or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911 - Page 10  

post #361 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok let's see how honest you are.

Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?

Did he lie also?

Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?

If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?

I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.

I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.

I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no. All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop. I am disappointed that so few of you can rise above and be civil, fair, and honest. I am glad that I do not base my view of humanity and the good that exists in people. But unfortunately, the attitudes and general disrespect found in AO in particular is a bad example for anyone who happens upon it.

We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.

1) Clinton sold us a war based on humanatarian reasons and sanctioned by the UN, and NATO. I'm not saying this acceptance is required for an act of protection, but for conflicts of convenience it sure as hell helps to have 30 countries actually footing the bill unlike our current coalitions.


Again with Clinton!!! Man just drop it already. He's out of office. He wont hex your children. He wont be making sex with interns in the oval office anymore. He wont be sending children back to Cuba anymore. He wont be commander-in-cheif anymore. He's old news and out of office. Just give it a break and focus on the issue. Why are we at war in Iraq instaed of hunting OBL with every resource available? Why did we find SH in less than a year but not OBL in over two years? Why did we spend more money investigation why the space shuttle blew up than investigating intelligence failures leading to the Iraq conflict?

Get over Clinton already.
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #362 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX


I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist ...

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
post #363 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok let's see how honest you are.Do the same standards apply when clinton sold an act of war based on the same reasons as bush?

This is your way of addressing my post? Oook. By the way, the above statement is pretty vague. Which act of war, which reasons?
Quote:
Did he lie also?

See above.
Quote:
Can you admit that this guy clarke is not credible in light of his flip flopping?

Admit? I've never quoted the guy to make a point. You on the other hand have. Talk about flip-flopping.
Quote:
If WMD's are found, will you change your mind?

There's no WMDs. So your hypothetical situation is just wishful thinking. Your hypothesis has another flaw. Bush and co. for a long time were scaring people with "imminent threat " scenarios of destruction and mass casualties. The "we can't wait for the mushroom cloud" , "can't give the inspectors more time", blah blah blah rhetoric. So far? Nothing. So much "nothing" that they keep changing their rhetoric:
March 2003: Weapons of Mass Destruction
June 2003: Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs(Pssst, it was about "liberation anyways")
October 2003: Weapos of Mass Destruction-related Programs.(psst, it's the intelligence stupid)
January 2004: Weapons of Mass Destruction-related Program Activities.
So then, they admitted there "may" not have been any WMDs but they "had" to go with the intelligence they were given. It became the "blame the intelligence" game then.
So now, in your hypothetical, we go from inminent threat to liberation, to faulty intelligence accusations back to...told you so!. Talk about extreme flip-flopping.
Quote:
I don't dismiss anyone who is reasonable. It is that simple. I dismiss those like giant and jimmac because I think that they have proven their unreasonableness many times over.

Include yourself there.
Quote:
I only briefly mention clinton's dead admin members, and I am labeled a conspiracy theorist and am professed to belief in aliens and death squads and thoroughly tongue lashed (or is it keyboard lashed) and talk about dismissed. After all of that you have the nerve to say I am dismissive.

Sorry, but with all due respect that's probably one of the most ridiculous and off-topic links ever in AO.
Quote:
I was just told to die in another thread. Have I done that to anyone here, no.

That's not right. However, knowing your posting/arguing style, you're probably exaggerating. But if you aren't, that's ridiculously stupid and whoever told you that deserves to be banned.
Quote:
All of the hysteria that is here is bringing out the true colors of many, and I for one would like to see this non-productive childishness stop.

So what are your true colors? Who did you vote for last election?
Quote:
We all should be ashamed about the state of these political threads.

Please stop calling the kettle black. If we're gonna be anal about it, we're all guilty.
post #364 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
If this is what you consider "considerable amount of assets were in the area" then you are sorely mistanken. The number (12,000) which you posted above is 1/10 that which is there now. Your idea that we had significant forces in the area so, eh, lets topple us a dictator is flawed. Look at how many reservists have been called up for the WMD war.

As of Feb-12, about 150,000 reservists had been activated, and that doesn't include the number of regular forces. If we can have 130,000 troops in Iraq why couldn't we have that many hunting OBL? Why did our priorities get skewed? http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in536144.shtml

If we are talking only about ground forces, you are right. But we are also talking about air and sea assets. What was in the general area was nothing to sneeze at. I never said that it was enough to do the job, but merely a significant amount.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Yet again, this is inconsequential to the real issue. Why have we toppled a two-bit dictator while the real bad man runs free? Why are we pouring 150 Billion + into rebuilding Iraq when we could be using that money on the home front? An interesting aside: Tax cuts have a much smaller effect on the economy than direct government spending in areas such as technology development, and infrastructure improvements (give people a job and they have money to spend). Imagine what a boost 150 Billion in direct spending would do for the job market. Imagine not having to worry about the possible future drag on the economy caused by this endless spending.

