Al Qaida threat worse under Obama

[ConHog]

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

well in fact , here is the vote on the resolution.


House of Rep

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0


The House Dems were predominantly against is while the Senate Dems were pretty much supportive of the invasion. Case closed.

And I never disputed that. I posted the vote earlier. Again, my point was that there were Democrats who supported the invasion. The votes make my point. We are in agreement.

Yes, was just telling you how things worked. The vote meant nothing as far as if we were going.

 

[sangha]

If I remember correctly the argument at the time was just as much would Saddam give the technology to terrorists as it was would Saddam use them himself. So even if you debate that he had viable chemical material himself, you can't debate that he obviously had the technical know ho and was a big of enough asshole to give it to our enemies.

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

 

[Jack Fate]

well in fact , here is the vote on the resolution.


House of Rep

Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

Senate

Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0


The House Dems were predominantly against is while the Senate Dems were pretty much supportive of the invasion. Case closed.

And I never disputed that. I posted the vote earlier. Again, my point was that there were Democrats who supported the invasion. The votes make my point. We are in agreement.

Yes, was just telling you how things worked. The vote meant nothing as far as if we were going.

I agree. We were going. My point is that there was a lot of support to invade Iraq, but the left wants to blame Bush like he was a rogue President just doing wild things and out there alone. They are dishonest.

 

[Jack Fate]

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

You're challenging me? Oh that's what you're doing. I thought you were just rambling the usual lefty crap and posting the usual lefty pictures. I haven't seen anything you're right about. I posted the quotes from Dems who believed Saddam was a threat and that was before Bush was President. You're the one who claimed the dems voted for the invasion on the basis of Bush's info. Are you drunk? You're so dishonest that you had to edit my post. Funny you should talk about "guts" when you're the dishonest one around here.

 

[asaratis]

You didn't answer my question. Why did Bush go through congress?

Jack, I'm gonna tell you the reason. You can take it or leave it as you see fit, but it is the reason.


Because the President is certainly authorized to deploy troops under the War Powers Act, but he is also required by the same law to report to Congress when he does so. Now in smaller situations he simply has a staff member report to a few key Congressmen and Senators, but on something as large as the invasion of Iraq, and Afghanistan he traditionally reports to the entire body. It is also customary at that time to go ahead and vote in support of the President.The reason for this is obvious, or should be.

So there was no meeting to get permission to go to Iraq, there was a meeting to report that we WERE going to Iraq, there was also a vote of support the President's decision, but had they voted not to support him he would have been perfectly within his powers to say fuck you and send them anyway for 90 days.

That's clear. My point in this entire debate is that Bush is not solely responsible for the invasion of Iraq as the left wants to say he is. The left has been spouting this lie for 8 years now.

Exactly! The American people voted for every person that had a major role in building up to and initiating the invasion of Iraq....nine-eleven pulled the trigger.

The fact that people have died as a result of the invasion and subsequent LEGAL killing of the despot Saddam Hussein, is a hindsight argument that we should not have done it. This will never change.

 

[ConHog]

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

You're challenging me? Oh that's what you're doing. I thought you were just rambling the usual lefty crap and posting the usual lefty pictures. I haven't seen anything you're right about. I posted the quotes from Dems who believed Saddam was a threat and that was before Bush was President. You're the one who claimed the dems voted for the invasion on the basis of Bush's info. Are you drunk? You're so dishonest that you had to edit my post. Funny you should talk about "guts" when you're the dishonest one around here.

that particular poster is toxic, and a total waste of time to engage in a debate . I think he's about 12 and all he knows how to to do is Google shit and then puke it back up like a dog. Don't waste your time. No matter what you post he will conclude that it isn't proof and proceed to call you a coward for not meeting his floating burden of proof. There are currently 3 threads in the Flame forum discussing his dishonestly and childlike behavior.

Watch for the rebuttal, it will be quite hilarious.

 

[sangha]

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

You're challenging me?

No, you idiot! Learn to read. It was YOU who has been challenging me, and then disappearing once I posted proof.

I haven't seen anything you're right about.

I was right when I said that bush ran some companies into the ground. You challenged me and I posted proof. You remained silent

I was right when I said bush said that he didn't need congress to approve his invasion of Iraq. You challenged me and I posted proof. You remained silent.

I am right to say that Iraq had no chem weapons pgm and that the materials they had were degraded and that the US had sold the chem weapons to Saddam.

And you don't even have the guts to even try to dispute it. You're pitiful

[/quote]I posted the quotes from Dems who believed Saddam was a threat and that was before Bush was President. You're the one who claimed the dems voted for the invasion on the basis of Bush's info. Are you drunk? [/quote]

Are you? You just confused me with someone else, you addled pea-brain.

