Who Is Lying about US involvement in Iraq?

Who Is Lying about US involvement in Iraq?

All of public record,

You decide........

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
-Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

NOW, THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WMD'S, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES.

Looks to me like the Democrats will say anything to try to get elected, or at least unseat "W" in 2004. If they can cause the nation as a whole to doubt, then they can take advantage of the doubt - without any regard for the security of people in Iraq, both Iraqis & U.S. personnel, not to mention U.N. personnel. It's typical of the attitude - the ends justifies the means.

Now...post some quotes of Democrats saying "There were never any WMD's."

19 quotes you used.

3 said "I believe" or a variation.

11 said "PROGRAMS" or "search" or variation of that of WMDs. Never said they actually HAD them.

5 said he HAD them.

So 5 out of 19 fall under your criteria of "lying."

No worse than Cheney continuing to subtly insinuate the connection between Iraq and 9/11.

Of course, it is all political bullshit. The Democrats have the mainstream media in their pocket and all the public has heard for months is that the president lied about the WMD's in Iraq. I must hear the same soundbites fifty times a day both on radio and TV.

If we found a bunch of WMD's tomorrow, they would have another bunch of spin and lies to cover their asses. It's all politics because the White House is occupied by Republicans.

If Al Gore had done exactly the same things Bush has done in Iraq and the war on terror (we all know he wouldn't), the Democrats would be calling him the savior of the world.

The Democrats are masters of spin and lies. (Not to mention outright corruption and dereliction of duty)

The usual suspects will chime in shortly to defend them... if not already by the time this is posted.

Republicans rule.............

NO... Conservatives RULE.

It would be nice if the Republicans remembered that once in a while.

Especially when they (Karl Rove) leak a CIA agents name to an asshole "Crossfire" stooge, Robert Novak. If that attention whore Novak had one shred of decency left, he would NEVER have published her name.

:rolleyes:

You are one who easily buys into Democratic bullshit.

The CIA agent in question is Valerie Plame (or Valerie Wilson. Liberal bitches rarely use their husbands names).

Her husband Joe Wilson is the dirtbag who made the initial accusations. He is the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq. He was appointed by Bill Clinton and is a known Bush hater (and Republicans in general).

Novak had every right to use this former State Dept. shitheels wife's name. She is not a covert CIA agent. She is an analyst. Everyone in the insider Washington circles knew her and her husband and which agency she worked for. Novak didn't compromise anything. Besides, his article was written in July. If it was a big deal it would have been an issue in July, not two days before October. It took the dirtbag Democrats two months to create this issue.

The whole thing is manufactured Democrat bullshit. It's just more Bush and Republican bashing. Former Amassador Joe Wilson also does not like Karl Rove and fingered him personally in a speech last month in Seattle for giving Novak his wife's name.

Today Wilson admitted on "Good Morning America" that he was wrong and fabricated the accusation that Karl Rove had anything to with it. I haven't heard ABC News making a big deal out of the fact that this guy lied and slandered Karl Rove.

The whole thing is a non issue and pure Democrat bullshit. Another example of the Clintonites waging war against the Bush government. A lot from the inside. George Bush should have cleaned house as soon as he took office.

Waa, waa, waa, man are you predictable. Please show me a study or some facts to support a liberal bias in what you call the mainstream media. As long as you present opinions as fact you just sound like a Republican demagouge. Learn to think for yourself instead of just regurgitating Rush Limbaugh.

Here's one countering the "liberal bias". I found it with a Google search for "media bias report" http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html

Just asking, but who do you consider liberal media? I consider Fox News on TV to be the biggest conservative bastion on TV. Rush Limbaugh and ALL political talk radio is conservatively biased. Liberal radio has never succeeded. If there were a liberal bias how did a coke snorting drunk driver that spent Vietnam AWOL from the Reserves get elected President?

Anyway I consider a lie that leads our country to war a bit more important than "I did not have sex with that woman" (how many years did that go on?) I've looked, but have not found a total for US military KIAs during the Clinton administration. I'd guess it's considerably lower than just counting Bush's last 6 months.

Finally, if there are no WMD program, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to 9-11 and no ties to Al-Qaeda were we justified in invading a soverieng nation?

From today:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/29/novak.cia

Other CIA sources told CNN on Monday that Plame was an operative who ran agents in the field. ... The Justice Department, at the CIA's request, is investigating whether anyone in the administration broke the law by leaking Plame's name.

Apparently the CIA is pissed and asked the Justice department to investigate. Why would they make a big deal if she was just an analyst? I don't give a shit who leaked it and I agree with referring to Novak as "asshole "Crossfire" stooge". An investigation should uncover the leak. I'll put $10 on lieing bastards in the White House as the source of the leak. Karl Rove or not, it still smells like the shit the administration would shovel. Madman, I accept payments at paypal to aero_steve@yahoo.com if you want to take me up on it.

Wilson was the Ambassador to Iraq from '88-'91 under Bush Sr. and a career diplomat since '76, so your claim that he is a Clintonite lacks credibility. He was praised by Bush Sr. for negotiating the release of American hostages taken by Iraq in the first Gulf War. Now he's pissed off the current administration and they are doing anything to discredit him. He looks like a good guy being smeared by the assholes in charge.

Damn... You liberals have to come up with more original shit other than everyone who IS NOT a liberal repeats everything Rush says.

Regarding the Wilson/Novak thing.... You must be blind if you can't smell a purely manufactured partisan political mudfest a mile away. The players alone should be a tip-off.

Who do I consider liberal media? It's an easier question asking who is not liberal media. All mainstream broadcast news organizations. Political Correctness is the number one rule. Obviously you have never known anyone who worked in a newsroom (that is someone who was not a raging liberal). Among the broadcast networks ABC is the worst. Peter Jennings is the worst. Then comes Dan Rather and CBS. NBC is somewhat, but not as much as the other two. NBC's "The Today Show" is probably one of the most liberal shows on TV. Almost all the morning shows are but "Today" is the absolute worst. BBC news is heavily biased regarding many areas and issues. Their Middle East reporting is the worst and most obviously anti-Israeli and has a heavy portion of anti-Americanism in their reporting on the war on terror.

Radio.... It is what it is. Everyone knows that most talk radio is conservative. No one is getting fooled there. You know what you are getting going in. Talk radio is not news. It's entertainment. When will you liberals learn this?

The public won't listen to "liberal" talk radio. Why? Because they get all the same liberal garbage all the time from the broadcast and print media. The public is starving for other opinions. That is why conservative talk radio is so successful. Liberals will never understand that becuase you don't see liberal bias in the mainstream.

NPR.... basically leftism broadcast on the taxpayers dime. Listen to 10 minutes of that sickening show "All things considered" and you will understand... unless you are of their persuasion.

The NY Times, LA Times and Washington Post lead the pack in print liberalism. They very often border on anti-Americanism too. They are the root of political correctness and liberal issues because most of the broadcast media follow their trail. All other newspapers owned by these parent organizations follow suit.

AP, Reuters and UPI are extremely biased news sources on many issues. The Middle East for one. They also have a very anti-Israeli and basically "multicultural" slant. Both print and broadcast media rely heavily on them as sources of information. It is "pre-slanted" prior to entry into American newsrooms.

All the media above are extremely guilty of political correctness and the greater sin of moral relativism.

You could literally write books about the liberal slant to the mainstream media and many good ones have been written. A good one regarding how racism (newsroom... not public racism) controls much of what you see and hear is William McGowan's "Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism" . Another great book is Tammy Bruce's "The New Thought Police: Inside the Left\'s Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds" . She gives many disturbing examples of media manipulation by the left. She is also a liberal (lesbian and former NOW president). If you can put down Al Frankens book, I can recommend some more for you.

As far as sources of liberal bias.... what are you looking for? A CNN poll or something. Any organizations that track liberal bias are accused of being "right wing" propaganda outlets so why would I even try to give you any? I'll give you a popular one that tracks the daily news and TV programs. Try this link but I already know what you will say. There is no sense listing anymore.

You liberals will always say the Iraq war was started on a lie. There really is no arguing with you regarding Iraq. You seem to have some type of mental block regarding Saddam, his atrocities and his connections with terrorist groups. How many more years would you have let Saddam's dictatorship stay in power? As long as the other European socialists were making money off of him it was OK I guess.

Speaking about media bias, a group of Democratic congressman recently returned from Iraq and guess what.... they claimed the media is painting the wrong picture about what is going on over there and what we are doing. No agenda in the media right?

You are damn right we were justified in going into Iraq. Should the government reveal Al Qaeda ties when we are still hunting them down just to appease dirtbag whining liberals. No of course not. Police don't comment on ongoing investigations, why should the government in international affairs. Especially when we are still at war and will be for some time.

You also obviously don't keep up with news either. US intelligence reported in August that Iraq's remaining WMD's are in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon (a country under occupation by the police state Syria).

EDIT: I forgot to mention that Hollywood movies and television shows are loaded with blatant yet subtle forms of liberal social engineering. Sitcoms are the best example of manipulating public opinions on many issues.

The CIA rule.......Bush is just a patsy

Thank you for probably one of your most thoughtful and intelligent posts on XOC. With plenty of sources, kudos. I've ordered the 2 books you suggested. I'll get back to you in a couple weeks after I've read them. I do have a couple friends that are newspaper reporters around here neither report on politics (usually) but are liberal. I live in one of the 2 (out of 105) counties in Kansas that voted Gore in the last election. Being a liberal in a college town is much more common than finding a conservative here. Well there is Fred Phelps about 20 miles west in Topeka, but I don't think anyone would want to claim solidarity with him.

I was wondering if the Media Resource Center would be brought up. You didn't need to. It makes no bones about it having a conservative slant. I purposely left it out of my last post. I think it does no good to say you are correcting bias when you have a stated bias yourself.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/bios/lbb/bozellbio.asp

I'll agree with all the news outlets you stated as not being conservative, I'll read your books and get back to you before I'll say ALL of them are liberally biased. Anyone you consider neutral? I've been looking at sites that track bias and haven't decided if any of them don't have a bias themselves.

I have no mental blocks about what Saddam did to his people. Is it our problem to fix? Does the USA have an obligation to be the world's police force? I've always considered Syria more of a threat than Iraq ever was, but the Bush family has a hard on for Saddam. If the USA is going to get into overthrowing countries we don't like, we should have rolled right on into Syria and invited Isreal to retake Lebanon. Where do we draw the line? Should we take over every Muslim country that supports terrorists? That's most of them. This war was a half baked from the beginning and it will cost Bush his Presidency. I say half baked for no other reason than they didn't have an exit strategy.

A CNN story. Well everything they say must be true right?

Wilson was a State Dept. employee for many years. However Clinton made him a policy advisor on Africa for the National Security Council. That makes him a Clintonite. The Bush admin is having numerous problems with all the Clintonites left in high positions. I've said it a million times. Bush should have cleaned house and hand picked everyone. Clinton did.

This whole thing started by Wilson getting pissed at the administration for Bush's remark in the State of the Union speech regarding British intelligence finding evidence that Iraq may have purchased uranium from Niger. He was sent to Niger earlier to check this out and claimed he found no evidence. He also got in trouble with the administration for not revealing forged documents relating to this issue. He also claims he never submitted a writtten report on his mission to Niger. WTF? A mission to Niger and there is no written report. Sounds like bullshit. This became an ego problem for Wilson and during the summer he started bitching about it on TV shows. He also wrote this Op-Ed peice in the NY Times:

http://www.ccmep.org/2003_articles/Iraq/070903_wilson.htm

The guy probably fucked up and he thought the Bush admin was making him look bad.

The Democrats have picked up on this and are using it as an issue to thier advantage. I find it curious the Democrats who are crying the loudest about this issue like Chuck Schumer are the same Democrats who voted against the law protecting agents in the field when he was a congressman. The same Democrats who hobbled our CIA.

Novak never mentioned in his article that anyone in the White House was his source. He said "Two senior administration officials". That could be any number of people in numerous agencies. Novak even says it was no one in the White House. It's most likely an intelligence figure who does not like Wilson. It could be George Tenet himself. Who knows. Tenet is a Clintonite and Bush should have fired that guy on day one. At least on Sept. 12, 2001.

This is Novaks article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20030714.shtml

This is all Democratic bullshit and it started with this asshole Wilson's bruised ego.

You got me curious, so I looked this one up. The story is from the fringe. I'm not saying it isn't true, but I don't think the story is credible. I could find no mainstream new organization with this one, liberal, conservative or otherwise. That's my last one for tonight. It's late

Ahhh.... The media outlets I mentioned in my previous post are the worst. The LA Times and The NY Times lead the pack for print. Then of course you have the socialist and commie rags like "The Nation", but anyone who is even slightly politically savvy knows what that is from the get go....

You can't even bring yourself to calling the media liberal. You think you are being clever by saying they are "not being conservative". Come on...

I can't name any moderate media organizations. There is no such thing anymore. The only thing that can be measured is how far they lean either left or right. The absolute truth is that there are many, many more that lean to the left. Another issue is political correctness. That in some way destroyed the news industry. Words are powerful. PC removed many words from the venacular and it also dictates what stories will be reported on and that is a shame.

My local newspaper at one time was a good moderate paper. No longer. It is squarely to the left. It even has an outright hatred for the 450,000 inhabitants of the area. You see, the problem is the population of my borough is 70% white. The paper on a daily basis prints articles claiming that everyone who lives here must be some kind of a racist because the borough is not "diverse" enough. Bias issues are on the front page everyday. It's either bias or not enough diversity. It is now printing gay marriage photos. Besides the local articles telling the populace how racist they must be, all the other articles are reprints of LA Times and AP articles. It is owned by Newhouse Publications (same company as the LA Times). I cancelled it two weeks ago. I couldn't take it anymore. It's a shame. It was a good local paper at one time. I've been reading it since I was a teenager but I won't be anymore. According to the letters to the editor lately, I'm not the only one cancelling either.

You live in a college town. Maybe that explains some of your liberalism. Most college professors today are the worst of American society.

Is the US supposed to be the world's police? I don't know. It certainly isn't the UN. All they do is talk, collect huge salaries and do absolutely nothing. They are pure international socialist welfare cases. A total waste of time and effort. Someone has to step up to the plate. For your information, FDR, the Democrats big hero, once envisioned the US as the world's police force along side Britain.

Regarding an Iraq exit strategy... We have one. It's being worked on right now. Do you liberals think building a new country and government takes 4 weeks? How long are you willing to wait? Would you have given Clinton or Al Gore more time? Don't you think you are sounding like a spoiled little child who needs instant gratification? Iraq will take a couple of years and the administration never said otherwise. In fact Bush even said the war on terror may last through several presidencies. Possibly our whole lives. War is no time to act like a spoiled little kid. An obvious partisan Democrat spoiled kid.

Guilty, I ordered the books you suggest and I'll return to this topic. Until then I'll withhold judgement on calling a media outlet liberal.

Man I hate insomnia. 3 hours sleep in 48 hours sucks.

You are being dishonest with that BS just like last week. What part of "We don't know." don't you get?

This is my favorite. I thought it was all dreamed up in Texas Ted? Why do people continue to reelect this jackass? I think it is sad that this is what is left of the Kennedy family in politics.

I know it is hard at times, but why don't the majority of you just sit back and trust the government? You can't expect them to release highly classified material just to appease the liberal press.

For goodness sakes, you liberals trusted Clinton.

Complete trust is a bad thing. And classified info - that should not even be on the table.

The problem is, there is so much coming out that sounds suspect (even if it turns out to be nothing).

Trust no one should be the mantra.

How can you say that the media is liberal? Have you completly forgotten how they jumped all over Clinton for lying about a blow job? For eight years the media continued to dig and dig and dig, and all they could come up with was lying about a blow job. You know why that's all they could find? Because that's all that was there.

Now you have Bush in the White House with LOTS of questionable activities going on around him, and you hear next to nothing about it. The story is reported for maybe a day, and then you don't hear about it again.

The media is liberal?? Man, that's a line NIXON came up with, and you people have been bitter about it ever since.

Hey WilMac, are you forgetting how CNN (Clinton News Network) stuck up for him during the whole thing? You better do some checking.

God all he did was lie to a court under oath. What's the big deal? :rolleyes:

I've done some checking. I was sitting outside the capitol building every day with other news photographers. CNN was there every day. They were sticking up for him? They were reporting the news just like everyone else was.

Why don't you tell me how they were sticking up for him. Give me a quote with a date that I can look up.

Until then, you're simply repeating something that O'Reilly and his cronies have beaten into your head.

The big deal is that he should have never been there in that chair answering those questions in the first place. What was Ken Starr investigating? As far as I remember, he was supposed to be investigating whether the Clinton's profited on a land deal that went belly up. Tell me how that relates to a blow job.

And also please tell me you wouldn't have done the same thing if you were in his place.

Well...it didn't involve the lives of troops.

Not saying his lying was right...but there are degrees of severity here.

Degrees of severity, huh? If there was any proof that Bush lied to us I would agree with you. Clinton did lie, and everyone knows it. If at some point in the future it comes out that the administration knowingly lied to us, I will be the first to call for their heads. Until then, I won't. That is the difference between the two situations really. One of them we know to be true, and the other is based on conjecture and hatred.

The defense that he should not have been asked the question to begin with is crap. He was asked and he did lie. Period. Do not assume that everyone would have lied like he did. Not everyone is morally bankrupt. I was not one of the people calling for him to be impeached. I thought the sensure(sp?) was appropriate.

The beginning of this thread illustrates the problems we as Americans are now facing. The Dems have no problem lying, or flat making shit up. They are never called on it by the media, and they get away with it. The crap Kennedy spewed a couple of weeks ago, was disgusting to me. He made bogus noncivil claims with no basis in reality. I just wish the administration would start taking up for itself and expose this kind of garbage for what it is.

When are you ass-backward conservative cretins ever going to let this go? I swear half of O'Reilly's whinning is about the Clintons (he'd be a nobody if it wasn't for them). Bill lied about getting a BLOW JOB, something he wouldn't have had to do if the illegally attained evidence from Tripp was not admissible. You act as if Clinton had bugged a republican convention center or something...oh wait, that was Nixon wasn't it. OK then, it wasn't like Clinton traded arms to Iran for hostages...err, that was Reagan. Dam it...give me minute and I'll think of something...

:rolleyes:

The offense is not the point. He did something that would land me or you in jail. You can be disengenuous about it all day long. The fact still remains that he lied under oath. I am not a Republican anyway so that little desperate shot doesn't really mean much to me.

This whole argument is apples and oranges anyway. Clinton lied and we know this, and we don't know if Bush did or not. Pretty simple, huh?

What part of "illegally obtained evidence" do you not understand? That illegal recording from Tripp shouldn't have ever seen the light of day.

Quote:

This whole argument is apples and oranges anyway. Clinton lied and we know this, and we don't know if Bush did or not. Pretty simple, huh?

We don't know if Bush lied YET, we'll just have to wait for the outcome of impeachment hearings. Revenge is a bitch isn't it.

Hahahaha! So two wrongs make a right in your mind, eh? How typical. Good luck getting the Republican majority legislature to impeach their President. In case you didn't know, evidence is usually required to get those things going. Revenge is a bitch. Bwahahahahahah!

Even illegally obtained evidence, huh? I know it would be a long shot for impeachment hearings, but one can dream, can't they?

That legality of the evidence doesn't matter much. Had Clinton not lied about it the evidence would never have been collected. Got a link that talks about the illegal evidence?

At any rate, there has to be evidence to begin with, and right now there is none showing that Bush lied about anything.

Do I really need to post a link about Tripp's illegally obtained recording of Monica describing her "Fling" with Bill? I would have assumed it to be common knowledge by now. For the record, I never said Bush lied about anything, nor am I a big Clinton fan. I'm a registered Independant and I hate both the republican and Democratic parties, I just hate republicans a little more.

I don't hate hardly anyone. People like Saddam and Osama are exceptions. I may disagree with someone and think they are dumb, but I am not going to make the emotional investment of hating them. I had not heard of this illegal evidence before personally.

You are joking, aren't you? Maryland law prohibits the recording of conversations without the knowledge of the other party (regardless of where the other party is - in state or not). This evidence was gained BEFORE Clinton lied to Starr and the camera. Tripp never told Lewinski she was taping the phone calls. The evidence should have been thrown out. There was a push to file charges against Tripp, but the feds intervened and no charges were brought.

They should have went after Tripp. What she did was totally illegal. I think Newt was the mastermind behind all of it. I like Newt, but he was evil.

I remember now. That whole thing was bullshit. Had he told the truth I bet Gore would be President now.