One point at a time.

Saddam was considered a threat by the whole world community. Ask the citizens of Kuwait if he wasn't a real bad man, ask the kurds and turkey.

UBL is not just roaming free, aloof like a carefree jet-setter. He is hiding and traveling in dark damp caves, hoping that a missile does not land in a bush when he is taking a dump in the morning. And now he has the Pakistani military on his ass also. So your premise is a bit false. Not only that, we did not pull all of our resources out of Afghanistan, they have been hunting for UBL since the beginning, so from that respect your premise is also wrong.

I still don't understand what good 150,000 troops in afghanistan would do if he just sipped over into Pakistan. Many experts felt without pakistani support we would never find him. Now we have that support so maybe we will finally get him.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
Another thing, you asked "What if they found WMD...." Where are they going to find these weapons? The people who would have made them said "Ain't here." The places where they would have been made were searched and searched again to no avail. The only WMD we found was in the form of a bearing and bearing support mechanism for a very old gas centrifuge design stashed in a scientists garden. How did we find it? The scientist said "here it is." Get over the prospect of finding WMD they are most likely not there according to David Kay (the Iraq war hawk turn weapons inspector turn BushCo detractor).

A great many people have lied and least of which is not SH. I think time will bear out the WMD thing. I don't care if they ever find them, I personally am satisfied with the reasons given to me. You quote Kay but he said that Iraq was far more dangerous than known before the war despite not finding WMD's. He also leaves the possibility open to finding them in the future.

WMD's, humanitarian threat, Broken ceasefire, broken UN resolutions, and aggressive destabilizing force in the MI. There may be more reasons for the war, but these are the ones I can think of. 4 out of 5 is a good record, and the 5th one will only be proven right or wrong through time. Even if Bush and the rest of the world was wrong about WMD's i will not change my mind because of the overall good that has been accomplished. I am sorry that I have to stick to my convictions here.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck then its probably a duck.

As Gilsch said read what you've said, and then repeat the I'm not a Bush supporter.

Next, your assertion that other reasons for the war were given is technically correct, but lets look at the 2003 sate of the union address to see how much weight was given to WMD versus those other reasons (highlghted in red).
Hmmmm, so much was said about WMD and how SH used WMD, but so little was said about the human rights. I wonder why that is? It kind of puts the Bush administrations focus into perspective when you look at how much was said about WMD and how much was said about "other".

I have said before, isn't it sad that those other reasons would not have been enough and would have gotten no traction? A sad state of our representatives. But just some have said you know and I know that despite haw bad a guy he was, no-one cared about the plight of the Iraqi people.

Quote:
Originally posted by faust9
I'm with Gilsch again. I gave GW the benefit--I voted for him. He dragged us into a war while the real bad guy prances and writes poetry in Afganastan/Pakistan. He's added massave ammounts of debt for your children to pay off. He's sending $$$ overseas to rebuild another country while 5.6% (this number would be much higher is job market drop out were factored in) of the US is unemployed.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/01/278231.shtml

You can proclaim to be protecting the man with out alterior motives (why someone with zero vested interest would do such a thing is well beyond me) but at some point you have to say "Wow that's a good valid point. I'll look into that" I was big enough to say that point 2 was your strongest point, yet I've never seen you say "Wow man, I never thought that so many people would be jumping ship from the administration. Maybe they ARE right."

I replied to the UBL thing above.

Clinton attacked Iraq based on the same reasons Bush invaded Iraq. It is a good litmus test on this subject. I don't care about clinton except when partisans try to hold Bush to standards they never had or will hold Clinton to. Intellectual honesty is very important here.

I don't care how many people jump ship, do I have to jump ship like a lemming? I think not. I am not even on that ship to jump off of it. So that makes no sense.

I am not really arguing the WMD point, I take acceptation to people saying "Bush lied" because of a miscalculation on WMD's, not to mention that almost everyone made the same miscalculation. It is just wrong to go there.

If you think he is not fit to be president, go, vote against him and if the majority of people in the US agree with you then Kerry is the next POTUS. I am not stopping that from happening. I am sticking up for a guy that is not here to defend himself. You have to admit it is becoming sickeningly usual that a perfectly good thread turns into a Bash Bush free for all or a Bush lied about WMD's. I just can't sit there and let this crap go on without saying anything.

The unemployment rate is is not that bad in perspective, but once again perspective is severely lacking here. But OK, I will agree it could be better. But once again what does unemployment have to do with helping another country out. If the money wasn't going there I am sure that politicians would find some social program or something to spend it on and the unemployment rate would be the same.

Hey maybe I am just all wrong.
post #365 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
This is your way of addressing my post? Oook. By the way, the above statement is pretty vague. Which act of war, which reasons?See above. Admit? I've never quoted the guy to make a point. You on the other hand have. Talk about flip-flopping. There's no WMDs. So your hypothetical situation is just wishful thinking. Your hypothesis has another flaw. Bush and co. for a long time were scaring people with "imminent threat " scenarios of destruction and mass casualties. The "we can't wait for the mushroom cloud" , "can't give the inspectors more time", blah blah blah rhetoric. So far? Nothing. So much "nothing" that they keep changing their rhetoric:
March 2003: Weapons of Mass Destruction
June 2003: Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs(Pssst, it was about "liberation anyways")
October 2003: Weapos of Mass Destruction-related Programs.(psst, it's the intelligence stupid)
January 2004: Weapons of Mass Destruction-related Program Activities.
So then, they admitted there "may" not have been any WMDs but they "had" to go with the intelligence they were given. It became the "blame the intelligence" game then.
So now, in your hypothetical, we go from inminent threat to liberation, to faulty intelligence accusations back to...told you so!. Talk about extreme flip-flopping.

Ok, so I am a flip flopping flip flopper, let's just assume there is a remote possibly of them finding the smoking gun, and someone does, will you change your tune? Yes or no? That is a simple question.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Sorry, but with all due respect that's probably one of the most ridiculous and off-topic links ever in AO.

I know it was silly and I said it was just a joke, a bad one but a joke, my bad for trying to joke. But I am probably lying about that too. Right?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
That's not right. However, knowing your posting/arguing style, you're probably exaggerating. But if you aren't, that's ridiculously stupid and whoever told you that deserves to be banned.

Yeah I am just making it up because I want to prove a point, that is the way I am.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
So what are your true colors? Who did you vote for last election?

Not that it is any of your business, but brace yourself for this...

Nobody

Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
Please stop calling the kettle black. If we're gonna be anal about it, we're all guilty.

I said we ALL should be ashamed of the crap here.
post #366 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Ok, so I am a flip flopping flip flopper, let's just assume there is a remote possibly of them finding the smoking gun, and someone does, will you change your tune? Yes or no? That is a simple question.

No.I'd still be very critical because in all that flip/flopping they still would've lied either about the immenent threat or in blaming the "faulty" intelligence.
post #367 of 386
OH WAIT----I understand now......


In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #368 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by Gilsch
No.I'd still be very critical because in all that flip/flopping they still would've lied either about the immenent threat or in blaming the "faulty" intelligence.

Now I am not calling you a liar or anything, but I would like to know where anyone in this administration has (a) admitted total failure with regards to WMD and at the same time (b) blamed that failure on faulty intelligence. I don't mean a round about statement that could be interpreted any number of ways but a direct statement saying such. Then I might be with you on this one.
post #369 of 386


Ooops wrong thread
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
"[Saddam's] a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go. But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded -- some of them terribly -- $200 billion of our treasury and counting, and...
post #370 of 386
Originally posted by NaplesX (regarding the Clinton Body Count list)
Quote:
I know it was silly and I said it was just a joke, a bad one but a joke, my bad for trying to joke. But I am probably lying about that too. Right?

Right!

Originally posted by NaplesX (regarding the Clinton Body Count list)
Quote:
You see I also extensively researched the "Clinton Body Count" (which is up to around 85 now) along with numerous other Cli9nton/Arkansas/Mena/INSLAW/Rose Law Firm/Raidy/DER/ARKLA...bla, bla, bla, incestuous spider-web of shady dealings. So this is a subject that I know a lot about, so do not pull your "you need to educate yourself" stuff, please.

OK, either:

- you ARE lying when you say it was a joke, probably because you can't admit that you were so partisan that you took this right-wing urban legend at face value, even though you really thought you had "extensively researched" the topic

OR:
- you are NOT lying when you say it was a joke, in which case you spent 2 and a half pages of this thread arguing that you believed something, that you did not actually believe? As a joke, just to get a rise out of people? That's not just "silly" of you, there is an actual term for it. It's called trolling. And, I'm pretty sure the Mighty Mod Stick might have something to say about trolling, especially on a political thread in AO.

So, which are you, Naples - a liar, or a troll?
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #371 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Originally posted by NaplesX (regarding the Clinton Body Count list)

Right!

Originally posted by NaplesX (regarding the Clinton Body Count list)


OK, either:

- you ARE lying when you say it was a joke, probably because you can't admit that you were so partisan that you took this right-wing urban legend at face value, even though you really thought you had "extensively researched" the topic

OR:
- you are NOT lying when you say it was a joke, in which case you spent 2 and a half pages of this thread arguing that you believed something, that you did not actually believe? As a joke, just to get a rise out of people? That's not just "silly" of you, there is an actual term for it. It's called trolling. And, I'm pretty sure the Mighty Mod Stick might have something to say about trolling, especially on a political thread in AO.

So, which are you, Naples - a liar, or a troll?

I posted the original reference to Clinton's dead admin members on the first post of page 8. The next 2 posts were me defending my sanity. I then asked giant who also said he researched the topic about a source. 2 posts later on the same page I said I would drop it. A post later I replied to yet another person questioning my sanity or intelligence, and offered again to drop it. A couple of posts later, you guessed it, my intelligence was questions and I had to reply. But that is it. That was a little over one page. Please review and notice that I moved on.

I am what you say I am, so what am I?

This is truly a silly game. What do you want me to be? I will confess if it will get you to just move on. Read my posts. I said it was silly. Ok I am a retard sometimes. Sue me.

I'm sorry, that you can't take a joke. I am sorry that my humor may be different than yours. I'm sorry. I apologize. It is all my fault.

Happy?
post #372 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I am not an intellectual giant
post #373 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
I posted the original reference to Clinton's dead admin members on the first post of page 8.

No, it was not page 8, it was the top of page 7.

Simple, easily verifiable facts seem to be so elusive to you somehow....

Halfway down page 8, you say "I thought it was kinda funny so I posted it"
It wasn't till the middle of page 10 where you say it was really all just a big joke - your first mention, as well as your statement that you had researched it heavily and no one should dare call you "uneducated" on the subject of the 85 bodies on the CBC list.

And the whole CBC list thing was your way of side-stepping your "bet" that you could find "plenty" of disgruntled former Clinton officials who had spoken out against him. There's another big bold statement that you've never even tried to back up...

Ahh, well, troll away. At least you are admitting that's what you are here for - to stir things up, rather than rational and logical discussion.

Quote:
An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #374 of 386
OH WAIT----I understand now......


eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #375 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX

This is truly a silly game. What do you want me to be? I will confess if it will get you to just move on. Read my posts. I said it was silly. Ok I am a retard sometimes. Sue me.

I'm sorry, that you can't take a joke. I am sorry that my humor may be different than yours. I'm sorry. I apologize. It is all my fault.

Happy?

I'm briefly amused enough to laugh out loud, but I don't know if I'd call it "happiness". Fair enough, though - I'll consider your attempt at appearing educated on the veracity of right-wing nutjob Clinton-hater conspiracy theories "a joke" and move on (although I still think you actually believed this was true on page 7 and are back-peddling frantically). I'll also try not to let it influence my perception of the political impartiality you keep referring to.

I'm off the CBC dead horse, and the NapleX dogpile for now. There are better threads on Clarke out there right now, anyway, and the week ain't over yet.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #376 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
No, it was not page 8, it was the top of page 7.

Simple, easily verifiable facts seem to be so elusive to you somehow....

Halfway down page 8, you say "I thought it was kinda funny so I posted it"
It wasn't till the middle of page 10 where you say it was really all just a big joke - your first mention, as well as your statement that you had researched it heavily and no one should dare call you "uneducated" on the subject of the 85 bodies on the CBC list.

And the whole CBC list thing was your way of side-stepping your "bet" that you could find "plenty" of disgruntled former Clinton officials who had spoken out against him. There's another big bold statement that you've never even tried to back up...

Ahh, well, troll away. At least you are admitting that's what you are here for - to stir things up, rather than rational and logical discussion.

ding ding ding ding ding ding .

Naples, if you don't get my post, please read it again. It's pretty straightforward.
post #377 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I'm briefly amused enough to laugh out loud, but I don't know if I'd call it "happiness". Fair enough, though - I'll consider your attempt at appearing educated on the veracity of right-wing nutjob Clinton-hater conspiracy theories "a joke" and move on (although I still think you actually believed this was true on page 7 and are back-peddling frantically). I'll also try not to let it influence my perception of the political impartiality you keep referring to.

I'm off the CBC dead horse, and the NapleX dogpile for now. There are better threads on Clarke out there right now, anyway, and the week ain't over yet.

The joke was not the fact that I researched the CBC, because I did along with the many Clinton related scandals.

The joke was referring to the dead clinton admins...

Whatever you will believe what you want to, so go for it be a believer.

You are a parser of words, and it is highly dishonest what you tried to do there. But hey you have to live in your skin not I.
post #378 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
The joke was not the fact that I researched the CBC, because I did along with the many Clinton related scandals.

The joke was referring to the dead clinton admins...

Oh, so I misunderstood, then.
The "joke" was not that you believed that there is a list of 85 people that Clinton had killed in order to cover up his many crimes.

You actually believe that Clinton had those people killed - right?

The "joke" was saying that you couldn't name any Clinton detractors who served in his admin because they were "all dead".

Am I understanding the joke correctly now?
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #379 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
No, it was not page 8, it was the top of page 7.

Simple, easily verifiable facts seem to be so elusive to you somehow....

Halfway down page 8, you say "I thought it was kinda funny so I posted it"
It wasn't till the middle of page 10 where you say it was really all just a big joke - your first mention, as well as your statement that you had researched it heavily and no one should dare call you "uneducated" on the subject of the 85 bodies on the CBC list.

And the whole CBC list thing was your way of side-stepping your "bet" that you could find "plenty" of disgruntled former Clinton officials who had spoken out against him. There's another big bold statement that you've never even tried to back up...

Ahh, well, troll away. At least you are admitting that's what you are here for - to stir things up, rather than rational and logical discussion.

You are right it was page 7 I mistyped it. It is a little late here sorry for making a mistake.

Please stop twisting what I say.

The mention of clinton stirs up this kind of reaction? Whew....

foust9:

OMFG!!! I have now decided to never read another word from you Naples. This assertion that the Clinton Administration hired hitmen to take out three "squeeky Wheels" is simply the most hairbrained idea ever. The mods can ban me for days weeks or months for my comments but hopefully they will see the truth. CLINTON DID NOT HIRE DEATH SQUADS TO QUIET IS DETRACTORS. If he had, there would be a whole lot more..... Jesus man what are you thinking

giant trying to pull his usual I know more than you way:

Have you even looked into any of those?

You know, a couple years ago I researched these to see if there was anything to them. There wasn't. For example, the first two in the second list died in an accident due to the pilot's insulin deficiency.

FormerLurker:

EXACTLY! Don't you see? The Clinton blackops team switched the pilot's insulin vial with a placebo! My God, the truth is staring you right in the face, why don't you just admit it???

Giant:

Clinton was controlled by martians, Gilsch. Don't you know?

Giant:


OMG! Naples is right!

Yeah I am the troll.
post #380 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX


You are a parser of words, and it is highly dishonest what you tried to do there. But hey you have to live in your skin not I.

I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Maybe if you could explain your opinions (and your "jokes") better, I wouldn't have such a hard time. Maybe if you backed up some of your opinions with facts supported by links, then we could have more of a discussion of our respective positions and beliefs, and less of people being called "highly dishonest".
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #381 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
I am simply trying to understand where you are coming from. Maybe if you could explain your opinions (and your "jokes") better, I wouldn't have such a hard time. Maybe if you backed up some of your opinions with facts supported by links, then we could have more of a discussion of our respective positions and beliefs, and less of people being called "highly dishonest".

Oh now you want to talk civilized and understand where I come from?

Anyone watching this?
post #382 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX


From the banner at the top:
"Space Visitor tells Democrats how to rebuild U.S. economy!"

Well, the economy didn't do too badly during the Clinton years. Hmmm. Space Visitor obviously gave the Dems some goode shite - hope he comes back to talk to Kerry, and maybe the economy will have a chance in the next 4 years.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #383 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Oh now you want to talk civilized and understand where I come from?

Anyone watching this?

Obviously you'd prefer it if I returned your ad-hom attack by calling you highly dishonest, overly opinionated, and very misinformed.

I however would prefer if you would clarify your "joke" as asked in the post above the "civilized" one.
eye
bee
BEE
eye
bee
BEE
post #384 of 386
Quote:
Originally posted by FormerLurker
Obviously you'd prefer it if I returned your ad-hom attack by calling you highly dishonest, overly opinionated, and very misinformed.

I however would prefer if you would clarify your "joke" as asked in the post above the "civilized" one.

You thoroughly insult me an impute my character and twist just about everything I said to suit your attack against me, and you expect me to show you one ounce of respect and actually hold a conversation with you?

Give me one valid reason i should bother.

I am thinking real hard, I can't come up with anything, you?
post #385 of 386
Pretty please?

Just a little break from the nonsense?

You know who you are. Both of you.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #386 of 386
This thread has taken a turn off a cliff.

Closed

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Yet another ex-admin says they wanted Iraq right at 911