or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why are liberals so condescending?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are liberals so condescending? - Page 3

post #81 of 334
Hi, I'm steve. I can only talk about Sarah Palin obsession in every post I make. Perhaps it is actually I who am obsessed. I'm obsessed with a fake obsession.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #82 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Hi, I'm steve. I can only talk about Sarah Palin obsession in every post I make. Perhaps it is actually I who am obsessed. I'm obsessed with a fake obsession.

Really? I started threads about her? If her and blaming Bush are all you guys have, you are a sorry lot.
post #83 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Really? I started threads about her? If her and blaming Bush are all you guys have, you are a sorry lot.

You walk through life with blinders on and only see what you want to see.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #84 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

You walk through life with blinders on and only see what you want to see.

Yet I still wasn't fooled by Obama...
post #85 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Yet I still wasn't fooled by Obama...

Nor was I and I am what you would call a radikul liburrul

The problem imo is that in the US 'liberals' are really just a decaf-repub.

They like to think they have a conscience and maybe they do but they really only look liberal because the US right is so extreme.

Many US liberals would be approaching hardcore-extreme-right in many European nations - I've met quite a few and in a way, many repubs - drones thought they are - are more honest and reflective...but that may be a bit like Nietzsche said of women "they are often thought to be deep but that is because they are so shallow you cannot see the bottom..."

These liberals and wingers both need to go. What is needed now is a degree of hardcore radical extremism...tough measures but things have gone too far and the medicine is unfortunately necessary...
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #86 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Hi, I'm steve. I can only talk about Sarah Palin obsession in every post I make. Perhaps it is actually I who am obsessed. I'm obsessed with a fake obsession.

Yeah...I've noticed this with Wingers - they are often obsessed with (what they see as) Dominant Women.

It happened in the UK with Thatcher too - every wanabee winger from Land's End to John O'Groats had a hard-on for her and was lining up to be spanked within in an inch of their rather sordid and ineffectual lives.

I thought at the time it was something to do with the English School system (something I unfortunately experienced first-hand and I can assure you that perverts are literally crawling out of the woodwork) but it seems it extends to the US too so I'm going to have to refine my theory...

It's definitely something of a sexual perversion though.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #87 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Yet I still wasn't fooled by Obama...

Well I wasn't fooled by Bush. Especially about Iraq.

So what's your point?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #88 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I wasn't fooled by Bush. Especially about Iraq.

'Fool me once, shame on shame on you. Fool me you can't get fooled again



Sometimes I miss that guy!
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #89 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, the lefties here are a diminishing lot because it's an exercise in futility to talk to the conservatives here. The ones who keep coming back are stupid enough to think that maybe this time the conservatives might listen to reason. Maybe this time they won't be intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. It's out of hope that there's real, compassionate people somewhere deep down inside them. It's too sad to have that hope demolished.

And Scott Brown didn't prove shit. He only showed that if you run a terrible campaign and act like a giant twat, the base won't come out in droves to vote for you. He showed that if you say nothing of substance but have a truck and then say blatant falsehoods in the first 10 minutes after being elected, the conservatives in this country don't give a shit because they are rabid and crazy and completely out of their minds at this point.

Quote:
No, the lefties here are a diminishing lot because it's an exercise in futility to talk to the conservatives here.

I've been saying that myself. trumptman doesn't get that. He thinks they've won something. But like I've already said it's one thing to carry on a dialog. It's another when someone's just talking at you. It proves they aren't even listening. They're too busy thinking about what they're going to say. At that point you realize you aren't even talking to another person representing another group view. They're all about themselves.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

'Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again



Sometimes I miss that guy!

" Too many Docs are gettin' out of the business. Too many OBGYNs aren't able to practice their....their love with women all across the country "

Yup! Just down home humour!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #91 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Yeah...I've noticed this with Wingers - they are often obsessed with (what they see as) Dominant Women.

It happened in the UK with Thatcher too - every wanabee winger from Land's End to John O'Groats had a hard-on for her and was lining up to be spanked within in an inch of their rather sordid and ineffectual lives.

I thought at the time it was something to do with the English School system (something I unfortunately experienced first-hand and I can assure you that perverts are literally crawling out of the woodwork) but it seems it extends to the US too so I'm going to have to refine my theory...