Look, Tripp obtained the evidence illegally under the watchful gaze of not only Ken Starr, but also of Michael Isikoff from Newsweek, a supposedly "liberal" publication. The blow job had NOTHING to do with Whitewater, which is what Starr was SUPPOSED to be investigating. If this was a case in court, Starr would never have been able to ask the question because it had nothing to do with the case at hand. Clinton wasn't on trial for his private life, but you conservatives continue to say "Oh, he lied under oath." So what? In a court of law, the question would have never been asked.

Well, we're pretty sure he did. No less than eight people have come forward and said they told him that the evidence was weak. But he went ahead and told us we were in danger. So we go to war, and our soldiers are dying because of faked and untrue evidence that he KNEW was untrue.

Not only that, but he sold out the British and blamed them for the bad evidence, and the BRITISH ARE OUR BEST FRIENDS IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. The man would probably sell his daughters into slavery if it meant it would save his skin.

He's dirty, evil, and will lose the election in 2004. Face it, Cons. Your emperor has no clothes.

The thing is, he lied and his popularity actually rose a bit (sadly...it really shouldn't have). If he had told the truth, the impeachment hearings never would have happened.

Exactly.

So what? You are as morally bankrupt as he is. Whether the question should have been asked or not isn't the issue. He hung himself by lying.

No less than eight? Yeah OK. :rolleyes: Your argument is crumbling already because it is based on conjecture and supposed facts with no evidence to support these 'facts'. Were is your proof that he KNEW anything. You are one of those BUSH KNEW about 9/11 morons aren't you? What fake evidence? Are you talking about the Nigeria uranium claim? If so, you are as disengenuous as the rest of your ilk.

What the hell are you talking about? You truly are clueless. In the SOTU address Bush said "According to British Intelligence". They still stand by the intelligence and claim they got it from a third party, most likely France, who doesn't want us to have the evidence. How is that selling anyone out? The twins into slavery comment was cute.

Yeah, OK. He is going to win in '04 easily. Who is going to beat him? Your commie hero Dean couldn't win a general election against Mojo Jojo. Clarke is already being exposed as a typical bandwagoning panderor. Kerry is a liar. Lieberman is probably the best chance the Dems have. I would vote for him. Unfortunately extreme leftists such as yourself are killing the Democratic party for years to come.

Sooo, you admit it. You like evil!

Ok, now you pissed me off. Your ignorance is astounding.

He wouldn't have lied had Starr never asked the question, which he never should have been allowed to do because IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INVESTIGATION!!!

You want proof? Ok...

Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction

British Fall For Cherry Picked Evidence

When a Minnesota FBI operative on the Bin Laden task force writes a memo that says "Hey! They're going to fly planes into targets here in the US" and it's ignored...well, what would you call that?

The only one still holding onto this claim is Dick Cheney, and he's insane. Even Rumsfeld says there's no link between 9/11 and Iraq.

That's because he knew WALKING INTO THE CHAMBER that the evidence was wrong. They had TOLD HIM THREE DRAFTS EARLIER that the evidence was bad. Yet he still said it, and said that the British gave us the evidence. That's because he KNEW it was bad, and was giving him a way out. Does that explain it well enough for you, Cletus?

Extreme conservatives such as yourself drove me from the Republican party. Either that or I became educated when I turned fifteen.

Wil, give it up with the WMD and terrorism. Your hero Bill let the terrorists get away with what they did. They bankrolled his push for the whitehouse and he let them live freely.

Just you Bucky. Just you.

Quote:

Extreme conservatives such as yourself drove me from the Republican party. Either that or I became educated when I turned fifteen.

I like you, as a matter of fact I nominate you to be our champion against the REAL evil on this board:

The "Red Draggon" of XOC...



The "Butcher" of the Xterra community...



The defender of all the unimaginative, unprogressive, isolationist's in this country...

The opinionated, the most narrow-minded, obstinate, partisan member of this board...

The one, the only NY MADMAN!



I'll bet money you could give our rabid friend from Stattan Island a run for his money!

That last photo is just plain gross.

I accept your nomination, and look forward to a good, healthy, down and dirty debate with this rapscallion.

I am wetting my pants Nancy.

It is still a lie.

Libbie op-ed pieces aren't proof idiot. Groups that are supposedly made up of ex-CIA operatives saying the claims were bogus aren't either. Most of the intelligence was the same that Clinton used to bomb Iraq in '98.

I would call that you being an idiot for buying into the conspiracy. BUSH KNEW! :rolleyes:

What the hell are you babbling about here exactly? I never said anything about a link between the two. Try reading what Cheney said about the link instead of ASSuming things. He specifically said that we don't know if Saddam was involved. The administration never said we were to begin with.

More disengenuous libbie tripe. He never said the British gave us the intelligence. He said it was according to them. I took it to mean that our agency had no reliable evidence for it. Keep on clinging to this though. It is all you have, and I understand. The Brits still claim it was good intelligence. Their intelligence about it had nothing to do with the forged documents the CIA had. The fact that Saddam had bought uranium before from them is always conveniently left out when you extremist libbies bring this up.

Ah, yes. Pure extreme leftist gold here. I am not a republican. I lean more towards a libertarian point of view actually. I also believe in many ideals that you probably agree with.

The second part is pretty funny. Oh, if we all could be as 'enlightened' and 'progressive' as you. You extreme leftists just think you have it all figured out don't you.

So, Bush didn't give $43 Million to the Taliban?

I want you to note the date of THIS ARTICLE .

Now, ask me again who bankrolls terrorism? Come on, I'm waiting....

The ones that tried to destroy the World Trade center in '93 were caught and are in jail. The bombers on the African embassies were caught and are in jail. Timothy McVeigh was executed. How is Bush any better? Saddam and Osama are still running around putting out more videos than MTV.

Well you won't get any argument out of me on that point. Sheer is a dumbass but he had a point on that one. The WOD is the stupidest thing going. Unfortunately the majority of politicians on both sides of the aisle support it.

Edit: I just had to add something though. Everyone in the UN was happy with the Taliban for doing this. The aid money was for farmers that were not able to profit from poppy production anymore. Of course people like you and Sheer twist this into some massive conspiracy. It isn't like we recognized their government man. Getting rid of the heroin production in Afghanistan was a good thing. I still think the WOD is misguided, but you can't really put it at the feet of Bush like you would like to.

Mr Reagan? Is that you?

Then why do you conservatives take everything Bill O'Reilly says as the Gospel?

And if I remember right, you conservatives screamed bloody murder when he did it too. Why is it ok with one President, but not the other? Please tell me, Sally. I'm waiting.

WHAT CONSPIRACY, DUMMY?? SHE TESTIFIED ON CAPITOL HILL!!!
Were you born an ostrich, or do you just like to bury your head in the sand for fun?

So then, please tell me genius, what are we fighting a war over there for, then? That was the reason we a) went to the UN and told them that Iraq was in bed with the terrorists, B) that we were in imminent danger from the WMD's that they had, and c) any day now, Saddam was going to attack us.
We attacked them as a pre-imptive strike. If it wasn't about terrorists, then PLEASE tell me what it was for.

Good God, you conservatives play these word games so much...
WHAT IS THE F*CKING DIFFERENCE?? "According to them..." Doesn't that IMPLY that the British gave us that intelligence?? At the very LEAST it implies it.

So then why was it in the State of the Union? If they had no reliable evidence about it, it shouldn't have even been mentioned.

Do you know this for sure, or is this just ACCORDING to you?

Well, don't we? I mean, look how well off we were in the 90's under Clinton. If Bush is so good, how come jobs keep disappearing?

Nice try. The rank and file of Al Qeada have been largely decimated. The organization has a fraction of the capabilities it did two years ago. Saddam is no longer in control of Iraq. I don't agree with cjb's assertion completely, but had Clinton acted against bin Laden 9-11 may have never happened. I can't blame him though. Hindsight is 20/20 after all.

I smelt B.S. when I saw this or at least something was taken out of context like most libs do:

web page

Written by a liberal loser for the liberal LA Times. Come on Wil, you have to do better. Also, there isn't one iota of fact in that article. Just useless hearsay. You hippies suck. Bring actual non-disputable facts with you. Isn't this the same man who got in lots of trouble working with the LA Times from printing liberal lie after lie.

I don't so I guess you would have to ask someone else about that.

I think most of the people that were against it saw it as a way for him to take the focus off of his scandals. I was for it at the time.

Gotta link?

Saddam was and has been in bed with terrorists for years. Look at his support for groups like Hamas dummy. The President specifically said that we were going to war before Saddam became an imminent threat in the SOTU. The administration never said Saddam was an imminent threat. Our intelligence agency along with all the agencies in the world thought he had these weapons. He continued to not comply with his obligations under the cease fire from the first war for 12 years. The UN past resolution after resolution and did nothing to enforce them.

No it doesn't imply that. It implies that British intelligence was telling us that he tried to buy the uranium, but they could not give us the evidence. The party they got it from did not want it shared with us.

I mispoke. The Nigerians have said Saddam tried repeatedly to buy uranium from them in the '80s, but they supposedly turned him down then.

I don't know maybe because Bush inherited a nice fat recession and terrorists attacked us.

So the real question is, had the Taliban not tried to curb poppy production, would we have given them $43 million?

Ah...the question we may never know the answer to.

Ah...not true. The recession began after Bush took office.

(To be fair, the expansion started under Bush the Dad.)

Here is how much sense you conservatives make.

Republican Logic

Ah...not true. The recession began after Bush took office.

(To be fair, the expansion started under Bush the Dad.)[/QUOTE]

Yeah it started right after he took office and was a direct result of the dot com collapse. I think Presidents roles in the economy are overated anyway. It doesn't matter who is in office. It is going to go up and down naturally.

Yeah it started right after he took office and was a direct result of the dot com collapse. I think Presidents roles in the economy are overated anyway. It doesn't matter who is in office. It is going to go up and down naturally.[/b][/QUOTE]

Agreed on that. While he technically didn't "inherit" it, Clinton also didn't cause it. But they get the credit or blame regardless - this is what will cause Bush's downfall, if anything.

I think the economy will be in much better shape by the time the election rolls around. It is already improving. I also think it depends on the Dems nominee.

Ok, here's the FBI memo that she sent:

MEMO

It was promptly ignored.

Yeah, it's still a year away. A lot could happen. I've read where they think it is in the infant stages of rebound. The only problem is, while the economy is improving, the jobs haven't shown up. I had never realized that Bush is the first president since Hoover that is in real danger of having fewer jobs out there then when he took office.

Moby, you're pretty smart for a liberal. I'm glad you can see outside the box. I thought you were going to argue that point. I wish you would haven't said anything though so I could see how many lefties think the President plays a major role in the economy status.

