Print

[pug_ster]

Bush says we won the war on Iraq years ago yet nobody believes it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15944072/

Looks like the scapegoating is underway blaming on al-Maliki for the troubles in Iraq.  Typical Bush fashion.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 29 2006, 09:05 AM)

Bush says we won the war on Iraq years ago yet nobody believes it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15944072/

Looks like the scapegoating is underway blaming on al-Maliki for the troubles in Iraq. Typical Bush fashion.

Well, you've continued to change the subject away from things that represent the left as it is. Instead you focus on simply trying to tear the right down rather than have any substance to yourself. Since you won't talk about the substance I brought forth, I will again prove you wrong. Bush never said we won the war on Iraq. That was a spin job by the liberals. Next, nobody blamed him(Al-Maliki) for the troubles in Iraq. The VERY article you posted proves you wrong. All it said was the Iraqi people are not embracing him as well as they had hoped and it lays out ways he can get more of them to embrace him. Nowhere does it even imply that he is responsible in any way for the troubles in Iraq. You act like you can lie and then nobody will read the link you posted.

[pug_ster]

I'm talking about topic at hand and you are talking about me.   How can you 'prove' someone wrong by insulting?  You got some serious mental issues.  

In any case, don't forget about Bush's 'mission accomplished' when he says that gave freedom to the people in Iraq.

In any case, 2 months ago, Rice asked Maliki to 'straighten' out the problems in Iraq when Maliki is just merely a puppet.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/5410586.stm

I like to see you talk more so you can further stick your feet up your ass.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 29 2006, 11:21 AM)

I'm talking about topic at hand and you are talking about me. How can you 'prove' someone wrong by insulting? You got some serious mental issues.

You're lying again. I simply read the article and it was not what you said. I guess I didn't prove you wrong, your article did. I didn't insult you. Post what I said that wasn't true and you can call it an insult.

QUOTE

In any case, don't forget about Bush's 'mission accomplished' when he says that gave freedom to the people in Iraq.

I haven't forgot about it. The banner was put up there after the fall of baghdad. That meant that the regime had fallen. Did it not? The Iraqi people have voted and 85% voted to have a democratic state. THAT is the Iraqi people having freedom. Is it not? So what is your point?

QUOTE

In any case, 2 months ago, Rice asked Maliki to 'straighten' out the problems in Iraq when Maliki is just merely a puppet.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/5410586.stm

I like to see you talk more so you can further stick your feet up your ass.

Again you see everything backwards. It's you lying and I'm in here showing it. LOL. You even try to spin the fact that you got caught lying every time. Stupid always finds a way to show itself and you are no exception.



Excerpts from the article you posted:

CODE

Mr Maliki told state television ahead of Ms Rice's visit that security would be achieved in the next two or three months, saying the country was in the final state of "confronting the security challenge".

CODE

En route to Baghdad, Ms Rice told reporters: "Our role is to support all the parties and indeed to press all the parties to work toward that resolution quickly because obviously the security situation is not one that can be tolerated and it is not one that is being helped by political inaction. "They don't have time for endless debate of these issues. They have really got to move forward."  

Read that for yourself. That means do something because we're not going to be here forever. As someone who doesn't want to be in Iraq it seems rational that you'd support that line of reasoning. Instead you're bashing her and calling the leader of Iraq a "puppet". If you need any help removing those feet just let me know. Although it shouldn't be too hard getting those size 5's out.

[BCfosheezy]

I see you didn't reply. It seems like your replies are just new news posings rather than rebuttles. Here's a new news posting for you to further illustrate the people you're suggesting we "talk" with about their nuclear weapons and that we'll just have to "deal" with them having them. THIS ARTICLE should alarm you.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(Arvarden @ Dec 1 2006, 10:29 AM)

Not really, this should ALARM you

Well since it has nothing at all to do with me or the topic at hand, it doesn't alarm me at all.

QUOTE

The US does not hold the moral high ground nor does my country. If we insist on taking the moral high ground we must lead by example.

Who does hold the moral high ground? Why do you think you've taken a history class? Is it to learn from the past? That's right. Doing nothing and hoping people will not do things to harm us has been tried, and it has failed every time. History proves you wrong.

QUOTE

STOP trying to vilify a country you have little to no understanding of apart from the odd ABC mouth piece nonsense. Sure, Ahmadinejad and his gang are out spoken and out of line at times but he would never get the backing of the Irainian people for a strike on us or even Israel. Tell a lie he might get support if Israel keeps acting up.

When has he ever needed the support of the Iranian people to strike? I'm not trying to villify anyone, the leader of Iran is doing it himself. Prove it wrong or stop interjecting. I provided links to this information. I didn't make it up. Take it up with them if you don't like it.... not me. At some point you're going to have to face reality.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE

I see you didn't reply. It seems like your replies are just new news posings rather than rebuttles. Here's a new news posting for you to further illustrate the people you're suggesting we "talk" with about their nuclear weapons and that we'll just have to "deal" with them having them. THIS ARTICLE should alarm you.

You don't have anything important to say except insulting me.  So why should I bother to reply.  And you accuse me of diverting the subject.

Over the history there are senseless wars and necessary wars.  Kuwait war was started because Iraq attacked Kuwait, we pushed back Iraq, and that was it.  WWII was started because of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we have to drive them back.  Attack on 9/11 was justified so that go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (not Iraq).

Senseless wars are startes with senseless ideals.  Korean and Vietnam war was justified because we want to stop the 'communist agression.'  We started war on Iraq because we believe there is WMD and we are mislead what Terrorism starts from there.  

To Iran, attack on Iraq and many of Bush's Verbal threats seems to them what it is a necessary war because the survival of their country and Islam is at stake.  As we have saw what Korea did when their backs are into the wall, Iran will do whatever it is necessary to defend themselves.  So acquisition of Nuclear weapons and helping Iraqi Militias is not out of the question.  I am not condoning what they do.  But Bush should put up or shut up.  Either they attack Iran (which is impossible), or ease the pressure off from Iran.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 1 2006, 01:16 PM)

You don't have anything important to say except insulting me. So why should I bother to reply. And you accuse me of diverting the subject.

Over the history there are senseless wars and necessary wars. Kuwait war was started because Iraq attacked Kuwait, we pushed back Iraq, and that was it. WWII was started because of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and we have to drive them back. Attack on 9/11 was justified so that go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (not Iraq).

Senseless wars are startes with senseless ideals. Korean and Vietnam war was justified because we want to stop the 'communist agression.' We started war on Iraq because we believe there is WMD and we are mislead what Terrorism starts from there.

To Iran, attack on Iraq and many of Bush's Verbal threats seems to them what it is a necessary war because the survival of their country and Islam is at stake. As we have saw what Korea did when their backs are into the wall, Iran will do whatever it is necessary to defend themselves. So acquisition of Nuclear weapons and helping Iraqi Militias is not out of the question. I am not condoning what they do. But Bush should put up or shut up. Either they attack Iran (which is impossible), or ease the pressure off from Iran.

That is the first post you've made that was well thought out and commendable.(aside from the misconception of what I'm doing as I was responding to your posts and debunking them.) I respect that opinion and I think if you'd post things like that more often we might learn to get along. Looking at it from their point of view is definitely a good thing.



Let's look at both points of view now that we are actually communicating. U.S. doesn't want to be attacked again and we've embarked in the war on terror. We were being attacked on our own soil before and we haven't been after. We rid Afghanistan of their Taliban led government because it was aiding and embedding Al Queda. We rid the Iraqi government of Saddam because we thought he was obtaining wmd and would probably supply organizations with the intent of harming the U.S. Now, Iran is doing the Same thing and so is Syria.

Iran openly funds Hezbollah and provides weaponry to fight Israel. They refer to Israel and "the little satan" and America as "The great Satan." They are confirmed to be aiding the insurgency in Iraq against our troops. They may or may not believe we are encroaching on their land and religion. As has been stated before, Iraq and Iran did not have the best of relations before. That is not Iran's land. The US invaded Iraq once before when it was still none of our business and Iran was not worried about the US. The difference is, as you stated the US occupancy of Iraq and no timetable for withdrawal.



This is where communication between party lines drops off. There is no coordination here. Both parties want the same thing, they simply refuse to communicate to make it happen. I think Democrats believe that the US wants to stay in Iraq for some hidden agenda. Conservatives want to stay until Iraq can defend itself and remain a soverign nation. Both parties want our troops to come home safely. Democrats do not want anything successful to come from the war. If Iraq remains stable then it was not a total loss and the president will be remembered as the liberator of Iraq. They don't want that because they truly feel he is an evil man. They would have Iraqis continue their civil war just to see the president fail. All the while preaching that Iraq is in a civil war now. The difference is, with a stable government they will get nowhere with violence and eventually have to play politics to get their way. Without the government it will get bloodier because THAT'S HOW YOU GET THINGS DONE WITH NO GOVERNMENT. So there is hypocracy there.



Again, this is my opinion. I respect yours. Please respect mine and we'll start to have a more civil discussion from here on out.

Edit:

We didn't just drive Japan back. Once we reached their continent, we nuked it twice. I'd say Iraq is far more humane.

Also, don't forget we didn't just drive Iraq back. We invaded their country and destroyed their army. They never recovered from that. It was a uniformed military we were fighting against. Now, we just did the exact same thing. The difference is, once the uniformed military was destroyed we took out saddam because he was determined to always be a threat. Now Iraq has no government so we allowed Iraq to create a government of its own. It did that. Now in its infancy insurgents are coming to destroy what has been started. We are staying to protect the maturing government. We are fighting a non-uniformed military and they are hiding amongst civilians and killing those civillians. It is a whole different can of worms.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 2 2006, 04:17 AM)

That is the first post you've made that was well thought out and commendable.(aside from the misconception of what I'm doing as I was responding to your posts and debunking them.) I respect that opinion and I think if you'd post things like that more often we might learn to get along. Looking at it from their point of view is definitely a good thing.
Let's look at both points of view now that we are actually communicating. U.S. doesn't want to be attacked again and we've embarked in the war on terror. We were being attacked on our own soil before and we haven't been after. We rid Afghanistan of their Taliban led government because it was aiding and embedding Al Queda. We rid the Iraqi government of Saddam because we thought he was obtaining wmd and would probably supply organizations with the intent of harming the U.S. Now, Iran is doing the Same thing and so is Syria.

We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

QUOTE

Iran openly funds Hezbollah and provides weaponry to fight Israel. They refer to Israel and "the little satan" and America as "The great Satan." They are confirmed to be aiding the insurgency in Iraq against our troops. They may or may not believe we are encroaching on their land and religion. As has been stated before, Iraq and Iran did not have the best of relations before. That is not Iran's land. The US invaded Iraq once before when it was still none of our business and Iran was not worried about the US. The difference is, as you stated the US occupancy of Iraq and no timetable for withdrawal.

The war was a failure from day 1.  1)  Bush didn't bother to secure the borders with Syria and Iran and thinks that Iran and Syria won't help out with the war.  Instead he expect that Iran and Syria won't send any more militias by referring them to 'axis of evil.'  2) Whenever a government falls there will be a power vacuum, US kicked out people who used to work for the government and people like al Sadr rose to power quickly.  3) There are dislikes between Kurds, Sunnis and Shites.  They might fight each other for power in the country.

Many Middle East experts know this but Rumsfeld didn't even bother to take them to account before the invasion.  Instead, Bush focused on attacking Iraq, topple Saddam's government and capture saddam.

QUOTE

This is where communication between party lines drops off. There is no coordination here. Both parties want the same thing, they simply refuse to communicate to make it happen. I think Democrats believe that the US wants to stay in Iraq for some hidden agenda. Conservatives want to stay until Iraq can defend itself and remain a soverign nation. Both parties want our troops to come home safely. Democrats do not want anything successful to come from the war. If Iraq remains stable then it was not a total loss and the president will be remembered as the liberator of Iraq. They don't want that because they truly feel he is an evil man. They would have Iraqis continue their civil war just to see the president fail. All the while preaching that Iraq is in a civil war now. The difference is, with a stable government they will get nowhere with violence and eventually have to play politics to get their way. Without the government it will get bloodier because THAT'S HOW YOU GET THINGS DONE WITH NO GOVERNMENT. So there is hypocracy there.
Again, this is my opinion. I respect yours. Please respect mine and we'll start to have a more civil discussion from here on out.