It's definitely something of a sexual perversion though.....

Leftwingers? Yes, I know. They can't stop talking about her. Sad.
post #92 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well I wasn't fooled by Bush. Especially about Iraq.

So what's your point?

Obama got to a sub-50% approval rating far faster than President Bush...
post #93 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post


It's definitely something of a sexual perversion though.....

Umm, okay Dr. Freud...
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #94 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

No, the lefties here are a diminishing lot because it's an exercise in futility to talk to the conservatives here. The ones who keep coming back are stupid enough to think that maybe this time the conservatives might listen to reason. Maybe this time they won't be intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. It's out of hope that there's real, compassionate people somewhere deep down inside them. It's too sad to have that hope demolished.

Well thanks for informing me of that. Sure none of that describes getting repeatedly banned and posting back here again under several additional aliases but I like that story so you stick to it. MarkUK and Hassan were personally responsible for for a half dozen aliases a piece (and based on posting style I'm pretty sure they are still here as well.)

Isn't it amazing that so many of them managed to conveniently get banned when explaining themselves so lucidly and behaving so well, while all those darn conservatives who are dishonest and morally bankrupt manage to not get banned?

It's one of those nice reality must be full of shit explanations.

Quote:
And Scott Brown didn't prove shit. He only showed that if you run a terrible campaign and act like a giant twat, the base won't come out in droves to vote for you. He showed that if you say nothing of substance but have a truck and then say blatant falsehoods in the first 10 minutes after being elected, the conservatives in this country don't give a shit because they are rabid and crazy and completely out of their minds at this point.

I think you're right. I'm sure this will explain Virginia, New Jersey, the generic polls of Rassmussen and Gallup all swinging by a dozen points, and the falling approval of Obama as well. BTW, thanks so much again for bringing the material to the thread so the thread didn't have to go get it. You are such a time saver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I've been saying that myself. trumptman doesn't get that. He thinks they've won something. But like I've already said it's one thing to carry on a dialog. It's another when someone's just talking at you. It proves they aren't even listening. They're too busy thinking about what they're going to say. At that point you realize you aren't even talking to another person representing another group view. They're all about themselves.

Something has been won and the realization now is that Democrats promised to be Republicans when Republicans weren't being very good Republicans and thus managed to get elected. Obama ran his campaign on a tax cut and using a peace dividend from stopping the war to fix the budget mess and add to health coverage. He hasn't done that and is paying the price in the polls. Even back then I said his words sounded exactly like a centrist and made him very electable but were complete bullshit. I said loud and clear he would never end the war nor end Pax Americana and I have been right on the money with that. It is ironic to listen to folks like yourself defend "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" when you called it such bullshit before. Obama voted for FISA. He has done nothing about the Patriot Act. He has not brought the troops home and instead is ramping up Afghanistan. He is now demanding the right to tap cell phones without a warrant. He has signing statements. He has lobbiests. We aren't talking about Congress and what they won't do for him. We are talking about his own administration which cuddled right up to Wall Street with his cabinet selections. He is everything that was wrong with Bush being a neocon and thus an old liberal multiplied by about 400%.

The thing that might be won is a desire to give up being the world's cop with our troops and the world's whore with regard to our debt and trade. If we snap out of this utopian dream we might even be allowed to build some of the wind turbines and nuclear power plants here instead of importing everything from countries business is still allowed.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #95 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Well thanks for informing me of that. Sure none of that describes getting repeatedly banned and posting back here again under several additional aliases but I like that story so you stick to it. MarkUK and Hassan were personally responsible for for a half dozen aliases a piece (and based on posting style I'm pretty sure they are still here as well.)

Isn't it amazing that so many of them managed to conveniently get banned when explaining themselves so lucidly and behaving so well, while all those darn conservatives who are dishonest and morally bankrupt manage to not get banned?

It's one of those nice reality must be full of shit explanations.



I think you're right. I'm sure this will explain Virginia, New Jersey, the generic polls of Rassmussen and Gallup all swinging by a dozen points, and the falling approval of Obama as well. BTW, thanks so much again for bringing the material to the thread so the thread didn't have to go get it. You are such a time saver.



Something has been won and the realization now is that Democrats promised to be Republicans when Republicans weren't being very good Republicans and thus managed to get elected. Obama ran his campaign on a tax cut and using a peace dividend from stopping the war to fix the budget mess and add to health coverage. He hasn't done that and is paying the price in the polls. Even back then I said his words sounded exactly like a centrist and made him very electable but were complete bullshit. I said loud and clear he would never end the war nor end Pax Americana and I have been right on the money with that. It is ironic to listen to folks like yourself defend "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" when you called it such bullshit before. Obama voted for FISA. He has done nothing about the Patriot Act. He has not brought the troops home and instead is ramping up Afghanistan. He is now demanding the right to tap cell phones without a warrant. He has signing statements. He has lobbiests. We aren't talking about Congress and what they won't do for him. We are talking about his own administration which cuddled right up to Wall Street with his cabinet selections. He is everything that was wrong with Bush being a neocon and thus an old liberal multiplied by about 400%.

The thing that might be won is a desire to give up being the world's cop with our troops and the world's whore with regard to our debt and trade. If we snap out of this utopian dream we might even be allowed to build some of the wind turbines and nuclear power plants here instead of importing everything from countries business is still allowed.

Quote:
while all those darn conservatives who are dishonest and morally bankrupt manage to not get banned?

This would not be you would it?

Quote:
The thing that might be won is a desire to give up being the world's cop with our troops and the world's whore with regard to our debt and trade.

Where were you when Bush was in office?

Quote:
He has not brought the troops home and instead is ramping up Afghanistan.

To be fair you won't be able to say this much longer will you?

I don't like the lack of progress we've had so far either. However to say this is the way it's always going to be ( only a year into his term ) or that it's all his fault ( Democrats and Republicans ) would not be a true statement at this point. When he leaves office you can sum up his time as a failure. However we aren't even half way yet. However you want to rush things and have us believe at this point it's a done deal. Well that's pure partisan at it's best.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #96 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Leftwingers? Yes, I know. They can't stop talking about her. Sad.

Well you guys couldn't stop talking about Clinton even after he left office! Which makes me wonder!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #97 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well you guys couldn't stop talking about Clinton even after he left office! Which makes me wonder!

How is it the stock liberal response is to justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior? "President Bush raised the deficit, so it is Ok for Obama to do so..." It is a tired, old tactic.
post #98 of 334
Wait, seriously Steve? You're the one going on and on and on and on about obsessions. You say it's a liberal phenomenon. Jimmac points out a conservative obsession as a counterpoint to your assertion, and now you're saying he's justifying bad behavior? Are you kidding me?

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #99 of 334
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

This would not be you would it?

It is a whole list of people. It is hilariously ironic though when some people call for your head and instead manage to cut off their own.

Quote:
Where were you when Bush was in office?

Right here and my posts reflect that fact. I've always been a paleocon.

Quote:
To be fair you won't be able to say this much longer will you?

Ask yourself if Obama can afford to look weak by polling our troops out of the region when Iraq is still not stable and Iran is declaring they can make weapons grade plutonium. If you are honest with yourself you know what the answer will be.

Quote:
I don't like the lack of progress we've had so far either. However to say this is the way it's always going to be ( only a year into his term ) or that it's all his fault ( Democrats and Republicans ) would not be a true statement at this point. When he leaves office you can sum up his time as a failure. However we aren't even half way yet. However you want to rush things and have us believe at this point it's a done deal. Well that's pure partisan at it's best.

If you look past the political expediency and the revised history, you will note that Pax Americana is a Democratic idea put forward by Democrats and still absolutely embraced by Democrats. In the posts you claim don't exist, I was noting that those who wanted our troops out of Iraq wanted them in Darfur. I noted Clinton had Haiti, Bosnia, and several other conflicts on his hands as well as the attacks on the twin towers and U.S.S. Cole due to pursuing the same policies. Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy carried forward by Bush. If you look up the Truman doctrine and replace the word communism with terrorism, you will have the same policy we follow today.

The reason we have to call neo-cons, neo is because they are OLD liberal policies that are still followed by liberals. There is a reason Clinton, Biden, Kerry, etc all voted for the war. It is because they endorse the policy behind it. The only reason Obama could claim otherwise was because he wasn't in a position to vote on it. Now that he is in position, he is doing the same thing as any other Democrat would do only now the numbers will be bigger and no one will protest.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #100 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

It is a whole list of people. It is hilariously ironic though when some people call for your head and instead manage to cut off their own.



