The percentage in the upper fifties (usually), Gamblor.
Jimmac:
Quote:
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.
Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?
\
and finally.....
"The following are the results of a recent Jimmac poll. A completely one-sided sample of jimmac and 5 friends who work at a small liberal arts college and drink cappucino at 4.pm. shows":
1. How much do you hate the President?
A. A lot (57%)
B. A bunch (30%)
C. More than you can possiby imagine (10%)
D More than brussell sprouts (3%)
2. Since we all know that Bush is a lying bastard and started an unecessary war for oil, personal glory and political gain, how do you think he should be punished?
A. With a stick. A big stick. (65%)
B. He be impeached and removed. Twice. (10%)
C. He should be eaten by Hannibal Lector. But first, impeached. (20%)
D. He should have to kiss Hillary Clinton and sleep with Dom Delouise
3. How guilty is the President?
A. Real guilty. (10%)
B. Guilty as sin. (45%)
C. Guiltier than O.J. (40%)
D. As guilty, possibly more guilty than Scott Peterson (5%)
4. What are the chances of Bush being reelected?
A. Fair (0%)
B. Poor (0%)
C. Howard Dean will slaughter him. (3%)
D. He was never elected. He stole the election and was appointed by the supreme court. (97%)
The percentage in the upper fifties (usually), Gamblor.
Jimmac:
Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
Comparing Bush to Nixon? Wow.
SDW, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your conservative friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Clinton down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
Even so, 69 percent of the public thinks the war with Iraq was justified without ever finding the banned weapons, and 76 percent say they are more likely to believe the missing weapons have been destroyed or moved rather than that there were no weapons at all (16 percent).
Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.
Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.
Yeah, they're interesting, but they're also almost two months old. What would the responses to the same questions be if the poll were taken today?
Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis.
Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.
--
jimmac:
Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.
--
Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.
Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.
--
jimmac:
Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.
--
Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
I'm really confused how someone who listens to Anne Coulter that much thinks they have the intelligence to criticize anyone. As for the 'points,' find me one that hasn't already been beaten to death here on AI. Do you think pretending this is something new actually gives it any credibility? If anything, it just exposes your weaknesses.
Oh, and the only thing that resembled a 'point' was addressed. Don't try to BS anyone, their not as gullible as you. Pick a topic and we'll discuss it. Until you do, you are just playing kid games.
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!
In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.
Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.
Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?
So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!
In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.
Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.
Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?
It's because they choose to see and remember what they want ( selective memory loss ). I think it's just hilarious that they want to sweep this under the rug " Well time has pasted so it doesn't really matter. " Never mind they keep bringing up the Clinton sex scandal and other things he did from years ago. Or of course it doesn't matter because the president lying is " ok " after all. Then of course when you call them on it they start to lose it like groverat did in the last thread.
I think everybody should see these polls for themselves. They are ludicrously skewed.
Quote:
"They do not exist. The Bush administration mislead the public, using false and/or exaggerated evidence of WMDs as a pretext for justifying the war.
57%
They exist but have yet to be found.
19%
Not only do they exist, but we've found them?the two trailers, described by the CIA as possible mobile biological-weapon production plants, are proof enough.
14%
They were probably destroyed by Saddam Hussein before the war.
The harris poll is not AS bad, but EVERY "issue" is a negative statment about the war. The choices are also somewhat skewed, as they refer to "how concerned" the respondee is. Hell, I WOULD respond to some of those the same way.
I linked to polls from a major international news organization and an independent, highly regarded polling group. And you are tellijng me that your numbers carry the same weight as mine??? Please.
Jimmac, once again I question whether or not you are seriously telling us that the American public thinks the way your "data" indicates. I wonder if you're just trolling around sometimes...
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.
There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.
I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.
There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.
Really? How do you know that? What kinds of weapons and quantities? Were they degraded?
Of course, it's really just too easy for me to point out that every facility cited by the admin as being upgraded for bio/chem weapons production actually wasn't.
But really, what weapons in what quantities does Iraq have? Since you know that Iraq had these weapons, this shouldn't be too hard to answer.
Is there anyway we could at least settle down on when, at the latest SH had CBN (any one of the three)? 98? 99? 00? 01 02? 03? Were the UN inspectors being lied to in 98?
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
You really should try a little harder. All of that was detailed in the Powell speech.
Here is a nice except...
Quote:
First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry -- to pry -- an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.
Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount -- this is just about the amount of a teaspoon -- less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.
Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.
The speech can be found at that biased conservative source, CNN.
Note some of the things even in that small quote that refute what some including you have contended here. First Iraq admitted they had chemical and biological weapons to the UN, inthe 90's and after the Gulf War.
Secondly as Powell mentioned Iraq never came clean and it was easy for them to do so. You can read the whole transcript and it is quite detailed.
As for massive facilities, they weren't massive, they were mobile.
Comments
Jimmac:
These guys just don't get it. It's out in the open now. And guess what? The public doesn't like it.
Most people don't do things like this thinking they'll be impeached ( I'm sure Nixon didn't think he'd get into trouble ). They do it because they're stupid enough to think they'll get away with it.
Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
Comparing Bush to Nixon? Wow.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'm just listening to what people say here and around me personally. Where do you get your info from?
and finally.....
"The following are the results of a recent Jimmac poll. A completely one-sided sample of jimmac and 5 friends who work at a small liberal arts college and drink cappucino at 4.pm. shows":
1. How much do you hate the President?
A. A lot (57%)
B. A bunch (30%)
C. More than you can possiby imagine (10%)
D More than brussell sprouts (3%)
2. Since we all know that Bush is a lying bastard and started an unecessary war for oil, personal glory and political gain, how do you think he should be punished?
A. With a stick. A big stick. (65%)
B. He be impeached and removed. Twice. (10%)
C. He should be eaten by Hannibal Lector. But first, impeached. (20%)
D. He should have to kiss Hillary Clinton and sleep with Dom Delouise
3. How guilty is the President?
A. Real guilty. (10%)
B. Guilty as sin. (45%)
C. Guiltier than O.J. (40%)
D. As guilty, possibly more guilty than Scott Peterson (5%)
4. What are the chances of Bush being reelected?
A. Fair (0%)
B. Poor (0%)
C. Howard Dean will slaughter him. (3%)
D. He was never elected. He stole the election and was appointed by the supreme court. (97%)
Originally posted by SDW2001
The percentage in the upper fifties (usually), Gamblor.
Jimmac:
Jimmac, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your liberal friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Bush down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
Comparing Bush to Nixon? Wow.
SDW, this is another unsupported statement. You don't even to preface it with "I think that...". You just go ahead and state it as fact. In reality, it's not true. What you mean is that YOU and your conservative friends and associates don't like it. You'll use anything to try and bring Clinton down. The man could rescue an infant from a burning car and you'd say he lit the fire or knew who did.
Comparing Clinton to Nixon? Wow.
Originally posted by BR
SDW, you can't get those percentages from a five person poll.
It was a joke. Relax. And BTW, my statement is supported:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88778,00.html
Even so, 69 percent of the public thinks the war with Iraq was justified without ever finding the banned weapons, and 76 percent say they are more likely to believe the missing weapons have been destroyed or moved rather than that there were no weapons at all (16 percent).
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030604.asp
Thank you and good night.
Ah, numbers again.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=370
Here's some more interesting numbers.
http://www.infoplease.com/pollresul...ion&property=IP
Ah, numbers again.
Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ha...dex.asp?PID=370
Here's some more interesting numbers.
Yeah, they're interesting, but they're also almost two months old. What would the responses to the same questions be if the poll were taken today?
Originally posted by Gamblor
Self selected samples statistically have serious flaws. That poll says more about the people who visit infoplease.com & were motivated to vote than anything else.
Yeah, they're interesting, but they're also almost two months old. What would the responses to the same questions be if the poll were taken today?
Also we simply don't understand 'honor' as concieved by the Tikritis.
Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.
--
jimmac:
Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.
--
Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.
Originally posted by groverat
pfflam:
Nor should we give a shit. You're either going to play along with the rules or you're not. If "well I have pride" is a valid defense then the UN-SC is an even bigger joke than I thought.
--
jimmac:
Laughing smileys in place of logical refutation.
--
Since the #s on polls will go Bush's way on this watch "WHAT ABOUT DEMOCRACY!?!?!?" go out the window as an argument when the #s don't go their way.
Yeah but sometimes they say it all!
Originally posted by trumptman
]giant,
Why would anyone even try with you. You consider yourself a critical thinker yet I could type your replies before you do because they are nothing but reflexive.
I'm really confused how someone who listens to Anne Coulter that much thinks they have the intelligence to criticize anyone. As for the 'points,' find me one that hasn't already been beaten to death here on AI. Do you think pretending this is something new actually gives it any credibility? If anything, it just exposes your weaknesses.
Oh, and the only thing that resembled a 'point' was addressed. Don't try to BS anyone, their not as gullible as you. Pick a topic and we'll discuss it. Until you do, you are just playing kid games.
Originally posted by trumptman
There were plenty of folks here and in the Sunday talk shows and newspaper editorial columns saying this would be another Vietnam or at minimum there would be casualties both from "urban warfare" to borrow the favored 24 hour news phrase and also from chemical weapons.
What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!
In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.
Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.
Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?
Originally posted by trumptman
So I have not dismissed history or facts. Saddam had the ability to create and also had used them. He kicked out inspectors in 1998 and could have gladly come clean at any time and be allowed to continue terrorizing his own people just as he had since 1979.
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
Originally posted by giant
What is with you people that try to lie about events from just TWO MONTHS AGO?!?!
In the lead up to war there were a large number of scenarios that were discussed, and this was one of them. This was not a right/left wing issue. This was not a war/anti-war topic but a tactical one that some people said could make the war too deadly for the expected payoff.
Hell, the Iraqi possible use of chemical weapons was and STILL IS a topic more discussed in military circles and, when on TV, military officers. Or maybe you haven't seen all of the officers on TV saying how surprised they were that nothing was used?!?! Urban warfare was a fear of the military more than anyone as a result of 'black hawk down'.
Who the hell do you think you are fooling? Or are you really that far removed from reality?
It's because they choose to see and remember what they want ( selective memory loss ). I think it's just hilarious that they want to sweep this under the rug " Well time has pasted so it doesn't really matter. " Never mind they keep bringing up the Clinton sex scandal and other things he did from years ago. Or of course it doesn't matter because the president lying is " ok " after all. Then of course when you call them on it they start to lose it like groverat did in the last thread.
Originally posted by jimmac
http://www.infoplease.com/pollresult...on&property=IP
Ah, numbers again.
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=370
Here's some more interesting numbers.
I think everybody should see these polls for themselves. They are ludicrously skewed.
"They do not exist. The Bush administration mislead the public, using false and/or exaggerated evidence of WMDs as a pretext for justifying the war.
57%
They exist but have yet to be found.
19%
Not only do they exist, but we've found them?the two trailers, described by the CIA as possible mobile biological-weapon production plants, are proof enough.
14%
They were probably destroyed by Saddam Hussein before the war.
10%
Total votes cast: 618"
I like the first choice best. Infoplease.com? Try www.thispollisutterlyuselesscrap.com
The harris poll is not AS bad, but EVERY "issue" is a negative statment about the war. The choices are also somewhat skewed, as they refer to "how concerned" the respondee is. Hell, I WOULD respond to some of those the same way.
I linked to polls from a major international news organization and an independent, highly regarded polling group. And you are tellijng me that your numbers carry the same weight as mine??? Please.
Jimmac, once again I question whether or not you are seriously telling us that the American public thinks the way your "data" indicates. I wonder if you're just trolling around sometimes...
Originally posted by giant
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.
There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.
Originally posted by jimmac
Never mind they keep bringing up the Clinton sex scandal and other things he did from years ago.
Who started the Clinton thing in this thread?
Oh yeah, it was BR in the very first post of the thread.
Try again.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I repeat, giant: ANYONE WHO THINKS SADDAM HUSSEIN DIDN'T HAVE WMD'S IS AN ABSOLUTE FOOL.
There is no argument. Any person on this Earth with half a brain knew and/or knows Saddam had the weapons. This whole argument is nothing more than an intellectual excercise.
Really? How do you know that? What kinds of weapons and quantities? Were they degraded?
Of course, it's really just too easy for me to point out that every facility cited by the admin as being upgraded for bio/chem weapons production actually wasn't.
But really, what weapons in what quantities does Iraq have? Since you know that Iraq had these weapons, this shouldn't be too hard to answer.
Originally posted by giant
OK, genius, if you pay so much attention to fact AND state that you know the WMD abilities of Iraq, why don't you cite exactly what he had that was a threat? Since you don't ignore the facts that shouldn't be too hard. Give me exact tonage. Cite your source, too.
After that we'll go into the fact that he couldn't produce anymore chemical weapons because the massive facilities needed simply don't exist, just for starters.
You really should try a little harder. All of that was detailed in the Powell speech.
Here is a nice except...
First, you will recall that it took UNSCOM four long and frustrating years to pry -- to pry -- an admission out of Iraq that it had biological weapons.
Second, when Iraq finally admitted having these weapons in 1995, the quantities were vast. Less than a teaspoon of dry anthrax, a little bit about this amount -- this is just about the amount of a teaspoon -- less than a teaspoon full of dry anthrax in an envelope shutdown the United States Senate in the fall of 2001. This forced several hundred people to undergo emergency medical treatment and killed two postal workers just from an amount just about this quantity that was inside of an envelope.
Iraq declared 8,500 liters of anthrax, but UNSCOM estimates that Saddam Hussein could have produced 25,000 liters. If concentrated into this dry form, this amount would be enough to fill tens upon tens upon tens of thousands of teaspoons. And Saddam Hussein has not verifiably accounted for even one teaspoon-full of this deadly material.
The speech can be found at that biased conservative source, CNN.
Powell transcript
Note some of the things even in that small quote that refute what some including you have contended here. First Iraq admitted they had chemical and biological weapons to the UN, inthe 90's and after the Gulf War.
Secondly as Powell mentioned Iraq never came clean and it was easy for them to do so. You can read the whole transcript and it is quite detailed.
As for massive facilities, they weren't massive, they were mobile.
Nick