Funding Terror Is Funding Terror? (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

Once again, the left's chronic and egregious mis-statements of the facts and refusals to accept even really obvious evidence have prevented them from making honest or accurate assertions about the war on terror.

 

[Conflict]

Once again, the left's chronic and egregious mis-statements of the facts and refusals to accept even really obvious evidence have prevented them from making honest or accurate assertions about the war on terror.

Once again another right wing extremist complains about left wing extremists.

This has gotten us no where.

Where's bin laden?

 

[aquapub]

That last option is particularly for liberals, who operate despite the facts, based on conspiracy theories-like O'Reilly, who actually responded to my point about Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by saying this...AND I QUOTE:

"He asked for, and received tacit approvel from Bush Sr. regarding his intention to attack Kuwait."

:rofl

Yeah, that's it. It was a Bush-Hussein conspiracy. This is what we conservatives are up against. :lol:

 

[aquapub]

Once again another right wing extremist complains about left wing extremists.

This has gotten us no where.

Where's bin laden?

Actually, if you match my positions up with mainstream America's I'm quite centrist, thank you. Not being a retard about national security does not make you an extremist.

National polls (and the last 6 or 7 elections) do consistently indicate however, that liberals are way, way out of the mainstream.


Where's Bin Laden? Ask Bill Clinton. Democrats watched his movements (and did nothing) for almost a decade while he attacked us with impunity. They would probably know.

 

[Conflict]

That last option is particularly for liberals, who operate despite the facts, based on conspiracy theories-like O'Reilly, who actually responded to my point about Saddam's unprovoked invasion of Kuwait by saying this...AND I QUOTE:

"He asked for, and received tacit approvel from Bush Sr. regarding his intention to attack Kuwait."

:rofl

Yeah, that's it. It was a Bush-Hussein conspiracy. This is what we conservatives are up against. :lol:

What exactly are you conserving?

 

[Conflict]

Actually, if you match my positions up with mainstream America's I'm quite centrist, thank you. Not being a retard about national security does not make you an extremist.

National polls (and the last 6 or 7 elections) do consistently indicate however, that liberals are way, way out of the mainstream.


Where's Bin Laden? Ask Bill Clinton. Democrats watched his movements (and did nothing) for almost a decade while he attacked us with impunity. They would probably know.

It's difficult to blame it on Clinton. I despise Clinton. He was also a poor representation of the leadership of our nation.

THe fact of the matter, pertaining to the paper trail of economics... which is the basis of the whole right/left scheme.....

points to Bush being the miscreant of the right wing agenda to covertly support the left wing agenda of a HUGE government.

WOOPS.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Actually, if you match my positions up with mainstream America's I'm quite centrist, thank you. Not being a retard about national security does not make you an extremist.

Really? Mainstream America is committed to segregation and the purity of race the way you are? Really? Are you sure about that? Do you want me to repost the racially volatile posts you've written recently as proof that you're in the mainstream?

National polls (and the last 6 or 7 elections) do consistently indicate however, that liberals are way, way out of the mainstream.

Prove it or stop writing bullshit. Define mainstream while you're at it! If mainstream by your definition is to have a return to segregation and to purify the white race as you've written previously I would like to start a new poll to prove that your view of mainstream is EXTREME.

Where's Bin Laden? Ask Bill Clinton. Democrats watched his movements (and did nothing) for almost a decade while he attacked us with impunity. They would probably know.

The highlighted words above show how mainstream you are! HO HO HO! Bush has had 5 years and half a trillion dollars of our money invested into supposedly catching Bin Laden and it's gotten us zippo...To bring Clinton into this is ridiculously inept and further proves how lame your positions are.

The lamest part of this thread is the useless and totally prejudiced poll that you concocted. Am I surprised that you created a prejudiced poll and then try to suggest that it is Liberals who are prejudiced?

Lame Poll, Lame Thread, Lame Post...If nothing else you're certainly consistent.

 

[Comrade Brian]

What exactly are you conserving?

Past idiocy and intolerence, and inability to keep up with today's society. Society requires constant change, most right-wingers fail to understand that. But most righties consider themselves "preserving morality" and whatnot.

 

[jfuh]

Once again, the left's chronic and egregious mis-statements of the facts and refusals to accept even really obvious evidence have prevented them from making honest or accurate assertions about the war on terror.

Asside from fundamentalist accusations and making argument for the sake of arguing. Is there ever anything productive that you can contribute to these posts?

 

[aquapub]

What exactly are you conserving?

Just about everything the hysterical left wants to destroy.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Just about everything the hysterical left wants to destroy.

You start this ridiculous thread that contains a poll that is "hysterical" as any ever posted in this community. Do you really think that your poll has any creditability other than to ram your personal stilted point of view up everyone's butt?