Iraq fell in about a month after attack.  We have years to get those 3 issue addressed but instead Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves.  You still talk as if we can win Iraq but it seems that Iraqi citizens are participating in the war to kill the other faction.  That is civil war.  And Civil wars don't end until you 1) Split the country or 2) when all the other factions lost.

QUOTE

We didn't just drive Japan back. Once we reached their continent, we nuked it twice. I'd say Iraq is far more humane.

Also, don't forget we didn't just drive Iraq back. We invaded their country and destroyed their army. They never recovered from that. It was a uniformed military we were fighting against. Now, we just did the exact same thing. The difference is, once the uniformed military was destroyed we took out saddam because he was determined to always be a threat. Now Iraq has no government so we allowed Iraq to create a government of its own. It did that. Now in its infancy insurgents are coming to destroy what has been started. We are staying to protect the maturing government. We are fighting a non-uniformed military and they are hiding amongst civilians and killing those civillians. It is a whole different can of worms.

The government can't even hold itself together.  It is weak and corrupt.  Maliki is merely a powerless pawn while people like Al-Sadr runs the health ministery.  When any Sunni's go into Al-Sadr's state run hospitals, they never come out alive.  And the worst thing is that Bush thinks he can bargain with Al-Sadr.

Just like Vietnam, we can complain how bad communist is.  But we should learned our lesson after we lost Vietnam, people like Pol Pot are much worse.

So the choice is this, either we finish the job by starting a draft, or we leave.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 2 2006, 10:04 AM)

We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Well you KNOW that's not at all true. We all remember the inspectors being over there and inspecting. Then they were forced out because Iraq refused to comply. Then Iraq moved whatever it was they were moving and Iraq then complied again but were obviously giving us the run-around.

QUOTE

The war was a failure from day 1. 1) Bush didn't bother to secure the borders with Syria and Iran and thinks that Iran and Syria won't help out with the war. Instead he expect that Iran and Syria won't send any more militias by referring them to 'axis of evil.' 2) Whenever a government falls there will be a power vacuum, US kicked out people who used to work for the government and people like al Sadr rose to power quickly. 3) There are dislikes between Kurds, Sunnis and Shites. They might fight each other for power in the country.

Well you know the war wasn't a failure from day 1. It hasn't been a failure yet and it won't be. It's too bad that people like to say that for their own political agenda, but the bottom line is, the U.S. removed a harmful dictator from power and rid itself of an enemy (We haven't gained any enemies either because everyone that hates us now hated us then.). We liberated the Iraqi people and now they have voted and are stabilizing their government. We have lost 3000 troops there in about 3 years. Roughly the same number of CIVILLIANS we lost in the WTC on 9/11 in 15 minutes. The bottom line is, no war no matter who was in charge (and it's not "Bush" as claimed, it's the pentagon.) is going to go smoothly... because it's a war.

QUOTE

Many Middle East experts know this but Rumsfeld didn't even bother to take them to account before the invasion. Instead, Bush focused on attacking Iraq, topple Saddam's government and capture saddam.

They simply were under the impression that they'd be joyous that they had liberty. (They were.... for a while)

QUOTE

Iraq fell in about a month after attack. We have years to get those 3 issue addressed but instead Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves. You still talk as if we can win Iraq but it seems that Iraqi citizens are participating in the war to kill the other faction. That is civil war. And Civil wars don't end until you 1) Split the country or 2) when all the other factions lost.

Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves? Where are your references on that? That is obviously not true. Why are our oil prices still ultra high? Civil war will end when they realize that the government will not be toppled and that they have no influence if they have no voice.

QUOTE

The government can't even hold itself together. It is weak and corrupt. Maliki is merely a powerless pawn while people like Al-Sadr runs the health ministery. When any Sunni's go into Al-Sadr's state run hospitals, they never come out alive. And the worst thing is that Bush thinks he can bargain with Al-Sadr.

The government is weak because it's in its infancy. The US wasn't strong for several years after its creation and it's illogical that Iraq would be any different. "Corrupt, powerless pawn, never come out alive, Bargains" and any other statement you make like that is honestly unfounded speculation is seriously unneeded. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so.

QUOTE

Just like Vietnam, we can complain how bad communist is. But we should learned our lesson after we lost Vietnam, people like Pol Pot are much worse.

I believe we should learn our lesson from WW2 when we buried our heads in the sand and waited to be dragged into a conflict. The best part about all of this is, your party is going to get their turn soon enough and then you will spin their failures into victories. The very same as you accuse this administration of, yet they actually haven't.

QUOTE

So the choice is this, either we finish the job by starting a draft, or we leave.

And you finish the statement off with a wacky comment. It doesn't even make sense. You have said that Bush convinces the public with fear, but yet you just did that. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A DRAFT. It doesn't even make sense mathematically. Let's see, we have MILLIONS of available troops. Only 3000 have died. Our enlistment rate is one of the highest it's ever been. Yet you believe we need a draft.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 4 2006, 04:05 PM)

Well you KNOW that's not at all true...  

QUOTE

Well you know the war wasn't a failure from day 1....

Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.  

QUOTE

They simply were under the impression that they'd be joyous that they had liberty. (They were.... for a while) Bush focused on getting oil from the reserves? Where are your references on that? That is obviously not true. Why are our oil prices still ultra high? Civil war will end when they realize that the government will not be toppled and that they have no influence if they have no voice.

http://www.cnn.com/2...uild/index.html

The prices of oil is so high because the production of oil is still lower than before the war because Iraq is a mess.

QUOTE

The government is weak because it's in its infancy. The US wasn't strong for several years after its creation and it's illogical that Iraq would be any different. "Corrupt, powerless pawn, never come out alive, Bargains" and any other statement you make like that is honestly unfounded speculation is seriously unneeded. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so.
I believe we should learn our lesson from WW2 when we buried our heads in the sand and waited to be dragged into a conflict. The best part about all of this is, your party is going to get their turn soon enough and then you will spin their failures into victories. The very same as you accuse this administration of, yet they actually haven't.

 
Don't get confused with WWII and Iraq war.  We did not want to get involved with WWII until Pearl Harbor.  We attacked Japan.  Al-Qaeda attacked us in 9/11, yet we attacked Iraq and there's no Al-Qaeda there.  Makes sense?  I think not.  

QUOTE

And you finish the statement off with a wacky comment. It doesn't even make sense. You have said that Bush convinces the public with fear, but yet you just did that. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A DRAFT. It doesn't even make sense mathematically. Let's see, we have MILLIONS of available troops. Only 3000 have died. Our enlistment rate is one of the highest it's ever been. Yet you believe we need a draft.

This is the 3rd time you try to stick words in my mouth.  I didn't say we need a draft.  I said if Bush Bush wants to send hundreds of thousands of troops there, we need a draft.

http://www.usatoday....rmy-study_x.htm

Unfortunately, we have 'other obligations' to other countries and not just to Iraq in terms of troops.  Why does everybody else including politicans and Generals are talking troops stretching thin when you are talking about our million man army.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 4 2006, 04:52 PM)

Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

I had no idea John Kerry would be a member of a xbox forum. Hi Mr. Kerry.

So anyways... you were FOR the comment before you were against it?

Edit:

 

You: We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Me: Well you KNOW that's not at all true...

You: Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

So you just said it, you didn't say it was true. So basically we can just come in here and say any random thing and then when we're called on it we can be like I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! Do you realize how hard you make it to not put you down?

QUOTE

http://www.cnn.com/2...uild/index.html

The prices of oil is so high because the production of oil is still lower than before the war because Iraq is a mess.

Well your statement here is incoherent and your link is irrelevant. The price of gasoline did not top $2.00 a gallon until hurricane Katrina hit. Good luck blaming that on Iraq.

QUOTE

Don't get confused with WWII and Iraq war. We did not want to get involved with WWII until Pearl Harbor. We attacked Japan. Al-Qaeda attacked us in 9/11, yet we attacked Iraq and there's no Al-Qaeda there. Makes sense? I think not.

Oh so we attacked Japan and that was it? Ok then I guess D-day is a big fat lie........ You're just plain wrong on this point. My analogy applies.

QUOTE

This is the 3rd time you try to stick words in my mouth. I didn't say we need a draft. I said if Bush Bush wants to send hundreds of thousands of troops there, we need a draft.

That's crazy because in the statement I quoted it says nothing about hundreds of thousands of troops. Mr. Kerry, don't forget that all of the previous messages are right above these comments and I can go back and look. You are not telling the truth and you know what that makes you.

QUOTE

http://www.usatoday....rmy-study_x.htm

Unfortunately, we have 'other obligations' to other countries and not just to Iraq in terms of troops. Why does everybody else including politicans and Generals are talking troops stretching thin when you are talking about our million man army.

They aren't. The media is making a big deal out of it. I'm glad you brought this up because I just watched an interview with a general and he said that we have the highest re-enlistment rate ever and lots of reservists. The media is on your side. Nobody disputes that. The facts are, we have plenty of troops. We're not stretched thin. We have nowhere near the size of our invasion force over there. We have troops stationed all over the world. We have reservists and people who are simply in the states and not in Iraq. There are plenty of troops. Common sense will tell you that.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 5 2006, 02:15 AM)

I had no idea John Kerry would be a member of a xbox forum. Hi Mr. Kerry.

So anyways... you were FOR the comment before you were against it?
You: We thought he has wmd, but Bush have itchy trigger fingers before allowing inspections take place, but ok.

Me: Well you KNOW that's not at all true...

You: Don't stick words in my mouth and I never said it was true.

So you just said it, you didn't say it was true. So basically we can just come in here and say any random thing and then when we're called on it we can be like I DIDN'T SAY THAT!!! Do you realize how hard you make it to not put you down?
Well your statement here is incoherent and your link is irrelevant. The price of gasoline did not top $2.00 a gallon until hurricane Katrina hit. Good luck blaming that on Iraq.
Oh so we attacked Japan and that was it? Ok then I guess D-day is a big fat lie........ You're just plain wrong on this point. My analogy applies.
That's crazy because in the statement I quoted it says nothing about hundreds of thousands of troops. Mr. Kerry, don't forget that all of the previous messages are right above these comments and I can go back and look. You are not telling the truth and you know what that makes you.

When you say that 'you know that it is not all that true', what are you?  A freaking mind reader, and you understand how I think?  No, you are a moron.  And now you are spending more than half of your so-call argument making stuff up and baseless accusations against me.  Do me a favor and buy yourself a clue.

And your dumbass argument why 'I guess D-day is a big fat lie...'  Where you hear me say that, moron? from the pipeline?  Go buy yourself another clue.

And the worst you can do is to call me Mr Kerry or Fugster?  Bush need more undereducated idiots like you who can't tell the difference between patriotism and ignorance.  Everybody else who replied to you in this thread thinks you are a moron.  You just don't admit it.

We are losing the war on terror because the FBI don't even know who are they fighting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/

Maybe you can talk something else, like this subject and not about my favorite color.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Dec 5 2006, 12:09 AM)

When you say that 'you know that it is not all that true', what are you? A freaking mind reader, and you understand how I think? No, you are a moron. And now you are spending more than half of your so-call argument making stuff up and baseless accusations against me. Do me a favor and buy yourself a clue.

LOL!!... no I don't have to be a mind reader. You just made that up so of course you knew it wasn't true. It had no factual basis and was an outright lie. I haven't made anything up and I encourage you to bring one forward. IF you do not then you concede the argument and passively admit you're lying. You're the one that needs the clue, but if I can find one for purchase I'll buy it and ship it to you. I'll need your postal address.

