• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Terrorist Trained in Iraq

SouthernDemocrat said:
OHHHHHHH, gosh, you might on to something. Well, we all know how reliable unnamed government sources are to Right Wing media outlets. As accurate as these same unnamed government officials were about all those WMD stockpiles, I think we should all take this as Gospel. :roll:

Moreover, how can this be refuted? I could write an article that said that unnamed government sources have found videotape of President Bush engaging in necrophilia and because I named those “unnamed sources” it would be of equal validity.
Click to expand...
Novak's article that mentioned Valerie Plame used "unnamed sources"...

The NYTimes article that outed the wiretapping used "unnamed sources"...

Where was your commentary then?...:roll:

BTW - How long was Watergate around before a "source" was "named"?...

I guess you gave Watergate no legitimacy until last year?...
 
cnredd said:
Novak's article that mentioned Valerie Plame used "unnamed sources"...

The NYTimes article that outed the wiretapping used "unnamed sources"...

Where was your commentary then?...

BTW - How long was Watergate around before a "source" was "named"?...

I guess you gave Watergate no legitimacy until last year?...
Click to expand...

No, it’s just that I trust Novak and the NY Times more than some right wing rag. Then again, the NY Times also had a bunch of unnamed sources that claimed to have evidence of all of Saddam’s WMD stockpiles prior to the war. Moreover, the NY Times wiretapping story was bolstered by the fact that the White House owned up to it.

The difference is when some blatantly un-objective right wing rag like The Weekly Standard or for that matter some left wing rag like The Nation, lists unnamed government sources as their sources for a an article that is reported no where else.

In those cases, more often than not, its 2 inches of truth with about 10 feet of feces piled on top of it.
 
Let's break this down and analyze it's various parts for validity.
Originally posted by oldreliable67
But, addressing me, Billo wrote:
Click to expand...
OK, this first quote No. 1...

Quote:by billo
What kind of bullshit is this?
Click to expand...
...was directed at something you said, not at you as a person. However, you instead personalized it (for whatever reason), which was anything but a valid judgement to my comment.

Now quote No. 2...
Quote:by billo
Wrongo! I'm the most bi-partisan mother-f_cker on this website!
Click to expand...
This was even a worse example than quote No. 1 because it had absolutely nothing to do with you. What the hell are you getting insulted over a comment I made about me? But keep trying, maybe your luck will change.

Now quote No. 3.
Quote:by billo
you're avoiding the question because you don't have the balls to defend it.
Click to expand...
Your luck has changed. To a point. I could see where you might be offended by this comment and I have apologized as such. But since you are bent on not accepting the apology and keep wanting to use this as an example of bad-billo, I will explain why I used this terminology.

I have asked you several times to answer my questions. I have asked nicely and not so nicely. I have even gone the extra mile and answered all of your questions first. However, no quid pro quo on your side. You refuse to answer any question of mind leaving me to think as to the reasons why. My first impression is that you can't answer my questions. But I know that is wrong because you have demostrated the fact that you are a very intelligent person with every ability to answer any question thrown your way. So, what is left. If you can answer, but you won't answer, to me, I'm sorry, this is the position of a coward. And cowards have no balls in my book. All you have to do to prove me wrong, in my opinion, is answer the questions. But you don't. You keep trying this smoke screen like I you offended and it doesn't wash with me.

Originally posted by oldreliable67
You want to talk about hypocracy? You want to talk about derogatory? Just look in the mirror. You spew this kind of stuff and then have the incredible gall to talk about me?
Click to expand...
Do you consider yourself an adult? Do you consider yourself a responsible adult? Because if you do, then you take responsibility for your own emotions. You choose your own emotions. Right now you are choosing to be insulted over an opinion I have. That is your choice, not mine. I did not say anything with the intent to insult you. However, that was your choice to be insulted. Your choice on how you reacted. Don't put that rap on me. Be a responsible adult and own your own emotions.
 
Last edited:
Why is it always about who you're debating and not what you're debating, billo? Why are you always trying to put down other forum members? And I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but personally, I am really tired of all your shock profanity. Come on, join the grown ups at the big table this year.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but personally, I am really tired of all your shock profanity, billo. Come on, join the grown ups at the big table this year.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you cannot except me for who I am. That is the way I talk. I use profanity to indicate emphasis. If you choose to not look at it that way, fine. But don't put that rap on me. That is your choice.
 
Billo_Really said:
I'm sorry you cannot except me for who I am. That is the way I talk. I use profanity to indicate emphasis. If you choose to not look at it that way, fine. But don't put that rap on me. That is your choice.
Click to expand...
You're right, I was just speaking for myself.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
Why is it always about who you're debating and not what you're debating, billo? Why are you always trying to put down other forum members? And I don't know if I speak for anyone else, but personally, I am really tired of all your shock profanity. Come on, join the grown ups at the big table this year.
Click to expand...
Again, this is your reaction to personalize my comments. As I have shown a few posts ago, my comments were not directed at anyone. My comments were directed at what they said. Stop trying to create something out of thin air.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
You're right, I was just speaking for myself.
Click to expand...
Your comments are always welcome, KC, even the ones I don't like.
 
Sheesh...all I did was make a suggestion that people do a search of Stephen Hayes and decide for themselves, and I get insulted! LOL!

That's ok...I can take it...just another victory for the liberals.

(Gee...I hope that last comment wasn't too derogatory?)
 
Originally posted by Hoot:
Sheesh...all I did was make a suggestion that people do a search of Stephen Hayes and decide for themselves, and I get insulted! LOL!

That's ok...I can take it...just another victory for the liberals.

(Gee...I hope that last comment wasn't too derogatory?)
Click to expand...
Relax, its not about you, its about me. Your OK Hoot. Just give a Holler anytime you feel like it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The difference is when some blatantly un-objective right wing rag like The Weekly Standard or for that matter some left wing rag like The Nation, lists unnamed government sources as their sources for a an article that is reported no where else.
Click to expand...

But you still cannot rebut any of the evidence and stake your whole position of a belief that The Weekly Standard and Hayes are just making it all up. Not a very solid position to be in.

It would really just destroy your premise for opposing the removal of Saddam if this is true wouldn't it.
 
Originally posted by Stinger:
But you still cannot rebut any of the evidence and stake your whole position of a belief that The Weekly Standard and Hayes are just making it all up. Not a very solid position to be in.

It would really just destroy your premise for opposing the removal of Saddam if this is true wouldn't it.
Click to expand...
It is pointless to discuss this any further until they publically release the documents in question. Until then, none of us knows for sure.
 
just another victory for liberals?

LOL....like you guys have the market cornered on political victories in the last 6 years.

:rofl
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican
just another victory for liberals?

LOL....like you guys have the market cornered on political victories in the last 6 years.
Click to expand...
No, those will be known as the Republican golden years that are now over.
 
Billo_Really said:
No, those will be known as the Republican golden years that are now over.
Click to expand...

As long as liberals continue to try and falsley show the country how wrong Bush is, rather than putting forth an original idea, they are DOOMED.

Stop telling us what Bush does wrong and rather tell us how you would do it right, and you may even get some people like me to vote for you.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican
As long as liberals continue to try and falsley show the country how wrong Bush is, rather than putting forth an original idea, they are DOOMED.

Stop telling us what Bush does wrong and rather tell us how you would do it right, and you may even get some people like me to vote for you.
Click to expand...
You want to know how I would do it? It's very simple,

OBEY THE LAW!
Click to expand...
 
Billo_Really said:
You want to know how I would do it? It's very simple,
Click to expand...