 

[jfuh]

You start this ridiculous thread that contains a poll that is "hysterical" as any ever posted in this community. Do you really think that your poll has any creditability other than to ram your personal stilted point of view up everyone's butt?

Lol, I don't know about that, would be a bit of stinky job.

 

[Navy Pride]

Once again another right wing extremist complains about left wing extremists.

This has gotten us no where.

Where's bin laden?

Once again a Liberal defends the butcher of Baghdad Saddam.........:roll:

 

[aquapub]

Once again a Liberal defends the butcher of Baghdad Saddam.........:roll:

That is exactly the point of this entire thread. The facts speak for themselves. This debate is won the moment conservatives do not allow liberals to distort the facts by calling terrorists things like, "freedom fighters," and by splitting hairs about whether or not agreeing to provide for someone's family so they can go blow themselves up and kill a bunch of people is sponsoring suicide bombings-which, of course, it is. :roll:

 

[jfuh]

That is exactly the point of this entire thread. The facts speak for themselves. This debate is won the moment conservatives do not allow liberals to distort the facts by calling terrorists things like, "freedom fighters," and by splitting hairs about whether or not agreeing to provide for someone's family so they can go blow themselves up and kill a bunch of people is sponsoring suicide bombings-which, of course, it is. :roll:

That's complete nonsense aquapub. Nothing but extreemist nonsense from you. The very selections of your poll are themselves representative of your bias and partisan, not to mention the irrationality. If you really want to show that you indeed do not distort the facts or speak from a non-partisan field, than make a poll that is actually representative of a moderate.

 

[The Mark]

Aww, why did you only leave 1 thing for me to check off?

 

[Comrade Brian]

Just about everything the hysterical left wants to destroy.

What do "we" "hysterical left" want to destroy?

Also I retain my opinion that conservatives do not recognise that society requires constant change, something they're directly opposed to.

 

[debate_junkie]

I think the answer to your question (title of thread) is *drum roll please*

Doesn't that depend on what the definition of "is" is? :rofl

 

[aquapub]

I think the answer to your question (title of thread) is *drum roll please*

Doesn't that depend on what the definition of "is" is? :rofl

:rofl

Hey, Clinton had a perfectly sensible reason to microscopically spilt hairs over semantics...the country was about to learn what a corrupt, chronic sexual deviant/harrasser/rapist he was.

 

[aquapub]

conservatives do not recognise that society requires constant change, something they're directly opposed to.

Change, like we need to adapt to alternative fuels to get out of the economic death grip of our enemies? Yes.

Change, like we need to turn every American tradition on its head, grovel to the U.N., and give all of our sovereign rights away? No.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Sure Saddam was a threat, and sure he had extensive ties to terror organizations. He funded the army of and provided bases to at least one group international terrorists.

However, this is not the same as saying that dealing with Hussein should have been the priority it became or that our invasion of Iraq was in the best interests of the US.

 

[aquapub]

Sure Saddam was a threat, and sure he had extensive ties to terror organizations. He funded the army of and provided bases to at least one group international terrorists.

However, this is not the same as saying that dealing with Hussein should have been the priority it became or that our invasion of Iraq was in the best interests of the US.

Bin Laden was made into a hero when Bill Clinton retreated from him in Somalia. Then he attacked us repeatedly, with impunity for almost a decade, building his networks, leading up to 9/11.

After 9/11, a new message needed to be sent to our enemies. Saddam had defied the U.N. and the world for over a decade, and the fact that he continuously got away with spitting in our faces emboldened other terrorists.

Saddam had proved both his willingness and means to give terrorists WMD to use against us. After 9/11, I don't see how you could possibly think this wasn't an urgent matter to be dealt with immediately.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Saddam had proved both his willingness and means to give terrorists WMD to use against us.

Hogwash.
(Unless you choose to use idiosyncratic definitions of some of your words.)

... I don't see how you could possibly think this wasn't an urgent matter to be dealt with immediately.

I previously surmised as much.

 

[jfuh]

Bin Laden was made into a hero when Bill Clinton retreated from him in Somalia. Then he attacked us repeatedly, with impunity for almost a decade, building his networks, leading up to 9/11.

After 9/11, a new message needed to be sent to our enemies. Saddam had defied the U.N. and the world for over a decade, and the fact that he continuously got away with spitting in our faces emboldened other terrorists.

Saddam had proved both his willingness and means to give terrorists WMD to use against us. After 9/11, I don't see how you could possibly think this wasn't an urgent matter to be dealt with immediately.

Keep up the bs aqua, pretty soon you're going to be on the same level as Ann Coulter

 

[aquapub]

Keep up the bs aqua, pretty soon you're going to be on the same level as Ann Coulter

Refute something I have said. You are the only person here providing no specifics and citing nothing. :roll: