just afraid Shitoga might try to operate heavy machinery in this condition.

(I think Happy Acres will reserve him a room next to Crazy Larry...)

posted 07-23-2003 09:34 PM            

11 nations join plan to stop N. Korean ships

By Barbara Slavin, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is preparing to tighten an economic noose around North Korea, even as it considers new talks to persuade the regime of Kim Jong Il to give up nuclear weapons.
The administration has lined up 10 other nations to join a so-called proliferation security initiative. These countries — Japan, Australia, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Bulgaria and Spain — have agreed to intercept North Korean ships suspected of carrying weapons and illegal drugs, major sources of hard currency for Kim's government.

A State Department official who is familiar with the program but asks not to be named says, "We're ready to rock and roll right now" on the interception program. "All we need is actionable intelligence" on a suspect North Korean shipment, he says.

Despite administration assurances that it seeks a diplomatic solution to the crisis, State Department officials are not optimistic about the prospects for new talks, which could take place as early as next month in Beijing. "No one has a good, new solution to this problem," one concedes.

U.S. intelligence shows that North Korea is accelerating its nuclear program by reprocessing used reactor fuel. It could produce enough plutonium for a half-dozen bombs this year, in addition to the two bombs' worth it is believed to have had for a decade. The regime's goal is to ensure its survival and deter attacks by becoming the world's ninth nuclear arms power. The others: the United States, Russia, Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India and Israel.

The Bush administration says it is willing to talk to North Korea, but only if Pyongyang agrees that diplomats from Japan and South Korea, as well as China, eventually take part. Diplomats are trying to craft a common position to present to North Korea. But an Asian official in Washington says the administration is reluctant even to call the position a "proposal," for fear of looking like it is following the route of the Clinton administration. In 1994, that administration traded economic and political concessions for a North Korean freeze of its nuclear program. That agreement capped plutonium production, but it unraveled last fall after North Korea admitted that it had a second, secret program to make enriched uranium for bombs.

"We've made it very clear that we will not give in to blackmail," White House spokesman Scott McClellan says. He denies published reports that the administration was considering offering a formal security guarantee if North Korea gave up its nuclear program.

Victor Cha, a North Korea expert at Georgetown University, calls the Bush approach "the least worst option. Putting multilateral pressure on the regime has never been tried before."

Others say the administration squandered a chance to slow North Korea's nuclear development two years ago when it dropped the Clinton strategy of one-on-one negotiations and began branding the Kim regime as "evil."

"In the last two years, we've convinced the North Koreans that we're out to get them," says Robert Einhorn, a proliferation expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Einhorn negotiated with the North Koreans under the Clinton administration.

Kenneth Quinones, a former Korea analyst for the State Department, says the United States has three options for dealing with Pyongyang, all of them "just absolutely appalling":

• Attack North Korea and risk retaliation that would kill more than a million South Koreans and many U.S. troops.

• Hope the Chinese, who provide 70% of North Korea's fuel and a third of its food, "will pull the rug out from under" Pyongyang. That could lead to a deeper humanitarian crisis in North Korea and massive refugee flows but not necessarily bring down the regime.

• Learn to live with a nuclear North Korea.

Failure to contain the program could have dire consequences.

posted 07-23-2003 09:43 PM            

Caught on tape, here in California;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33712

posted 07-23-2003 09:49 PM            

Note that the leftists here on this board have yet to answer the following question;

"Where is the lie in these 16 words?"

quote:

---

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

---

Look at the subject of this thread and tell me if it wasn't well named...Another question that leftist idiots can't answer. Could I get more right? I don't think so.

posted 07-23-2003 10:30 PM            

Congrats RW minions.

posted 07-23-2003 10:49 PM            

quote:

---

devoid ov content ywet all praising bush.

---

posted 07-23-2003 10:53 PM            

"Where is the lie in these 16 words?"

quote:

---

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

---

posted 07-24-2003 12:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fastwalker:
Ok....now I'm starting to feel sorry for Shatoga. It does look like there is some self medication involved here....What you need Shatoga is to start thinking positively, start searching for truth instead of negatives all the time. In other words, become a Republican. I think that will get you out of that depression and cycle of self abuse you seem to be in.

---

but I was a well connected Republican until I learned to think for myself

and realized the parody of my party was feeding us all a load of BS.