QUOTE

And your dumbass argument why 'I guess D-day is a big fat lie...' Where you hear me say that, moron? from the pipeline? Go buy yourself another clue.

The fact that you called me a moron in this statement is HILARIOUS because you missed the entire point. You stated that Japan attacked us and we attacked them back and it was simply untrue. There was a bigger war going on, not just US vs JAPAN. (WW2) We not only beat Japan (in this case Afghanistan) but we also ended the bigger war (in this case the war on terror). It directly relates to WW2 and the fact that you were too stupid to get the analogy proves that you need to just leave. You're not smart enough to argue with and you make things up and lie. You're too stupid to know that you're defeated on every point you try to make.

QUOTE

And the worst you can do is to call me Mr Kerry or Fugster? Bush need more undereducated idiots like you who can't tell the difference between patriotism and ignorance. Everybody else who replied to you in this thread thinks you are a moron. You just don't admit it.

Son I have quite an education. You have no idea who I am and you never know what you're talking about. Thanks for demonstrating that. Why do you think everyone replied to me in this thread? It's because I have good points. It's because I'm saying things they don't want to hear. THey know I'm not an idiot by listening to the things I say and testing my facts. Not one person in here has proven me wrong on any point. They have tried and all failed. There are at least 4 other people that read this forum and they never back me up unless I need help. They haven't backed me up one time yet.... I haven't needed it.

 

QUOTE

We are losing the war on terror because the FBI don't even know who are they fighting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16042604/

Well dumbfuck, the FBI only watches within the United states. Since the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas the CIA would be the ones to blame. You just proven you're an incompetent fucktard. Please stop posting here for your own sake. You're just cannon fodder for me.

 

QUOTE

Maybe you can talk something else, like this subject and not about my favorite color.

 

Here i am, being nice to you and all you can do is call me names. I mean I know that I slaughtered your every point... but that's just because you're stupid. You can't help that. You're the one that brings it back to me every time. I have been being nice. I have simply been discussing issues with you. You changed the subject from the topic that I started and now you're hypocritically blaming me for changing a subject that I never changed.... you did. You're an idiot in the worst way. I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world. Have a nice day.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Dec 5 2006, 08:53 PM)

LOL!!... no I don't have to be a mind reader. You just made that up so of course you knew it wasn't true. It had no factual basis and was an outright lie. I haven't made anything up and I encourage you to bring one forward. IF you do not then you concede the argument and passively admit you're lying. You're the one that needs the clue, but if I can find one for purchase I'll buy it and ship it to you. I'll need your postal address.

You are clearly delusional because you make up what the other person are going to say.  Wackos like O'Reilly and Limbaugh do that.  They might as well be argue with themselves they can make up counterarguments as they go.  Unfortunately it doesn't fly here.
 

QUOTE

Well dumbfuck, the FBI only watches within the United states. Since the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas the CIA would be the ones to blame. You just proven you're an incompetent fucktard. Please stop posting here for your own sake. You're just cannon fodder for me.

Oh geez, you are being nice and you use fowl language, that's nice.  Gee, since you say the war on terror is mainly being fought overseas, then people who did 9/11 are not important because they attacked in American soil.

QUOTE

Here i am, being nice to you and all you can do is call me names. I mean I know that I slaughtered your every point... but that's just because you're stupid. You can't help that. You're the one that brings it back to me every time. I have been being nice. I have simply been discussing issues with you. You changed the subject from the topic that I started and now you're hypocritically blaming me for changing a subject that I never changed.... you did. You're an idiot in the worst way. I'd love to find your mother and slap the Goddamnit out of her for bringing your dumb ass into this world. Have a nice day.

You really stooped into a new low.  I expect some sluck using O'Reilly or Limbaugh like tactics who would make up what the other person said to make their point.  Or maybe some idiot use personal attacks rather than making a counterargument.  Even those conservative stoops woundn't resort to foul language or the use of the word 'your momma' to put the other person down.

The last time that some idiot who decided to cuss me down and the use of 'your momma' was xmedia2004 I didn't see much of him much after that.