Right here and my posts reflect that fact. I've always been a paleocon.



Ask yourself if Obama can afford to look weak by polling our troops out of the region when Iraq is still not stable and Iran is declaring they can make weapons grade plutonium. If you are honest with yourself you know what the answer will be.



If you look past the political expediency and the revised history, you will note that Pax Americana is a Democratic idea put forward by Democrats and still absolutely embraced by Democrats. In the posts you claim don't exist, I was noting that those who wanted our troops out of Iraq wanted them in Darfur. I noted Clinton had Haiti, Bosnia, and several other conflicts on his hands as well as the attacks on the twin towers and U.S.S. Cole due to pursuing the same policies. Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy carried forward by Bush. If you look up the Truman doctrine and replace the word communism with terrorism, you will have the same policy we follow today.

The reason we have to call neo-cons, neo is because they are OLD liberal policies that are still followed by liberals. There is a reason Clinton, Biden, Kerry, etc all voted for the war. It is because they endorse the policy behind it. The only reason Obama could claim otherwise was because he wasn't in a position to vote on it. Now that he is in position, he is doing the same thing as any other Democrat would do only now the numbers will be bigger and no one will protest.

Quote:
Regime change in Iraq was a Clinton policy carried forward by Bush.


Funny I would have said Bush sr. first.

Quote:
There is a reason Clinton, Biden, Kerry, etc all voted for the war. It is because they endorse the policy behind it.

Well when your president says he has definite proof that " there's WMD in them there hills " you want to believe him! He's your leader after all! Also you don't want to look stupid if he's right and he sounded so sure didn't he? Well there were some who weren't fooled.

Bush had plenty of people casting doubt on this ( some were the inspectors there at the time ) he just didn't want to listen.

Don't get me wrong though they are all politicians and human beings. In other words failable.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #101 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Funny I would have said Bush sr.



Well when your president says he has definite proof that " there's WMD in them there hills " you want to believe him! He's your leader after all! Also you don't want to look stupid if he's right and he sounded so sure didn't he? Well there were some who weren't fooled.

Bush had plenty of people casting doubt on this ( some were the inspectors there at the time ) he just didn't want to listen.

We're still using the "Bush fooled me" reasoning, I see. And apparently you still don't understand what the inspectors' job was.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We're still using the "Bush fooled me" reasoning, I see. And apparently you still don't understand what the inspectors' job was.

Now, now, now! I thought I was on the dreaded " ignore "!

Apparently you have no will power.

And I understand perfectly what their job was. And as I've pointed out previously to you many were saying shortly before the invasion " There's nothing here to find ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



Ask yourself if Obama can afford to look weak by polling our troops out of the region when Iraq is still not stable and Iran is declaring they can make weapons grade plutonium. If you are honest with yourself you know what the answer will be.

Thanks for the spelling lesson.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #104 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Hi, I'm steve. I can only talk about Sarah Palin obsession in every post I make. Perhaps it is actually I who am obsessed. I'm obsessed with a fake obsession.

This is absolutely true, and it's hilarious.
post #105 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Wait, seriously Steve? You're the one going on and on and on and on about obsessions. You say it's a liberal phenomenon. Jimmac points out a conservative obsession as a counterpoint to your assertion, and now you're saying he's justifying bad behavior? Are you kidding me?

There is no Conservative obsession. All the nutties making threads and posting trash about her certainly don't seem like Conservatives to me. I am merely poking fun at the lefties who are preoccupied with her.
post #106 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now, now, now! I thought I was on the dreaded " ignore "!

Apparently you have no will power.

And I understand perfectly what their job was. And as I've pointed out previously to you many were saying shortly before the invasion " There's nothing here to find ".

And many more were saying it is a slam dunk.
post #107 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

There is no Conservative obsession. All the nutties making threads and posting trash about her certainly don't seem like Conservatives to me. I am merely poking fun at the lefties who are preoccupied with her.

Wow! Another Palin post!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #108 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

And many more were saying it is a slam dunk.

Quote:
many more

Do you have a link that proves that as I've already previously supplied one for my statement for SDW?

From what I saw most were saying the same thing shortly before the invasion. " Nothing to find ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #109 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Now, now, now! I thought I was on the dreaded " ignore "!

Apparently you have no will power.

And I understand perfectly what their job was. And as I've pointed out previously to you many were saying shortly before the invasion " There's nothing here to find ".

As I communicated in a PM, I took you off...for now. You responded, so I assume you understand the message I wrote.

As for the inspectors, no...you just demonstrated you don't understand at all. They were not there to find weapons that were hidden. They were there to verify compliance. Saddam had to prove that he had destroyed/disposed of his programs and weapons...this was part of the UN mandate as far back as the first Gulf War. Weapons inspections only work when the country being inspected cooperates. A good example of how its supposed to work is found in the South African inspections.


Had the inspectors found banned Iraqi weapons/programs in the process, the inspections would have ended immediately because Saddam was in "material breach." Saddam did not comply fully, but the feckless UN refused to back up resolution 1441. Therefore, we did.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #110 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Wow! Another Palin post!

Learn English. it is a response to a post by your liberal buddy.
post #111 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Do you have a link that proves that as I've already previously supplied one for my statement for SDW?

From what I saw most were saying the same thing shortly before the invasion. " Nothing to find ".

15 agencies contributed to this report-

Code:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf
post #112 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

15 agencies contributed to this report-

Code:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB129/nie_first%20release.pdf

Do you mean the same CIA that had the bad intel? Besides what I'm talking about is much closer to the start of the invasion. From the inspectors themselves not from a goverment mouth piece that later fell on it's sword for Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #113 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevegmu View Post

Learn English. it is a response to a post by your liberal buddy.

Does that matter?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As I communicated in a PM, I took you off...for now. You responded, so I assume you understand the message I wrote.

As for the inspectors, no...you just demonstrated you don't understand at all. They were not there to find weapons that were hidden. They were there to verify compliance. Saddam had to prove that he had destroyed/disposed of his programs and weapons...this was part of the UN mandate as far back as the first Gulf War. Weapons inspections only work when the country being inspected cooperates. A good example of how its supposed to work is found in the South African inspections.


Had the inspectors found banned Iraqi weapons/programs in the process, the inspections would have ended immediately because Saddam was in "material breach." Saddam did not comply fully, but the feckless UN refused to back up resolution 1441. Therefore, we did.

Quote:
]They were not there to find weapons that were hidden. [/B] They were there to verify compliance. Saddam had to prove that he had destroyed/disposed of his programs and weapons...this was part of the UN mandate as far back as the first Gulf War.

Compliance would seem to indicate no WMD. They were saying there's nothing to comply about. And to be honest they were right there!

So we fought a war that has lasted almost a decade not because he had WMD but because of lack of compliance. That would seem rather childish and silly. At least you'd want more proof of something. I'd expect more form the leaders of the free world.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #115 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Do you mean the same CIA that had the bad intel? Besides what I'm talking about is much closer to the start of the invasion. From the inspectors themselves not from a goverment mouth piece that later fell on it's sword for Bush.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...2-un-wmd_x.htm

As I said 15 agencies contributed to the report?

UN inspectors? As in UN corruption/oil-for food? That UN? The same inspectors that would have taken over 400 years to search Iraq at the pace they were moving?
post #116 of 334
Round and round we go.

Again.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #117 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Round and round we go.

Again.

Would you stop bringing up Sarah Palin, already?! Gosh!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #118 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Isn't it amazing that so many of them managed to conveniently get banned when explaining themselves so lucidly and behaving so well, while all those darn conservatives who are dishonest and morally bankrupt manage to not get banned?

And you got banned at applenova because...?
post #119 of 334
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Compliance would seem to indicate no WMD. They were saying there's nothing to comply about. And to be honest they were right there!

So we fought a war that has lasted almost a decade not because he had WMD but because of lack of compliance. That would seem rather childish and silly. At least you'd want more proof of something. I'd expect more form the leaders of the free world.

No, compliance would be giving full and unfettered access to inspectors while providing full documentation of what was destroyed/disposed. Saddam did not fully comply as he was required to do. This is unquestionable.

Your second point is that the war wasn't worth fighting over non-compliance. That's an entirely different line of argument.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #120 of 334
How many times did we hear that phrase, "He's got 'em"?

Where are they?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Why are liberals so condescending?