WilMac, I finally see where you are going... you're just posting b.s. to make fun of libs. Sorry I took you serious before.

Uh, yeah dude. That's what I'm doing.

I think the Presidency does have *some* influence on where things go, but not a lot. Greenspan has more power over the economy (and I suppose, by logic, that would say the President does by appointing him). While the economy does go through it's cycles, I think the dot-com thing was an apparation of sorts - the economy would have continued chugging along (slow, fast, whichever), but the dot-com magnified it unbelievably.

LOL! You mean you're not!?!? Man, I didn't think anyone thought like a drone.

One liberal article to WilMac1023: "Bush gave $43million dollars to the Taliban"
WilMac1023: "Bush supports terrorist by giving the Taliban $43 million dollars" spin spin... spin the black circle...

Keep posting then so everyone can see a typical uneducated lib!

Oh, I have read that before. That in no way shows that Bush knew about the attacks before they happened. Nice try though. The ineptitude of the FBI before 9-11 is definately alarming, but again this in no way shows that BUSH KNEW!

Lol 2001, you see why I thought he was joking.

Drones

In the words of Barbara Bush: "I'm done with you."

Hey, I can't help it if you bring tired bogus arguments to the table man. God if you want to argue the bush knew conspiracy angle at least bring up how Bush just sat at the school while we were being attacked. We all know he should have ran outside screaming like a mad man instead of waiting for the Secret Service to come up with a plan to move him.

WilMac, from 1 to 18 posts. You had a heck of a first day. Welcome to XOC. It only gets better. Good to see you (FNG) sticking to your guns.

You're still a bleedin heart liberal PETA backin commie, but I respect that.

I respect people like Moby that are at least intelligent with their posts. Not drones who haven't thought for themselves and/or do what they're parents "programmed" them to think while growing up.

I do, however, respect him for owning one of the best SUV's in the world!

Actually, my parents are the most conservative people you'd ever meet. I'm the black sheep, I guess. Hey, I respect your argument as long as you back it up...

Hey guys.....

You can't take this guy WilMac1023 seriously ...

Anyone who would post a link to Robert Scheer... well, need I say more? You don't need to know anything else to realize where this guy is coming from. He's just another radical leftist. Probably the biggest leftist on the board now. Even worse than Xterrapin. A Taxachussetts leftist to boot.

By the way... giving money to the Taliban prior to 9/11 and you think that is a big deal? We give several billion to Egypt every year. We give millions to the Palestinian Authority. I guess yeah.. you can argue that the federal government has been supporting terrorism for years. Long before Bush entered office. Hell.. we give a large chunk of cash to support the U.N. What other organization does more to cover up and abet Middle East terrorism than the U.N. (maybe the Arab League but that is for another thread)?

I have a feeling the new XOC commercial will probably bring in a whole new bunch of Taxachusetts leftists.

And I say it's about time! It's nice to read dialoge from educated people who think for themselves for a change. As Jack Nicleson once said "This Town Needs An Enema!" Your not afraid of a little competition are you? I imagine it must sting a little, you know, with someone new encroaching on your turf and all.



Oh by the way, New Yorks taxes are WAY higher than in Massachusetts, even your auto insurance rates blow our's away.

:p

Sean....

Bring all the leftists on. I don't care. I love hearing their bullshit... yours too.

Yeah.. our auto insurance is probably a little higher. I would say your property taxes are much, much higher than those here in NY. Probably easily triple mine or more.

I don't know what your sales tax is.. but it's probably close. Income taxes... I'm willing to bet the same for NY City residents. Residents outside of NY City easily pay much less income taxes than you (except for a few counties close to the city).

You would prefer I link to Bill O'Reilly? Because he said the same thing Scheer did.

I just didn't want to confuse you and make you think I would take the time to listen to a conservative. Because, you know, us lefties can NEVER hear the other side's argument.

Um, yeah...our government giving 43 million to a country that would support and hold a man that would later go on to kill 3000 of our people? Yeah, I WOULD say that's a big deal.

Yeah, I can think of one big one...maybe when Reagan gave weapons to Iraq to fight Iran, which in turn were used against us by Iraq in 91.

Or how about when Nixon helped Pinoche into power over the peaceful Allende? That went over like gangbusters.

Name a President that was a Democrat that put a dictator into power. Kinda tough, isn't it?

What other organization has done more to help spread peace?

And what country has picked fights all over the world since WWII?

No wonder the world hates us, because we're the world's bully. We think we're right all the time, but every time we go in to "help" we screw it up and create chaos. I love America as much as the next guy, but having a foreign policy doesn't mean blowing up everything.

Jeez... You are the classic stereotypical leftist. All the same arguments from Allende in Chile to Iran Contra. You really are classic. I am willing to bet you subscribe to "The Nation". Besides sounding just like a Robert Scheer leftist you also sound an awful lot like David Corn of "The Nation" (a leftist guy who is on FOX news all the time by the way).

No.. I have never posted a link to O'Reilly. A link to O'Reilly is just his opinion. What does that have to do with a news or factual link? Nothing.

Can I ask you some questions? How old are you and what schools have you attended? Also what did you major in if you attended college?

I notice you didn't answer any of the things I brought up. When you can do that, then I will answer your questions.

And I have to admit I find your predictable rants entertaining as well. Your followers though don't even come close.

Quote:

Yeah.. our auto insurance is probably a little higher. I would say your property taxes are much, much higher than those here in NY. Probably easily triple mine or more.

Not to sound snobby, but if your property taxes are lower than mine, you must live in a cardboard box. I own...well in 14 years I'll own my 3 bedroom house built in 1997, and I currently pay about $2700 a yr in property taxes (includes town water and weekly garbage pickup). If you own the equilivant, I doubt you pay less in taxes.

Quote:

I don't know what your sales tax is.. but it's probably close.

Mass sales tax is 5%, isn't NY like 8.5%? I was in NY city the first week in August (stayed at the Flat Hotel on 6th Ave), and I could have swore it was that high.

Quote:

Income taxes... I'm willing to bet the same for NY City residents. Residents outside of NY City easily pay much less income taxes than you (except for a few counties close to the city).

Mass state income tax was reduced to 5.3% (from 5.6%) in 2002, 12% for short/long term capital gains. I'm sure though it will go back up to 5.6% for the 2003 tax year.

Explain to me how a liberal thinks for themselves. That goes against everything you stand for.

Well .... now that you mention it... it does sound a little snobbish.

It even indicates you know little about construction methods. Older homes well maintained and upgraded are far better homes than the overwhelming majority of new construction. Unless you buy a custom designed home and have input into how it is built.

My home was built in the 1930's and over the years I re-did almost everything myself. It is solid as the rock of gibralter. You can't beat the old style framing and construction methods. The only thing they didn't do well back then was insulation (they really didn't do it at all). Electrical was old fashioned and some plumbing, but I took care of all that. New homes are not built very solid for the most part. But I'm sure your home is nice. Seriously... I've seen the pictures. My compliments. It looks very nice.

I'm very surprised that your sales taxes are as low as you say. I guess this is not Boston rates? I am not familiar with your area so I am assuming you are not part of the greater Boston area.

Even with our real estate tax increase I am still paying less than you. Last year I paid a little over $1900. Next year about 22-$2300. You are aware that NY City property taxes are low compared to other parts of the country. One of my sisters in Westchester has a similar home and lot and pays $10,000. That's a crime in my opinion.

You don't have it as bad as I thought... tax wise, but as I said.. I think Boston people may have it worse than us. Correct me if I am wrong.

NY is a very highly taxed city and you have heard me complain about it numerous times. The income tax is one of the highest in the nation. That is why I am thinking of leaving. The real estate market is very high now... I feel it will bust within the next few years and I want to make my money and run. To a low tax state of course.

The "Taxachussetts" label was primarily because of your "tax and spend" liberal politicians in Congress. Get back to me about the Boston taxes though. I heard they are high.

Like what things? I am not going to get into an argument about 1970's Chile or 1980's communist incursion in South America with a leftist right now. I know all your answers ahead of time.

The Bush government wasn't the only administration who gave money to the Taliban. You people seem to have forgotten that. The Clinton admin gave money to them also but the feminists who fought against Taliban treatment of women seem to have overlooked that fact. Don't you even remember Jay Leno's wife bitching about them back when Clinton was president?

If you think the UN spreads world peace than you are a bigger idiot than I thought. Iraq alone can be used as an issue of them doing nothing while people die. What about all the African nations and wars over the years. They did little or nothing. The same thing can be said all over the globe. Don't hold up the UN as a peaceful organization. They are a self serving organization favoring world socialism. They also do nothing to interfere with any socialist or communist states. They do nothing about Mid East terrorism or tyranny. What have they done to help the plight of the North Korean people? Nothing. They are a do nothing organization. That's it.

And now you say the US has done nothing except pick fights all over the world since WWII. The problem with guys like you is you never understood the Cold War and the fight against communism. You never will because YOU SUPPORT communism and socialism.

Does that answer your questions? Now answer mine.

You lost me here. We were discussing property taxes, then you go off on a tangent and say "You know little about construction methods". This is a prime example of why I find it so difficult to hold a debate with you. You just can't stay focused on the topic at hand, then you accuse or ridicule the person on something totally unrelated to the original topic.

One of my first jobs out of high school was framing houses (big expensive ones), and it just so happens that I did a lot of work on my new house as well (rocking the basement and making half into family room), hell I even did my own electrical work (it much easier these days with circut breakers and all), you just have to know what the latest building codes are.

Oh, and as for property taxes, they are based on square footage and assessed value. The town/city doesn't give two shits how much "Love" went into it.

Quote:

My home was built in the 1930's and over the years I re-did almost everything myself. It is solid as the rock of gibralter. You can't beat the old style framing and construction methods.

Look, I'm not ranking on your home, I'm sure it's nice and all (I like the design of older homes myself), but owning a home built in the 1930's can be a liability as well. Three things come to mind right off the bat: Lead Paint, Lead in the plumbing, and Asbestos (it was even in linoleum flooring up until 1973). It's good to hear you upgraded the electrical work, remember the old "Penny" trick when one blew a fuse? I can remember when I would demo parts of older homes, and seeing the electrial wiring having no insulation on it.



As for the construction, sure some of the material itself may be more "durable" (thickness of supporting beams, flooring, trim work), but today's codes for home building is far superior than it was back then, especially when it comes to safety.