 

[asaratis]

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

 

[asaratis]

Here's what that quote should have looked like.

If I remember correctly the argument at the time was just as much would Saddam give the technology to terrorists as it was would Saddam use them himself. So even if you debate that he had viable chemical material himself, you can't debate that he obviously had the technical know ho and was a big of enough asshole to give it to our enemies.

Actually, the facts show that Saddam did not have any chemical weapons program. He did have leftover stocks, which were degraded, and which he turned over to the inspection team

As far as know how goes, Iraq didn't have much. The only chemical weapons it ever actually used were sold to Saddam by Runsfeld during the Reagan/Bush years.

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

 

[ConHog]

Anyone can take pictures. Means nothing.

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

 

[sangha]

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

If you think a picture is a quote, maybe you should stick to comic books

But go ahead and look like a fool by reporting me.

I dare you!!

 

[asaratis]

I guess you don't have the guts to try and refute anything I said, so you pretend that all I did was post a picture.

In this thread, you've challenged me three times. Each time I posted proof that I was right. Each time you failed to have the guts to acknowledge it. Now, you're not even trying. You're just dodging the facts.

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

It is intellectually dishonest...cheating...lying...oh so liberal.

 

[ConHog]

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

It is intellectually dishonest...cheating...lying...oh so liberal.

I could of swore I also read somewhere where Gunny said no more of it.

But all of those traits you listed perfectly describe Sangha

 

[asaratis]

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

If you think a picture is a quote, maybe you should stick to comic books

But go ahead and look like a fool by reporting me.

I dare you!!

Funny...you left in the one that you had posted. Whatza matta? Can't stand to see your heroes toastin' with the commies?

Get used to it. Obama will be sittin' on the committee soon enough.

 

[ConHog]

I agree with Jack that you are intellectually dishonest. You deliberately cut his picture from the quote you made of him.

Tsk, tsk! I shall report you to St. Peter!

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

If you think a picture is a quote, maybe you should stick to comic books

But go ahead and look like a fool by reporting me.

I dare you!!

A picture inside a quote is certainly part of the quote, learn your copyright rules.

However, I did not, nor will I report you.

 

[sangha]

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

If you think a picture is a quote, maybe you should stick to comic books

But go ahead and look like a fool by reporting me.

I dare you!!

A picture inside a quote is certainly part of the quote, learn your copyright rules.

However, I did not, nor will I report you.

Coward

And copyright requires cutting material you ninny

 

[ConHog]

If you think a picture is a quote, maybe you should stick to comic books

But go ahead and look like a fool by reporting me.

I dare you!!

A picture inside a quote is certainly part of the quote, learn your copyright rules.

However, I did not, nor will I report you.

Coward

And copyright requires cutting material you ninny

coward? for not caring enough to report you?

and you are correct, copyrighting does involve cutting, and once you post something here it belongs to Gunny, if he asks you not to alter it, guess what jerkoff, you don't alter it.

 

[sangha]

A picture inside a quote is certainly part of the quote, learn your copyright rules.

However, I did not, nor will I report you.

Coward

And copyright requires cutting material you ninny

coward? for not caring enough to report you?

and you are correct, copyrighting does involve cutting, and once you post something here it belongs to Gunny, if he asks you not to alter it, guess what jerkoff, you don't alter it.

You're such a liar. You can't help but make up stuff.

So go ahead and report me.

 

[Dr Grump]

Obama praises his Marxist professors, appoints outright communists to political positions, loves Jeremiah Wright and what's-his-face...Bill Aires(?) that helped him start his political career as a community organizer, after setting off bombs and wishing he's done more...Obama seems to love people that hate America. Even his racist wife is just now becoming proud of this country.

Obama is a MARXIST! Get that through your thick ass head!

The ruling elite has arrived, my friends. Just like the Jeffersons....movin' on up!

Thick or thin...you can't handle the quote commands.

Clinton, as POTUS, signed the bill that said it was the goal of the United States to free the Iraqi people from the regime of Saddam Hussein. That means, you OVERTHROW HIS ASS BY FORCE!

What part of this is hard for you nitwit Bush haters to underfuckinstand?

Ooops, I forgot! Obama doesn't want to catch Osama. He wants to invite him to a conference table where he can inform him as to what he should do to compensate for the pain and suffering he has inflicted on the American people.

So you don't have a clue? Well, at least that's sorted...


....dismissed....

 

[Dr Grump]

Isn't altering someones quotes an offense?

It is intellectually dishonest...cheating...lying...oh so liberal.

I could of swore I also read somewhere where Gunny said no more of it.

But all of those traits you listed perfectly describe Sangha

It's only a rule because a particular whiney-arsed conservative bitched and moaned about. There are not many rules for this board, and there are even less stupid rules. However, that one fits the bill....