John Prezioso

No, but priorities change. Why don't you stop bouncing around like a umpa-lumpa on speed and DEBATE?

LOL! You are going to lecture ME on being taken seriously! ROFLMAO! This from the guy that can't sit still for a second and wait for a reply to his "facts". That's good.

You have no idea about my arguments seeing as how you cannot sit still and be quiet long enough to hear or consider them. Well, in your tirades, surely you would not find the time to actually consider them, anyway..

quote:John Quincy Adams said, and I quote: "America does not go abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own." You are the master at taking quotes out of context. Are you sure you don't work for CNN? That quote had NOTHING to do with protecting ourselves from terrorism, and you darn well know it. Talk about propaganda.

quote: Had 9/11 not occurred, I think you (having to be honest with yourself) realize that we would not have invaded Iraq. Oh I agree we probably wouldn't have touched Iraq. But even you must realize that a great many things changed on 9/11. It DID happen, in case you missed it or forgot it in your rage..

quote:and you basically lap it up and say "atta boy chief - kill those A-rabs!" And of course I said that right? Would you mind pointing out where? You must be getting desparate, else your rage clouds your reason. quote:and treating others as we would like to be treated. Oh of course, and the terrorists will see you making all nice-nice and stop? This is getting amusing.

LOL! You wail about labels and then you present MORE! Yeah, the country isn't divided enough...

The only propaganda I have heard in this thread, frankly, is yours. You are letting your irrational anger get the best of you, I'm afraid.

quote:You have to be deaf, dumb, and blind to believe that the 3 members of PNAC dropped their opinions when advising Bush on the course to take in Iraq. Obviously you are wrong again, seeing as how I am neither death, dumb, nor blind, and yet I find the whole idea ludicrous.

Now you are misrepresenting facts. There was a great deal of intelligence that said Iraq either could have or did have WMD. Only believing the half that supports your own argument is fine for Mr. Silk, but it is not a luxury the President of the United States could have afforded to take. The fact that the majority of intelligence showing WMD in Iraq was outdated or just plain wrong only became apparent once the invasion was complete. At worst, this makes Bush wrong, not accomplice in some evil plot.

They stated they BELIEVED as much priior to 9/11.

C'mon Silk. This kind of stuff only happens in techno-thriller novels. I agree with alot of the PNAC fundamental principals - does that make me evil? It is a ridiculously long stretch to read the PNAC website and to say that the Iraq war was just its mission statement coming to fruition.

All right, this is getting old. Go to sleep Crunch. You can hear all about your banning in the morning. Bye!

God, I hope you are female.

Troll.

Well, no serious discussion will take place with "IT" around anyway.

Hey no worries. I get my revenge every time I make him (or her) continue to illustrate how juvenile, unsophisticated, and immature he/she is. He/she is already as good as banned, imo.

I never would have guessed you were young, what with the utter brilliance and maturity of your posts! Your are truly wise beyond your years...

quote:I'm going to purchase an island in the South Pacific and retire there. And you PROMISE you'll stay there?

Ahh, the intellectual buttefly flutters into another thread...

So, Crunch - what ARE you going to do with all your free time once your banned, anyway?

HAHAHA! You made my day, Crunch!

You are funny. I should go to bed, but I am so amused by you!

Let me re-post the pertinent part of the definition of "troll", for your own edification: "One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by his or her peers. He will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which he uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue."

You have an obssession with "mommies", don't you? Can't really say I'm surprised...