But what I will give to the older homes is they have style. I especially like the wood work, they spent much more time and effort back then to make a home look and feel like a home. My home, even though it's new, is just another "Cookie-cutter Mold" split Gambriel. The nice thing about owning a new home is hopefully I won't have have to put a lot of repair & maintenance into it (in the near future), and since I have a kid, I don't have to worry about lead paint and the likes.

Quote:

I'm very surprised that your sales taxes are as low as you say. I guess this is not Boston rates? I am not familiar with your area so I am assuming you are not part of the greater Boston area.

I live about 18 miles N.W. of Boston proper, and it takes me about 35 minutes to make it to work in the "Peoples Republic Of Cambridge" (next city over).

Quote:

One of my sisters in Westchester has a similar home and lot and pays $10,000. That's a crime in my opinion.

I was born in that area, it sure has changed in the last 30 years.

Do yourself a favor and look up the words "Conservative" in a dictionary.

Entry: conservative

Function: noun

Definition: moderate

Synonyms: bitter-ender, classicist, conserver, conventionalist, die-hard, fossil, hard hat, middle-of-the-roader, moderate, moderatist, obstructionist, old fogy, old guard, old liner, preserver, reactionary, red-neck, right, right-winger, rightist, silk-stocking, standpat, stick-in-the-mud, Tory, traditionalist, unprogressive

:rolleyes:

Pinochet's military dictatorship killed thousands, tortured tens of thousands and drove more than a million Chileans into exile. A society with a 150 year tradition of democracy and participation suffered under totalitarian rule. You can't just hide your head in the sand and ignore how disgusting our foreign policy has been since WWII. You know what we did for Pinoche even after these atrocities? The United States rewarded Chile by dramatically increasing both grants and loans. On June 8, 1976, at the height of Pinochet's unrelenting repression, Kissinger met in private with the dictator and told him, "We are sympathetic to what you are trying to do here".
Having thwarted the possibility that Chile would become a model of democratic socialism, the United States made Chile a model of dictatorial capitalism. Under the hands-on guidance of University of Chicago economists, the Chilean economy was restructured. Unions were outlawed. Real wages plunged. Social spending was slashed. Of 507 public enterprises in l973 only l5 remained in government hands by l980. Chile privatized its social security system.
The experiment failed. Unemployment soared. In l973 Chile had the second highest income in Latin America, next to oil rich Venezuela. By 1988, when the military relinquished the reigns of government, Chile's income had fallen behind that of many countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.
And this is just one example of how our foreign policy has "made the world better."

Yeah, I remember that, but I've been Googling for an hour, and can't find anywhere where Clinton sent monitary support to the Taliban. Please give me a reference.

So what if they're favoring world socialism? Shouldn't every country have a say in world events? You don't like the UN because they blocked us from doing what we wanted to do in Iraq. That's what they're there for! France and Germany both said "Give the inspectors more time," which, if you think about it, might have saved us a LOT of money in a war that was not needed.
Yes, Saddam was bad, but why did we wait until now to take him out? Why not take him out when he first gassed his own people in 1983? Oh, that's right...because he was our FRIEND then. Look, as bad as he was, the region was stable. Taking Saddam out was one of the worst things we could do. Now the entire region is unstable. It's called Balance of Power. Study it.

That's right. I would call myself a socialist. I think it would be THE perfect way to govern...if it WORKED, but it CAN'T so we have to find some other way. But capitolism ain't it. Look at what's happening. All of these big businesses that you conservatives are trying to protect are sending jobs to Mexico. The tax cut is a joke. (Could I ask you something? If you take a paycut, can you go out and buy a big screen tv? That's exactly what Bush is doing right now. Three tax cuts in two years, and he's raising spending on everything else...that's called a DEFICIT and we'll never be able to pay it off.) There are 43 Million people in the US that don't currently have health insurance.
Capitolism boils down to class warfare. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The idea that hard work will let you advance in the world is a joke. That kind of mentality hasn't worked since the fifties. Maybe you should move into the 21st century. (And don't give me that "Well, communism fell in the 20th Century bs." I SAID there has to be a balance.)

Fair enough. I have my BA in Communications from Oklahoma Baptist University. I'm 27.

WilMac1023,

I can't believe you have less than 30 posts, and someone already gave you a rating of less than 5! In time you'll learn to turn off that fuction, it's pretty much useless. Only cry babies would give someone a lower than 5 rating to a newbie like yourself.

You're still my new hero though, just keep up the good fight and always wear your flame suit.

God Sean, why don't you just go to his house and give him a sponge bath.

I already did. You posted a link from a liberal writer about how Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban, which was taken out of context as usual. I backed that up. You posted a non-fictional story about why we attacked Iraq (even though it was posted by XOC a couple weeks ago)... No back up necessary, except the first post of this thread pretty much kills that story. Then you posted a story about how Bush knew there were going to be 9/11 attacks before it happened. That is just another conspiracy theory that 2001frontier backed up. So, I challenge you to post something somewhat credible and not these little madeup stories and/or theories. That's all we ask for in this forum.

You have to admit things around here shot up a notch or two since WilMac1023 joined in. Besides, us "Liberal Deviants" must stick together you know!

You'd then have to discredit a lot of the conservative posts on this board, as well as most of what O'Reilly or Rush report on their shows. What I find really funny is most people on XOC get their news from one partisan source or another. So why is it OK to post conservative links but not liberal ones?

Our auto insurance is cheaper than Mass.....Mass has the worst drivers in the US. :p At least we dont have to pay tax on our vehicles every year!

Sean you are confusing news reporting with news analysis. The article he posted by Scheer was 'analysis', and is it turns out completely poor analysis, because it had no basis in reality. No one gave the money to the Taliban.

Your generalization is not a valid argument at all. It is a end around avoiding the real question. The article he posted was completely biased, and not even true.

You ever been to Maryland? Those people are fricken morons on the road!

I'm allways amused at how well these discussions stay on topic. Just in case anyone forgot the topic was :

Who Is Lying about US involvement in Iraq?

Which somehow arrived at this:

Amen!

Hate to burst your bubble:

CLICK HERE

As for paying tax every year on one's vehicle, many states have this tax. In Mass it's called "excise tax" (which get's lower as the vehicle ages), in other states (R.I. comes to mind) it's called "property tax".

37 states, to be exact. (Sorry...it was in USAToday the other day)

That's fair. I don't listen or watch any of those shows... they don't talk about sports. And it's not like it's not welcome here, but I would like to read something that has some credible evidence to it. Not just conspiracy theories. I haven't seen a fellow conservative post anything like that... or maybe I just didn't bother to read it.

Guess you just didn't bother to read it - nearly anything that tries to put forth some Clinton-Murder conspiracy. (There's a whole thread on that, ya know. :p )

I guess Rush Limbaugh being a big fat idiot on
ESPN's Sunday NFL Pre-game show doesn't count in your mind? Same Limbaugh shit, different venue.

"Sorry to say this, I don't think he's (McNabb) been that good from the get-go," Limbaugh said in unscripted remarks. "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well, black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." - Rush Limbaugh.

You better catch him on ESPN while you can.
The story.

Rush is today\'s political football.

Damn you went to school in Shawnee Oklahoma. Bet they loved your views there

Politicians should never be on sports shows.. period. Politics have ruined most sports and are slowing bringing others down.

Rush isn't a politician. He is just an idiot with a talk show. Every once in a while he has a good point but he is an overstater just like Savage. Actually Savage is just a dumb ass hater generally.

Ohhhh yeah...I was Mr. Popularity on campus. When you get letters to the editor saying "I'm coming to your dorm room and stuffing my fist through your commie throat..." yeah, that's always a nice thing to read.

Isn't Limbaugh right on the money about McNabb? If McNabb were white all the sports writers would be critical of him.

The reverse racism in the NFL today is reaching a fever pitch. Huge league fines for not interviewing or considering a black coach. WTF is that shit all about? It's racism clear and simple. Fuck whitey....

McNabb is no Randall Cunningham no matter how much the media wants him to be. I would say the praise lobbed on him is an example of media bias and Rush called it for exactly what it is.

Yeah.. I knew that from your posts. I would actually say you are a communist. You have a deep seated hatred for capitalism. However I bet you have material things and a bank account. You have an X don't you? Why aren't you living in a commune or something if you hate capitalism so much? I bet you have a big screen TV and a full entertainmnet center. A nice home. Damn... yeah capitalism does suck doesn't it.

You also have a deep seated hatred for America.

By the way ... Allende was not a democtratic socialist. He was a communist. Nice try on the spin.

You should at least put everything he said...
(Note - the "if it worked" and "there has to be a balance.")

"That's right. I would call myself a socialist. I think it would be THE perfect way to govern...if it WORKED, but it CAN'T so we have to find some other way. But capitolism ain't it. Look at what's happening. All of these big businesses that you conservatives are trying to protect are sending jobs to Mexico. The tax cut is a joke. (Could I ask you something? If you take a paycut, can you go out and buy a big screen tv? That's exactly what Bush is doing right now. Three tax cuts in two years, and he's raising spending on everything else...that's called a DEFICIT and we'll never be able to pay it off.) There are 43 Million people in the US that don't currently have health insurance.
Capitolism boils down to class warfare. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The idea that hard work will let you advance in the world is a joke. That kind of mentality hasn't worked since the fifties. Maybe you should move into the 21st century. (And don't give me that "Well, communism fell in the 20th Century bs." I SAID there has to be a balance.)

NY MADMAN:

Agreed 100% on the ridiculous $200,000 fine levied on the Lions for hiring their hometown boy. Hell, they even tried to bring in interviewees, but it was clear Mooch was a hot commodity destined for Detroit. The NFL dropped the ball on that one.

To address your other point: All the sports writers are critical of McNabb. And have been since mid-September. They just don't say he's in that position due to the color of his skin. Rush provided an incredibly shallow and misguided analysis of McNabb's status. As an aside, I wonder if Limbaugh lost weight due to Franken's book?
Al...helping out wherever he can.

You're right, McNabb is no Randall Cunningham. He's better. And he's shown that -- guiding the Eagles to back to back appearances in the NFC Championship. (err, just the D did it) Randall went to three Pro Bowls, McNabb has 3 in a row under his belt (but I'm sure it's the biased media).

I will say this. Donovan is not playing to his potential. It may be skittishness on his part to leave the pocket after the ankle last year, it may be Reid's system and it may be the pedestrian receivers. Hell, it might be the damn Campbell's Chunky Soup ad he did. But bottom line, he's not in that role on the basis of his skin color.

I didn't because he knows communism and socialism don't work. It has been proven and is still being proved.

Besides Moby.... You do that to me all the time. Most people here do.

Typical liberal hype...why is it you people dislike and try to ruin anyone who speaks their mind and uses the 1st admendment the way it was intended to be used? Rush speaks his mind. He believes he is honest. Just because you don't agree with him, you attack him.

It's not just the NFL.... it's everywhere! I was listening to the radio this morning, local talk show, and someone called in where he had an academic scholarship to some college only to find out it was taken away because they realized he was white, not black like they originally thought. Yeah, that's fair. I got an idea, give it to the guy that deserves it and not base it on their skin color.

I just figured you ignored the rest of it because it was typical assinine libbie horse shit.

The American Dream is alive and well my commie friend. I have worked for the same company for 6 years now. I started sweeping the parking lot, and now I am a software developer. My salary has more than tripled in that relatively short time period. If you aren't a lazy ass, and work hard anyone can do the same thing in this country.

On to Allende. He was democratically elected by a minority. The revolution was going to happen and the CIA just kind of helped it along. I saw an interesting documentary the other day specifically about the revolution. Even the leftists on there said the country was better off now than it would have been under Allende. Pinochet was a jackass to be sure, but he did well for the economy of his country. This link explains this pretty well.

http://val.dorta.com/archives/000343.html

Damn this thread is covering it all.

I never said McNabb was bad. He's definitely not on top of his game this year. (I do think there always was more hype than substance regarding him). I'm just saying that Rush probably had a point in what he said. Michael Irvin even said he had a point. He probably shouldn't have said it on TV with all the uptight political correctness today... but he did. Everyone loves to scream racism these days.

Look at an example of the flip side of the coin. Jets QB Vinny Testeverde is catching a lot of shit from some of our local sports writers (not all). Believe me, Vinny is not the Jets problem. I think coach Edwards deserves a little more criticism than he is getting... but then again Edwards is black.

I think when Randall was McNabb's age he was better. I don't think McNabb should have been thrown a 12 year contract extension? No professional athlete should ever have long contracts like that. Owners never learn.

I don't think that any politician of any party is immune to most of this. Its what ther do.

I lean more to the left on social issues and right on fiscal ones. I believe that the WMD's or the development programs were there but Saddam had a year and a half since 9/11 to clean things up, relocate this lab, sell of that vial, smuggle peole and equipment off to Libya, Syria, Iran or whereever. He may be a paranoid, eogcentric self-important all around SOB but stupid, no.

And it's typical conservative behavior to not explain WHY it's typical assinine libbie horse shit. Just like Franken's claims. I have said it before - I don't doubt he is spinning, BUT I have yet to see a conservative explain away each of his claims. It's always, "Oh, he's lying" or "it was typical assinine libbie horse shit."

The only issue they latch on to is the Harvard letterhead - which he already acknowledged and apologized for...which I can't say for O'Reilly's false claim about the Polk award, nor any of Coulter's ramblings, nor any of Hannity's spewing.

First-You could at least print everything I said. (Thanks for backing me up, Moby.)

Second-I do not have a deep seeded hatred for capitalism. I have a deep seeded hatred for conservatives who take away any means of help for the poor and tell them to "get a job." Sometimes that's just not possible. Have you ever had to stand in an unemployment line? It's not a party down there. Those people aren't happy to be sucking off of the government's tit. They've been forced to, because there's no other way. You conservatives make it sound like everyone on unemployment and disability are cheating this "socialist" system. Need I remind you of the capitalists at Enron and Worldcom that destroyed more lives than al-Quaeda, all in the name of capitalism?

Third-Jesus was a socialist. How does that float your boat?

Fourth-Who cares what Allende was? His government was working, and his countrymen loved him. The fear of the "Communist Threat" destroyed what WAS a working socialist system.

Fifth- I, in no way, have a deep seated hatred for America. But I DO sense that you have a deep seated hatred for anyone that does not agree with you. That is sad to me, because you obviously are an intelligent person. You are just misguided, and put your fingers in your ears so you can't hear an intelligent counter-argument. Your last desperate act when you're losing an argument is to call someone un-American. What a typical conservative tactic.

Wil, I am going to start another religious debate...but please explain to me how Jesus was a Socialist.

People who collect unemployment get it because it is their right. Their employers paid the state a percentage of their salaries for that insurance. But it doesn't last forever and it shouldn't.

You failed to mention welfare recipients. Most are deatbeats who never look for a job. Taxpayers pay the cost of housing and healthcare for them. The taxpayers today are even paying the healthcare costs for illegals and such. All this is wrong and should never happen. You are a communist/socialist and believe in redistribution of wealth through confiscatory taxation. That is wrong. That is not what America is all about and certainly is not how we became the world's financial leader. Everyone should stand on their own feet. In America that is more than possible if you are not lazy. Any type of government assistance should only be a short term temporary measure. Not the family business like it is all over America's inner cities. Illegal immigrants shouldn't even be here so they should get nothing from the taxpayers. Maybe we might have more money for the deserving Americans on disability.

Enron and Worldcom never killed anyone or strapped bomb belts to their waists. Comparing them to terrorists is pure leftist idiocy and bullshit. These companies are a poor example of capitalism. They are examples of corrupt individuals. There are tens of thousands of businesses and thousands of public corporations in America that are honest and run by honest people. Their are corrupt individuals in all types of economic and political systems. A corrupt capitalist make take your money. Corrupt socialists and communists take your life. Over 100 million died at the hands of communism and socialism in the 20th century alone. That is the system you love.

Jesus was a socialist? How do you know? Did you ask him? Somehow I am willing to bet you don't even believe in Jesus.. but I'm sure you have no problem exploiting him for the sake of your spin.

You commies love that dirtbag Allende. How many more lies will you tell about him? Allende was elected president with 36.2 percent of the vote. He was not that popular. His military especially hated him. He was in power about 3 years. The last two years was a total disaster. He nationalized the mines and a lot of factories. Foriegn investment dropped to almost nothing. The currency was nearly worthless. Inflation was out of control. The mines he nationalized became almost worthless and the factories he handed over to the workers were a total disaster. So much for your socialist/communist workers state run paradise.

I stand by my assertion that you hate this country.... at least in it's present form. All you communists do.

Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Luke 11:41 But give what you have to the poor, and everything will be clean for you.

Luke 11:46 Jesus replied, "And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

Luke 14:13-14 But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, 14and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.

Luke 1:53 He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty.

Mark 12:41-44 Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny. Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything--all she had to live on."


Mark 10:17-24 As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'"
"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.
Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"
The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."


I've got about thirty more, if you would like me to continue.

Those quotes from The New Testament mean nothing about socialism. Especially not your version of socialism.

They mean give to the poor and needy. Not to some socialist government bureaucracy to decide who gets what and who doesn't. You really are full of shit and a sick bastard. That's low using quotes from Jesus to support your view of socialism and communism.

No other organizations on earth do more for the poor and needy than the numerous Christian faiths and organizations. It sure as hell certainly not any socialist or communist governments.

Good call Madman. Unfortunately, it seems our WilMac has falling into the hands of a cult's teachings. I found this website that expresses the same thing:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fam_love.htm

It's sad and we should feel bad for him, but I don't think being so vulgar is the answer.

Could I ask you a question? When was the last time you gave to the poor and hungry?

And how is it low using Jesus's own words? Does it scare you that he said that it's hard for the rich to get into heaven? Does that make your conservative mind race with fear? In my searching for those quotes, I never heard Jesus say 'Keep your money to yourself,' or 'privatize and deregulate everything,' or 'survival of the fittest.'

What I heard him say was give everything you have to the poor. To ME, that sounds like socialist philosophy.

You conservatives have to get over this fear you have of socialism. Socialism is much different than the Marxist-Communist philosophy of Soviet Russia. Socialism puts everyone on an even footing. The Communists took this philosophy, and took away the freedom of religion, and yes, millions died in Russia for their beliefs. But that is NOT socialist philosophy.

I changed my mind. You're not misguided. You're an ostrich that buries his head in the sand when he's scared of an intelligent argument.

Any five year old can call names. It takes a grown up to debate.

Was I vulgar? Yeah... Maybe a little. I don't think it is undeserving though. Nikolai Lenin WilPac is getting low and scraping the bottom of the barrel by using quotes from Jesus to support his sick view of the world. I'm also willing to bet he is an atheist too. That makes it even sicker.

You know I hate communists.... and we have a live one here in Nikolai Wilpac.

(By the way..... Rush resigned from his ESPN show tonight)

I like how you selectivley edited out:

This is NOT Christianity. You have no idea who you are attacking, by the way. I am one of the staunchest Christians you will ever meet. Heck, I just got back from my BAPTIST church tonight before jumping on here. But I also have a brain in my head and study my bible religiously (no pun intended). And for all I've read, I just can not come to the conclusion that Jesus would be a Capitalist, because Jesus's focus was not on getting richer, but on helping those who couldn't help themselves. This is pure socialist philosophy. I defy you to find anything that Jesus ever said that would lead you to believe that Jesus would follow a capitalist philosophy. You have no way of backing up your argument.

By the way...before you call me a cultist or brand me something I'm not, I'd direct you to Matthew 7:1-2. In fact, I'll print it out for you, if you can't find your Bible...

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

I give money to local charitable organizations every year. Do you give anything?

Plus you never answered the question. Do you believe in Jesus seeing that you quote him freely in an attempt to serve your own purpose?

There is a huge difference from giving to the poor and having a socialist government take your money. I think you are disturbed for seeing these words that way.

Socialism does not put everyone on an even footing. It destroys the human spirit and puts limits on freedom and achievement.

The whole idea and concept of America was everyone is on an even footing and treated equally in the eyes of the law. Anyone can be successful in America. All you have to do is work hard and take advantage of the oppurtunities the country has to offer. You can become a millioniare or a lazy deadbeat. The choice is up to the individual in America. That's freedom. I feel sorry for you because you don't understand that. I know immigrants who understand this very clearly and the sad thing is you were born here.

If you love communism and socialism so much.... There are a number of workers paradises around the globe that you can freely move to. Why stay here and complain about our system if it sucks that much?

You are the one who is misguided, not I. I'm here debating you. I feel sorry for you actually.

No more problem with the big fat idiot

First off, I love this board, you guys are the greatest! Even the misguided nutcases!

It's fun to watch people throw one post at a person and another person fling back a response.

And even thought I think the far right nutjobs have no clue what's going on at least the debate is stimulating.

Second...

He's not serving his own purpose; he's trying to pull the veil of Facist Capitalism from you eyes.

That's why he said Socialism will never work in his FIRST post of the subject.

I actually kind of agree with this, not as extreme as you say but it does limit personal freedom. Obviously this is why it won't work. I do think that everybody should live by a socialist ideal on a social scale.
I.E. People should help each other out when they need it financially or otherwise.

That isn't actually true though, is it? People are still treated different based off of color and sex.

That's your opinion, ask anybody that had their job taken from them and sent to Mexico how easy it is to get back no their feet. And don't you think that the company that took the job from the employee should help them out some how with the new money their stock made when they moved their production to Mexico?

Funny it's kind of like a socialist state except instead of giving your money to the government to share with everybody else, you give your time(money) to the private company and they re-distribute it between their stock holders and leave you nothing.

It's Reverse Socialism!

Blah, blah.

Ah! The conservative's favorite response! Don't like it? Leave!

The thing is that our country is so close to greatness that a few small changes and we could lead the world to Utopia and make everybody as happy as we are. But I forgot, Capitalism isn't about sharing happiness, sharing is a socialist thing. And there's this article (number 5) in the constitution that says we can change the nation however we want as along as "We The People" vote that its a good move.

Oh, and I feel REALLY sorry for you and anybody as misguided as you.

Yes, yes I have. And yes I hated every minute of it. Now, you dont have to anymore, you can just call every two weeks, makes it real easy. "Press one if you have looked for a job this week..."

And viola, they send you a check. You would be amazed at how many people I heard talking about how it was a joke, and that they havent even looked for a job in six months. The problem is not that people use the safety net. It is there for a reason. The problem is that too many people use it as a hammock.

You mean besides the money I give every year? How about how I serve every first Saturday morning of the month at my church's foodbank, giving food to the poor?

Or how I volunteer every other month with Habitat For Humanity?

You mean besides THAT?

Why yes I do. I became a Christian on fourth of July weekend 1988 when I was thirteen years old.

The government takes your money anyway. It's called taxes. Or don't you pay these?

No, socialism is about HOW the money is used, not the fact that the government takes your money.

In fact, I'd be comepletly happy paying MORE taxes if it meant that schools were better off, if roads were fixed, if the poor were fed, and that everyone had access to health care services. My having a 300 dollar check come to me from the government doesn't help me at all. I'd much prefer it to go to those who need it. Which is why I donated my check to Compassion International. (Whoops! I didn't help out the economy any, did I?)

Again, you're confusing communism with socialism. Yes, the communists put a hard line on everyone, and they were corrupt. Socialism is a utopian philosophy where everyone works, and everyone is equal. And, as I've previously admitted, it can't be successful in the real world, because there are those that won't work. I know this. But capitalism isn't the answer. There has to be a medium between the two that allows those that are able to go to work and get ahead, and helps those that CAN'T work to survive. Yet you conservatives do everything in your power to help big corporations not have to pull their fair share in society. You cut taxes for them. You look the other way when they pull an Enron. (Why have these guys STILL not gone to jail, may I ask you?) You hand them grant after fund after tax break, and what do they do? Lay people off, build factories in Mexico, vote themselves a fat payraise, and use loopholes in the tax code. That's not capitalism, that's theft from their own countrymen!

Tell that to the people in Flint Michigan. I'm sure they'd LOVE to tell you about their plant closings, and how those jobs went to Mexico.

Yeah, and I'm sure those people that lost their entire life savings and retirement funds in the Enron fiasco are REALLY happy that they now have nothing to live on. They sure chose THAT path, because, you know, they WANTED to work until they were 75. Isn't that the American dream??

As racist a statement as anything I've read on this board. So, there are SOME immigrants that came to America to be lazy deadbeats? Of course there are, but there are thousands of lazy deadbeats that were born here too. They're called teenagers. (sorry, a little humor to lighten things up.)

Again with this "If you don't agree with us, go away" conservative argument. You know who else said this? The Nazis.

You conservatives need to get over it and take a look at what you're doing to the world. Are you leaving it a better place? Looking around, I'd say you're not. I'd say you're all laying waste to everything around you, and it's going to take years to repair the damage done by Bush.

Well, pity me all you want, but I'm the one that's educated.

I seriously doubt you are a Christian. Just going to church makes you as much a Christian as going to the pet store makes you a dog.

You are so totally wrong about all those verses you typed in. Geez, have you no clue about anything? Most of your verses were written in parables. Maybe you ought to look that word up...parables.

WilMac, you sure do play the race card alot. I dont see anything remotely resembling a racist statement here. (by the way, the teenager comment was funny)

You mean beyond the fact that he said "I know immigrants that know this..."??? You mean beyond that? That means that of the 300 Million people in this country, the only ones that DON'T know that are immigrants?
I just returned from Ellis Island, and in their museum they have little computer screens set up with the test that immigrants have to take to enter the country. Did you know that 54% of all Americans can't answer those questions on the test? These are AMERICANS that can't pass a test about their own countries government! Why does being an immigrant automatically make you stupid? These generalizations you people make are disturbing.

WTF are you talking about? I realize by now that you are way beyond our intelligence level. You find hidden meanings in all sorts of things people write here. Meanings we didnt even see. You have enlightened me on several occasion here telling me what i was thinking. You are must have mystical mind reading powers. I am glad you are here to enlighten us and tell us all what we are thinking. Typical liberal BS. :rolleyes:

Very typical leftie thought process...there is always someone else to blame...there is always a hidden meaning behind everything...there is always an excuse for our behavior (racism, sexism, etc..)...

Wil, sugar coat things however you want. You call it racism, I call it fact. You call it sexism, I call it nice rack. A rose is a rose is a rose. Get over it already. You lefties can't label everything.

What is the most interesting thing to me is that you ignore the rest of my (rather lengthy) post, and just find the one thing you can attack on.

No wonder you guys are Republicans. You can't debate, you just argue.

Besides, that teenager line was a killer. Why can't you laugh a little?

Conservatives do this, too. Blame someone else (Clinton) or pass things off as "an honest mistake."

The teenager line was funny. You have a pm.

I don't know what you are talking about here. I was responding as to the reason Madman did not respond to the rest of our new resident socialist's post. Did you read the rest of my post, or did you just see that line and respond?

"Monica? What are you doing down there with my dick in your mouth? "

"It was an honest mistake, Mr. President."

Just joking Moby.

hehehe...now that was funny. Damn teenagers!

Damn man...bringing up older posts that I know have to search for! Damn you! :p

I'm just saying how I've yet to see a conservative on here say WHY the liberal arguments are wrong. All I ever see is "you're wrong" or whatnot. Give us FACTS. I'll give you a good example...

Franken's book. All I ever see from conservatives is that it is full of lies. Did they read it? "Hell, no....I'll never read that drivel." If you don't read it, how can you POSSIBLY refute it?

It smacks of the same reaction when Last Temptation of Christ came out - all these people denouncing it...BEFORE IT EVEN WAS RELEASED. How about they watch it first, THEN come out with reasons why it sucked?

[Note: These posts are getting very long. You don't have to quote every word in the previous post. Anyone reading the thread knows what's going on and can follow]

You give money to charity and help out with Habitat for Humanity. You're a hell of a guy. I'll nominate you for sainthood at the next Vatican Council. I'm sure you also turn down the receipts and time vouchers and never use them for tax write offs.

I'm very aware what socialism is and it doesn't work. Too much government is always a problem and never a solution. Private organizations will always do better than any government. Socialism is wrong. Why do you put so much faith in the state and none in individuals? Do you hate people or something? Socialism is collectivism and that is dangerous. Sounds like you want to turn the country into some kind of welfare state where people are dependant on the government. This is not Europe. I have faith in people and their ability to fend for themselves without government interference. Almost everything you say on this board seems to indicate some distrust of individual people and also corporations. Corporations have done more good for humanity than any government ever has.

If you want to pay more taxes, you are more than welcome. The Federal government does allow you to donate money to them. So do most State and local governments. How much will you be giving this year?

You people are still bitching about Flint, Michigan? Wasn't that Michael Moore's first piece of propaganda? That was in the 80's. Are you saying those same people are still out of work?

Anyone who put their whole retirement savings in the stock of any one company was a fool. What happened to them was bad, but it was flat out stupidity and poor financial planning.

You really are a spin-doctor. You people try as hard as you can to scream racism. You take everything out of context. I'll spell it out for you.... I know immigrants who are extremely successful. Some are millionaires. That's racist? They know the value of our freedoms and opportunities. You are the racist for automatically assuming it meant an immigrant is a deadbeat.

Your anti-capitalist and pro-socialist arguments are the same in every thread and getting tired. We will get nowhere with this argument. I am in favor of people and small government. You are in favor of the state and huge government. Nothing we say to each other will ever change that.

You don't sound one bit educated. You sound every bit indoctrinated.

I specifically did refute his claims in my post. How about arguing against them? Often we 'conservatives' have heard the same bogus arguments over and over again. I personally am not really that conservative. I do find the extreme leftists to be full of shit on most issues though, and I can say the same thing about extremists on the right like Madman. For example we disagree completely on the issue of homosexuality and abortion most likely to.

This I can agree with. And I've said as much.

(The original comment of mine wasn't pointed at you)

Moby.... You know that's not what he meant.

I know...it was a generalization.

Holy hyjacked thread Batman. But, I guess I got give my response to this:

I especially how you think I edited out something. a) I didn't change anything in the paragraph I picked out. b) I gave the link, did you want me to quote the whole damn thing?
Good for you for going to church (FYI: there's A LOT more than just going), don't know why you capitalized BAPTIST... are they better than every other religion? I thought only Church of Christ was like that. My wife is a hard core Baptist, would own you in any debate on the religion and she can't believe how misled you are. Me, I'm just a non-denominational... recovering Catholic. And I haven't met you and doubt I will... this is only the internet.
I think if you actually read AND actually understand the Bible, you'll find that Jesus was both a capitalist and socialist. However, he makes it very clear that it's our choice and not something we should be forced to do. I should not be forced to give to the poor... it should be my decision... which I do regularly along with what the government makes me do which is pointless giving. I'm not your preacher, but if you want me to site the Bible, I will. I just find it wasteful with someone like you who wants to hear what they want to hear. However, I suggest you go talk privately with your preacher. There's a reason more Christians are conservative than liberals.
I don't know you or judged you... I simply said you follow the teachings of the cult I found. You really assume the worst in people that don't share the same views as you first. Who's judging who?

What an arrogant asshole you are! Of course I turn them down. I also don't claim my tithe on my taxes either. I don't believe that I should benifit from doing charity work. That's not the reason I do it. I do it because I love my fellow man, and want to help those that can't help themselves.

I'm not looking for recognition.

What are YOU doing to make the world a better place?

(sorry for the language, but this guy is pissing me off.)

Because I figured you'd approve. It's a quite conservative branch of Protestantism.

An excellent point.

I'm waiting.

If you weren't looking for recognition you wouldn't be telling these tales about your so-called Christian charity work.

I don't believe for one minute that you are the religious guy you purport to be. I know a lot of devout Catholics and Christians and not a single one shares any of your world views. Some consider themselves liberal, but no where near the stuff you have been spitting out that past few days.

And no one would refuse to use the write offs if you give as much as you claim. That's just plain stupid.

Man, are you serious? Well, alright... only because I nothing to do at work at this present moment:

Jesus working hard (Mark 6:3):
3"Where did this man get these things?" they asked. "What's this wisdom that has been given him, that he even does miracles! Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph,[1] Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

(Ephesians 4:28) 28He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.

(2 Thessalonians 3:10) 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."

(1 Timothy 5:8) 8If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Notice the use of the NEW Testament? Like I said, I'm all for giving to the poor, I just want it to be my choice along with everyone else. I also don't want people being a "professional welfare recipient" who have no intention of working and earning their living. That is stealing from people like me.

No we don't.

uh...you asked him.

These are from the letters of PAUL, not Jesus. The first was a letter to the church at Ephesus, where he worked frequently. The second is a letter to the Thessalonians, and is a restatement by Paul of an old Jewish Proverb.

The most interesting one is from Timothy. You are ignoring the situation that Paul addresses to Timothy. It was concerning the issue of community support for widows. The widow is encouraged to make positive contributions to the church's ministry.

The passage reflects a fairly advanced system of care--a "roll" or "list" of widows eligible for support (v. 9). But the system was being abused; families of widows were not shouldering their responsibility, thus placing financial strain on the church. Then certain younger widows, who may have managed to get on the list, were threatening the church's reputation by involvement with the false teaching and scandalous behavior. The instructions address three related topics: the identification of the honorable widow, family responsibility for widows, young widows. Which goes along with what I've been saying all along. Socialism is a great way to govern, but it can't work all by itself. There has to be a medium between capitalism and socialism. You conservatives on here continue to ignore me saying that.

I never brought it up until you asked. I was only answering your question.

Maybe because you surround yourself with people that have the same opinions as you do. I know my friends and I get into these arguments all the time. It strengthens both our faith and our friendship in that we can argue these things and still remain friends.

Well, then call me stupid. But I believe I have ethics, and these are the ethics I live by. If that makes me stupid, well, I'm fine with that. But at least I can sleep at night knowing I gave up something so someone else could have a better life.

I'm sure we all hear you loud and clear.

I for one just don't agree with you and never will. I believe in enough government to provide vital services and representation. That's it. I don't believe in any type of medium.... by the way does that mean 50% capitalism 50% socialism. It will never work.

Well, Wilmac, that's the beauty of the Bible. You're going to interpret it the way you want to just like I will and you know what... everyone one in this world that can think for themselves will all have a different opinion on the message the Bible is trying to get across. If you know for a fact what God is saying, please prove it to me now because that mean's Jesus has come for us and you are him.

If you search the interent now, you'll find great research and opinons supporting both sides. Why is that? I believe it's because Jesus was BOTH a socialist and capitalist. However, I think people like you will fail to look outside of the box and read what you want to read. You all feel it has to be one way or the other and there's no room for in between.

Let me ask you this... there are 3 other major topics (besides the whole money thing) that politcs and religion clash on. What would Jesus support on the following topics:

1) abortion
2) homosexuality (the sin, not the person)
3) death penalty

There is a reason why more Christians side with the conservatives over the liberals. That's up to you to figure out why. Remember, it's the liberals that are taking "God" out of The Pledge, removing the Ten Commandments, etc... yeah, what great Christian-like acts.

I don't think we've ignored it because we've yet to hear you say that Jesus was a Capitalist also. You've said from the beginning he was a socialist only.

WilMac1023,

I was right about you. I knew you would be more than a match for these stodgy conservatives. NY Madman, NismoXse02, Off-His-Crib, and 2001frontier, leaders of the O'Reilly/Limbaugh religion, have all ganged up and launched just about every piss-poor right-wing argument against you, and you're STILL winning the debate!

Gotta admit this is good.

I did say some were liberal right? Unless your screen is showing something different than mine.

It's starting to pile higher and higher with you on every post.

If you love paying taxes so much, do you want to pay mine? You would be making my life better.

LOL, judge me into being a O'Reily/Limbaugh follower... I've never watch/listened to one show. Sorry to disappoint you. BTW, at least we talk and respond with our own thoughts instead of sticking our nose up one of our own's ass and dodging the whole topic altogether. How's Wilmacs shit smell? Oh yeah, he's really winning... Don't know how you came to that conclusion that he's "winning", but go ahead and think that, drone.

Oh gee Sean, you see, I think Madman, Frontier, Nismo, and Off His Rocker :rolleyes: are winning. It all depends on your point of view. Get over yourself, or call me when your mothership arrives.

His buttons are even easier to push than yours used to be...

He's got 4 or 5 people jumping on his case, and he's still holding his own. Can't say I've ever seen you do the same.

Nor you for that matter. So I say again, get over yourself. Never said he wasnt holding his own. We all hold our own here.

Man, I'm hungry.

What do I want for lunch?

A Liberal Chicken caesar sald?

Or a Republican bacon-n-cheddar burger?

Discuss, you fucking nimrods, discuss . . .

Give him a break, he's new. I'm sure he'll come up to speed real soon. Hey I just realized something, you haven't called him a "Deviant" yet...

Freedom fries.

I am going for a nice bucket of PETA brand chicken wings. MMM MMM Good.

Oh, now I see your definition of winning. All you have to do is hold your own and you win! In that case, the four of us "win" all the time here considering this is primarily a liberal and athiest board!

Are you a leftie or a rightie when you "hold your own"?

Wait . . . I just took a masturbatory innuendo full circle, back to politics.

You're a hard-core rightie . . .

BTW . . .

What's a "sald"?

Can I have a salad instead?

Some more so than others. Please, when have you ever had to defend your conservative position to anyone of real substance on this board. I think you need to get over yourself pal.

Huh? OK...whatever makes you feel better. Tell us when you come back from that "Special" place that you go to.

:rolleyes:

Is he?

That's not the topic. It would be interesting to see his views on that. He is a radical leftist but he also claims to be a religious Christian. That could be interesting.

Well, I've only met two liberals on here, but way too many of you conservatives. But I've got you all so much in a blather that you can't even argue a point. You're not even arguing anymore.

I WIN!!!

Imagine that... spin what I said about you back at me.

What win? Nobody wins here. You stopped responding to us. Why did you drop out of the Rush thread?

Because I went to lunch.

Check again, dipstick.

I learned that from the spin doctors on Fox, I knew that network had to be good for something.

Sean how about posting your opinion about something instead of licking the new guys balls? What has he won by the way?

I am actually a righty when I hold me own. Being as I am right handed. But they say when you try your non-dominant (liberal?)hand it feels like someone else. I guess its because you cant quite get that dominant hand rhythm juuuust right.
For lunch I ended up having a big bowl of Roast Beef. Thats right , just beef in a bowl. (Ran out of bread). Packed it right down there into my colon. This is for you PETA!!!

"My left hand hasn't seen my right hand in years."

Name the movie, and I'll go easy on you in debates from now on.

Sweet Smell of Success

Lucky bastard...ok, now I have to pull punches from you.

And for a while there I was nervous that Dipstick was going to get it.

Whooptee shit.

Don't use movie quotes as "bets".

Google is a wonderful tool . . .

Damn, settle down. I was just trying to do something different.

Jeez, people are wound up tight in this place. You'd think someone had been putting their political beliefs to the test.

Hello, did you read the title of the forum?

Don't worry, they'll show up. They're everywhere here. There's not to many here in this topic because the original topic can't be argued with by them. Matter of fact, they're probably embarrassed.

And, since you or the other few libs that posted in this topic have yet to respond to what your fellow libs have said, that means I win!

I guess you can claim victory if you just ignore my posts. :rolleyes:

So you are admitting none of the libbies here are of real substance? I agree.

Yeah...I think you conservatives are the ones lying about US involvement in Iraq.

I never said that. In fact, I'm still waiting on a conservative to give me a good, honest, hard fought debate. You guys are making it so easy for me, it's laughable.

In fact, I'm laughing right now. MMMWWWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Wrong. I posted a reply. Only FIVE of the 19 quotes could be viewed as lies. Or did you just skip over that reply? :p

That's the worst attempt of a spin I've seen yet.

NO SOUP FOR YOU!

PS

Do you know how faggy it looks when you type "Libbies"? Do you consider yourself a "Connie" too?

:p

I was making a joke asswipe. You are just like Sean and Xterrapin. You ignore posts you can't refute and claim victory. You also need to start reading slowly. I said earlier, did you read the title of the forum, not the post. You have ignored my arguments here and in the Arafat thread, and claimed victory. How disengenuous and typical of you fag commies. Is that less gay than libbies?

So was I! Damn, you people are SERIOUS in here. Jeez, Louise.

OK, now I'm getting confused...is this toward me, or WilMac, or Sean, or....damnit!

I ignore you regularly, assclown.

I.
Own.
You.

Well why don't you address all the arguments then, not just the ones you think you can pick apart. The double standard is a perfect example. You seem to think that because Lott did not apologize until three days later that there is no double standard. That makes no sense at all.

Don't you having spelling police duty to attend to or something. I hate your ass face!

Don't.

Are you talking to me? Is there another Sean on this board? I knew the "faggy" comment would get your panties in a bunch. If there is one thing you "Connies" are, it's homophobic.

I am in no way shape or form a 'connie' or a homophobe. One of my best friends is gay, and I am actually attending a gay wedding next month in Austin.

Look, it's not that he waited three days. It's that he didn't do it until he was under pressure from other Republican leaders. He obviously didn't think he was wrong because he didn't immediatly apologize when he was called on it. The other people that were used as examples DID apologize when shown their errors.

Therefore, there is no double standard.

Don't.

---

Damn it, I tried to fix it before anyone noticed.