aquapub
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2005
- Messages
- 7,317
- Reaction score
- 344
- Location
- America (A.K.A., a red state)
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
aquapub said: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 said:Once again another right wing extremist complains about left wing extremists.
This has gotten us no where.
Where's bin laden?
aquapub said: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 said: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.
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?aquapub said: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.
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.aquapub said:National polls (and the last 6 or 7 elections) do consistently indicate however, that liberals are way, way out of the mainstream.
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.aquapub said: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 said:What exactly are you conserving?
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 said: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 said:What exactly are you conserving?
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?aquapub said:Just about everything the hysterical left wants to destroy.
Lol, I don't know about that, would be a bit of stinky job.26 X World Champs said: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?
Conflict said:Once again another right wing extremist complains about left wing extremists.
This has gotten us no where.
Where's bin laden?
Navy Pride said:Once again a Liberal defends the butcher of Baghdad Saddam.........: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.aquapub said: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:
aquapub said:Just about everything the hysterical left wants to destroy.
debate_junkie said: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
Comrade Brian said:conservatives do not recognise that society requires constant change, something they're directly opposed to.
Simon W. Moon said: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.
Hogwash.aquapub said:Saddam had proved both his willingness and means to give terrorists WMD to use against us.
I previously surmised as much.aquapub said:... I don't see how you could possibly think this wasn't an urgent matter to be dealt with immediately.
aquapub said: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.
jfuh said:Keep up the bs aqua, pretty soon you're going to be on the same level as Ann Coulter
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?