Im gonna need a little direction here. tell me exactly what you are talking about instead of making me guess.

now I realize you claim not to be a dem. but thats the party im specifically talking about.

exactly what have they put forth to tell us exactly what they would do differently.

why should I vote for them in the next election?
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican
Im gonna need a little direction here. tell me exactly what you are talking about instead of making me guess.

now I realize you claim not to be a dem. but thats the party im specifically talking about.

exactly what have they put forth to tell us exactly what they would do differently.

why should I vote for them in the next election?
Click to expand...
You've seen what a disaster the Republicans have been. Do you actually want more of that? Because of these bullshit neocon's, the US is now the most hated nation in the world. We used to be respected. After WWII, we actually had some semblance of nobility. That's all gone now because of Bush. We had 8 good years with Clinton. Wouldn't you like to have some more good years? What we got now is garbage. Nothing but a garbage government.
 
Stinger said:
But you still cannot rebut any of the evidence and stake your whole position of a belief that The Weekly Standard and Hayes are just making it all up. Not a very solid position to be in.

It would really just destroy your premise for opposing the removal of Saddam if this is true wouldn't it.
Click to expand...

My point is they are not a reliable source on this issue. This has had no mention whatsoever in the mainstream news. The Weekly Standard is a very neo-conservative publication. It has published on numerous occasions that “unnamed government sources” are reporting that they have found stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq. As we all know, despite the fact that they have reported that numerous times, it has never turned out to be the case. They have simply no credibility at all on Iraq. When a major news organization starts to validate their claims, then this probably will have some credibility.

Just the same, even if we find out that Saddam operated terrorist training camps, it still may not justify the invasion of Iraq. A great deal of questions would have to be answered.

  • Were those supposed terrorist training camps training terrorists to hit Israel, or the U.S?
  • Did that present a greater risk that the ultimate terrorist training camp that our presence has created in Iraq?
Just the same, it’s all very, very speculative. As there is no evidence at all that any of this is true.
 
Billo_Really said:
You've seen what a disaster the Republicans have been. Do you actually want more of that? Because of these bullshit neocon's, the US is now the most hated nation in the world. We used to be respected. After WWII, we actually had some semblance of nobility. That's all gone now because of Bush. We had 8 good years with Clinton. Wouldn't you like to have some more good years? What we got now is garbage. Nothing but a garbage government.
Click to expand...

disaster? yeah right.

the economy is equally as good, if not better than it was under Clintion.

and as far as respect and hate.....yeah, I so wish we could go back to being respected the way we were under Carter........he sure knew how to take care of military situations and handle diplomacy.

and as far as obeying the law......yeah....Clinton was a pro at that one too.
the more you type, the less you sound like a green party member.....but its ok, I dont find many Democrats these days that will actually admit they are Democrats.
 
Billo_Really said:
We had 8 good years with Clinton. Wouldn't you like to have some more good years? What we got now is garbage. Nothing but a garbage government.
Click to expand...
Red State America disagreed with you, Bill. Sorry, man.
 
Originally posted by KCConservative:
Red State America disagreed with you, Bill. Sorry, man.
Click to expand...
Check the polls, you don't have the majority anymore.
 
Originally posted by ProudAmerican
disaster? yeah right.

the economy is equally as good, if not better than it was under Clintion.

and as far as respect and hate.....yeah, I so wish we could go back to being respected the way we were under Carter........he sure knew how to take care of military situations and handle diplomacy.

and as far as obeying the law......yeah....Clinton was a pro at that one too.
the more you type, the less you sound like a green party member.....but its ok, I dont find many Democrats these days that will actually admit they are Democrats.
Click to expand...
We had a balanced budget for the first time since Alexander Hamilton under Clinton. What do we have now?
 
Billo_Really said:
Check the polls, you don't have the majority anymore.
Click to expand...

I like to think of elections as the "ultimate poll"

;)
 
Billo_Really said:
Check the polls, you don't have the majority anymore.
Click to expand...
We did when we voted, Bill. That's how it works. Try again in 08.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom