Kerry - Treason?

[Kalshion]

Hate to take this to the next level

But how stupid are you Street?

There was no justification for Saddam invading Kuwait

WE on the other hand had a right to invade his country. Its just sad that you're to influenced by Media Lie's(CCN, ABC) and Liberal Propaganda to even realize it

[street228]

how can you take part of the statement and be completely blind to these excerpts?::

quote:

---

JUSTIFIED from HIS STAND POINT?

---

quote:

---

MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS

---

I must say, YOU calling ME "STUPID" is quite astonishing!..That is EXACTLY the TYPE of twisted presentation of FACTS, which have caused this country's population to be so confused, that they have inadvertantly ALLOWED this PRESIDENT to emulate the PRE-WW2 styled NAZI's foriegn policies!!!

COME ON now, attacking me, does NOT reinforce EITHER side of an OPINIONATED debate.

[Charles Lindsey]

Ok, there are three threads that have devolved into a Saddam debate. And watch the flames everyone.

street perhaps you should have qualified your statement better.

"And YES, SADDAM (probably felt he) was JUSTIFIED"

The constant caps do make your posts hard to read.

[Guest $iLk]

So are we justified in invading France to sieze the assets we are owed for World War 2?

Just curious... and attempting to twist your statement to "Oh I was just arguing from Sadaam's point of view" is exactly what we all thought to begin with

[street228]

read whatever interpretation you choose, into my post, as I have no expectation of seeing you change your established pattern.

Nothing wrong with playing "devil's advocate", if in fact, this is what your attempting to do; however, I have found there is little need to rehash opinionated debates, through splitting hairs over misinterpretations of anothers statement.

It only serves to confuse the real issue, rather than, establishing a position on either side of said issue.

having said that. I think I will move on. We can fight it out in MP. Actions speak a whole lot louder than words. And Bush's actions continue to prove, rather than refute, the points I have all ready made clear.

[Guest $iLk]

I know it drives most liberals nuts to see 2 and 1/2 years of decisive action as opposed to pussy-footing around the real issue - which is annihalation of terrorist networks and cells wherever they are found.

And I've asked you twice now if we would be justified in invading and siezing assets in France to pay off their debt to us. I wasn't misrepresenting your statement as it was written at all. Whether Sadaam feels it was proper isn't an issue - because Bush felt invading Iraq was proper and you seem to disagree with him and take Sadaam's side instead which is simply hypocritical.

Whether or not you agree with Bush's actions - it has been decisive action - and regardless of whether or not it was in the European's interests - it definitely was in the United State's interests to have a free Iraq. And I'm much more concerned about us rather than them.

My position is rather clear - if you only had two choices - a "cowboy" president who does what's in the United States' interests and an "appeasement" president who bends over and takes it from behind from terrorists and the U.N. - I'd just as soon have the president who wasn't popular around the world. Because people in foreign countries hate a president who isn't going to appease them at every turn. And I like to see the Frenchmen's feathers ruffled... very much so indeed.

I'm going to ask you now - who do you think the terrorists and France want to win this election. If you think you know the answer - vote for the other guy.

[street228]

quote:

---

I know it drives most liberals nuts to see 2 and 1/2 years of decisive action as opposed to pussy-footing around the real issue - which is annihalation of terrorist networks and cells wherever they are found.

---

I am NO liberal. I never professed to be, and really have become bored with the continued labeling and misrepresentation of my stand against the UNintelligent, and Illogical actions of this president.

quote:

---

And I've asked you twice now if we would be justified in invading and siezing assets in France to pay off their debt to us. I wasn't misrepresenting your statement as it was written at all. Whether Sadaam feels it was proper isn't an issue - because Bush felt invading Iraq was proper and you seem to disagree with him and take Sadaam's side instead which is simply hypocritical.

---

Again I will state: the question deserves NO answer from me, as it was only an EXAMPLE of the media's misrepresentation of facts to which I was referring.I feel it fails as an intelligent response to the original statement, and only serves to reinforce a warped perspective (i.e. your position).

quote:

---

Whether or not you agree with Bush's actions - it has been decisive action - and regardless of whether or not it was in the European's interests - it definitely was in the United State's interests to have a free Iraq. And I'm much more concerned about us rather than them.

---

It is NEVER in the intrest of a country's( whose constitution is based on free choice),best interest: to rule anyone by force, regardless of the propaganda you have swallowed.

quote:

---

My position is rather clear - if you only had two choices - a "cowboy" president who does what's in the United States' interests and an "appeasement" president who bends over and takes it from behind from terrorists and the U.N. - I'd just as soon have the president who wasn't popular around the world. Because people in foreign countries hate a president who isn't going to appease them at every turn. And I like to see the Frenchmen's feathers ruffled... very much so indeed.

---

first your position is only clear, as a repetition

of EXTREME right wing propaganda. It is NOT the American way to spread a FREE DEMOCRACY, through control and rule by FORCE. (I feel you need to go back to GOVERNMENT 101) you are standing on the very same ideologies as the MARXIST and the EARLY german NAZI parties. and NOT an AMERICAN FREE DEMOCRATIC STYLED GOVERNMENT IDEOLOGY.

refute this if you must...but I am through!!!

THE END

[ 03-31-2004, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[Kevin Trotter]

You guys have finally reached the absolute heights

of partisan blindness and wanton wrong headed stupidity. Kerry was only in country four months?

SFW!!!! So its a question of medal inflation? Was he under fire? did he not recive the medals in question? Would we even be having this discussion if his and Bush's position were switched? Maybe Audie murphy didnt deserve his medals either, I wasnt there so maybe he didnt kill all them Germans. And that Sgt York, I saw the movie, them Germans werent even shooting back, whats so hard about that? That's probably what you'd say if either one of them ran as a Democrat. If you want to call Kerry a tax and spend liberal go ahead, if you want to point out flip-flops on voting records have at it. But quit with the crap about his military record. He is the second Viet Nam vet to run against old stay at home George to get lambasted for serving thier country. If you have an issue with medal inflation take it up with the DOD, but stop minimizing that man's contribution. It makes you all look stupid and petty and I know you guys are niether. Kerry wasnt a Sgt York or Audie Murphy, but he didnt hide at home playing soldier either.

[Guest $iLk]

In regards to Kerry's war record - he points it out so much in the hopes that everyone won't pay attention to his longer war record - of failure against terrorism. And it's quite peculiar that someone get's three purple hearts, doesn't miss a single day because the wounds weren't severe enough to warrant it, takes advantage of the loophole to go home, won't release his medical files (as they harped at Bush to do), goes home and starts talking about American soldiers raping women and ravaging villages as commonplace occurences (yet doesn't report any of this to his superiors... just spouts it off for the camera's) and then has the audacity to apply for position of Commander in Chief. There's plenty to rip up - and by using the "Playing soldier" argument against Bush you are really disrespecting the role of the National Guard - my cousin just spent the past year in Iraq getting shot at - and he's in the National Guard thank you.

quote:

---

I am NO liberal. I never professed to be, and really have become bored with the continued labeling and misrepresentation of my stand against the UNintelligent, and Illogical actions of this president.

---

Yet you feel comfortable labeling other's who disagree with you as Marxist and National Socialists... riiiight...

quote:

---

Again I will state: the question deserves NO answer from me, as it was only an EXAMPLE of the media's misrepresentation of facts to which I was referring.I feel it fails as an intelligent response to the original statement, and only serves to reinforce a warped perspective (i.e. your position).

---

I've said several times that the sheer illogical analogy I inferred from your post DEMANDS an intelligent response to the challenge... which you have thrice refused to answer.

quote:

---

It is NEVER in the intrest of a country's( whose constitution is based on free choice),best interest: to rule anyone by force, regardless of the propaganda you have swallowed.

---

But the Baathist propaganda you spout says it WAS in Iraq's best interests to rule a country through force. Regardless of a countries form of government, it as a sovereign nation has the right to influence what is in it's interests. Through whatever means necessary - and if you get busted doing something you shouldn't then it's tough. But if the United States went to war, regardless of the reason I support us winning that war. And whatever benefits, etc. we receive I believe is our right... and people who whine about the war being wrong should button up while our troops are overseas - and debate the philosophical perspectives for future conflicts and not try to rewrite history.

Regardless of your opinion of the Iraq war (read my posts from before we went to war and you'll see that I'm no ideologue) - the war has happened, we had sufficient justification to exert force to reach our goals, and apparently over 30 nations agreed with us. I didn't totally agree before the war, but things I have seen since then tipped me over to supporting the effort. The WMD argument I don't believe was sufficient in and of itself - but I believe there were plenty of other reasons to add to it to warrant taking down Sadaam.

[Guest $iLk]

One other thing:

quote:

---

It is NOT the American way to spread a FREE DEMOCRACY, through control and rule by FORCE. (I feel you need to go back to GOVERNMENT 101)

---

What about post WW2 Japan and Germany? Go back to History 101

[street228]

no comparison between the two(or three as it could be, based on your view of reality). THAT was a REAL war. We were NOT the agressors(INVADERS). wake up for God's sake!!!

[Kalshion]

Excuse me?

Operation Iraqi Freedom IS a war and still is, we are STILL fighting in Iraqi

To be honest, like Pearl Harbor, Al Quida where the aggressors (like Japan was) and we americans WANT revenge, I know I do.. I lost 2 friends to 9/11 and I solely blame terrorism

[Guest $iLk]

street, I don't know if you realize it but you've been abandoning your "points" left and right and moving from issue to issue trying to gain some advantage on at least one front. Same thing that the Democrats are doing with Bush. Like I said - you can't handle debating me point for point logically or ludicrously either way. I'm not saying this to demean you in any way - you are entitled to your opinion, and the apparent fact that your opinion doesn't hold up to logic or truth when under scrutiny should hopefully make you ask questions instead of getting defensive.

I'm going to go back and logically smash anything you've said - and I challenge you to respond with something other than "That's misrepresentation!!!" (Classic Kerry stunt) without showing what you really meant.

quote:

---

We had NO LEGAL obligation to INVADE the country; because, of the BREACHED RESOLUTIONS.

---

I'll go ahead and let this slide to move on to your next point.

quote:

---

You forget, BUSH's reasoning is ISOLATED logic, aimed at a specific end, and NOT universally applied. It is the LOGIC which is FLAWED.

---

Riiight... so you attempt to influence the debate that we should not invade Iraq by putting forth ALL the facts and not just what supported (in your opinion) your position?

This isn't only about the U.N. Resolutions that Iraq didn't comply with (although 12 years of consistent noncompliance with international resolutions which only asked him to prove he didn't have WMD strikes me as a bit odd - common sense and all that).

Here is a quick analogy of the 12 year Persian Gulf War:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/5418975.htm

As a matter of International Law - the vanquished nation broke the terms of the treaty - thus LEGALLY the original Persian Gulf War was once again in-effect. The UN resolutions, the WMD argument, etc. are all supporting cases - in fact it has been proved already that Sadaam was in violation of the treaty - we just haven't found "stockpiles" that he was said to have had.

So legally and according to international law (UN objections notwithstanding - even after they agreed with us) we had every right whatsoever to continue the first Gulf War.

quote:

---

NO TERRORIST CONNECTIONS WERE EVER SOLIDLY PROVEN: MORE empty allegations based on FANTASY, in order to pull backing for his actions, from the AMERICAN populous.

---

It's interesting to note the amount of foreign combatants that have been captured/killed/spotted in Iraq. Explain that away. Terrorism is not unique to Al Quaida - and the "war on terror" is not limited to Al Quaida - but to anyone who aids, abets, etc. terrorists or regimes that support them.

It is fact that Sadaam Hussein supported the actions of 9/11 even though he might or might not have had a hand in financing it. But the War on Terror isn't just about 9/11. 9/11 is hopefully going to be an isolated event because we don't need any more pointed reminders of the threat terrorism poses towards us. Just because a direct link cannot be pointed from Sadaam to 9/11 means absolutely nothing - because he has plenty of other links to terrorists and terror-sponsoring nations.

quote:

---

CLINTON did not JUST lob a few bombs. We bombed them consistantly,(weekly) throughout a 12 year period, which(along with the implimented SANCTIONS) quite EFFECTIVLY had them in SUBSERVIENT control. The economic and social conditions created by those actions, for those 12 years was NO JOKE. That country was NO THREAT to ANYONE....ANYWHERE!!, besides their control of 65% of the worlds OIL. PERIOD!!

---

Not quite end of point. Clinton did nothing to enforce the conditions of the Persian Gulf War. Those conditions being broken were the threat. Sadaam had already said "Hey, I don't want any more inspections" kicked out the UN inspectors, and started shooting down U.S. equipment and threatening to shoot down more. Sadaam Hussein was directly responsible in attempting to assassinate Bush 41 AFTER the Gulf War. So yes he was a threat - and forgive Bush 43 for not taking his word for "there be no weapons here" after the actions Sadaam had taken to influence the force against him.

quote:

---

There WERE and ARE...NO FACTS!! supporting BUSH's position.

---

For a "man of logic" you sure have some gaping credibility holes considering you are only spouting what you want to hear and believe as opposed to taking in the wider picture.

quote:

---

We, the PEOPLE were, IN FACT, being given, SO MUCH FALSE information concerning this ESCAPADE, IT is not even your fault, that you have adopted His(BUSH) point of view(AS TWISTED AND ILLOGICAL THAT IT IS).

The real PROBLEM here, is tha AMOUNT of MEDIA influence, and coverage, and how it is presented to us. FOR EXAMPLE: WHAT WAS SADDAM'S REASON,WHICH HE(SADDAM) PRESENTED TO THE WORLD, FOR INVADING KEWAIT?...AND WAS HIS REASON TRUE? and JUSTIFIED from HIS STAND POINT?

KEWAIT REFUSED to PAY for the MILITARY protection which it had AGREED to PURCHASE and had ,in fact,received. And YES it was TRUE. And YES, SADDAM was JUSTIFIED(MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS) in FORECLOSURE.

I bet you ALL forgot about THAT one(another argument all together however.It is THE LOGIC which is flawed, and the MEDIA CONTROLLED public opinions, which are WARPED, because of it.

My point is this: IF it is OK for YOUR BANK to SEIZE YOUR assets. HOW can you say it is NOT ok for HIS COUNTRY TO SEIZE assets on DEFAULT (or literal REFUSAL to pay)??

I do NOT CONDONE Saddam's HORRIBLE DICTATORSHIP, BUT THERE ARE MUCH WORSE, the OTHERS, just didnt control the OIL.....(REALITY!!!!)

---

According to international law - Bush's position was more concrete than the media gave him credit for. Nobody pointed out the legality of international law, and everything which supported Bush. The media did everything they could to paint Bush as some rogue extremist - when even the last in the class of any law school can point out that according to International law - Bush was right.

The only reason anyone thought he was wrong is because the U.N. whined. And whine they should considering the amount of Muslim nations they cater to.

And I don't even have to take your quote out of context - you say that since it's okay for a bank to seize my assets - it's okay for Sadaam to seize Kuwait's assets. By your logic - we should be able to invade anyone who owes us money. And all you can do is whine about us taking it out of context - read it yourself.

quote:

---

well, I was going to answer your points point by point, until I read the last one. LOL, I will let it go now. I can see, you have already catagorized me as a TERROrIST(Baathist?). TYPICAL of the LOGIC of this administration. ta ta.(smile)

---

Did he leave?

quote:

---

LOL..i still say logic is the key to intelligent action. And, far be it from me, to even attempt to say your arguement is either standing, or fallen.

I can only Judge, by that which I see. I see twisted conclusions based on half truths, and a series of responses toward statements taken out of context and applied to your own ideologies.

Example: "So the Mafia is justified in collecting it's debts from extortion? You've just blown any bit of..." Has no revelence to the conversation, and ;therfore, deserves no response.

I am sorry, but these are the type of answers, which do NOT allow LOGICAL debate, which is my goal,in order to establish LOGICAL conclusions based on TRUTH.

To reach the TRUTH of any matter, one must build upon TRUE precepts.

---

The translation of this statement is:

"Let me answer your obviously logically sound point by talking about something completely unrelated and then calling you a tard if you don't take it as 100% factual and logical and having smashed your point."

quote:

---

If you will read MY post and NOT YOUR post, with my statement(again taken out of context) ANYONE can see, I NEVER said that. I said:

We, the PEOPLE were, IN FACT, being given, SO MUCH FALSE information concerning this ESCAPADE, IT is not even your fault, that you have adopted His(BUSH) point of view(AS TWISTED AND ILLOGICAL THAT IT IS).

The real PROBLEM here, is tha AMOUNT of MEDIA influence, and coverage, and how it is presented to us. FOR EXAMPLE: WHAT WAS SADDAM'S REASON,WHICH HE(SADDAM) PRESENTED TO THE WORLD, FOR INVADING KEWAIT?...AND WAS HIS REASON TRUE? and JUSTIFIED from HIS STAND POINT?

KEWAIT REFUSED to PAY for the MILITARY protection which it had AGREED to PURCHASE and had ,in fact,received. And YES it was TRUE. And YES, SADDAM was JUSTIFIED(MORE justified for his actions than WE were for OURS) in FORECLOSURE.

thank YOU!!

---

You repeat your statement that Sadaam was more justified than the United States. I'm not taking this out of context this is what you said right above correct?

So:

Kuwait owes Iraq money.

It is legal for Iraq to enter and kill Kuwaiti citizens and steal their stuff in payment of this debt.

Why is it not legal for us to do the same to France and Great Britain? (It's funny you kept offering the same point even after I show how ludicrous it is through my analogy)

So we were obviously completely at fault for obeying international law and continuing the First Gulf War (which we have every right to do legally considering the terms of the treaty were broken)? And Sadaam must have been following international law because the coalition jumped all over him as soon as he invaded Kuwait. You offer complete nonsense and jumbled incohesive responses and expect us to take it as intelligent discourse. Tell me exactly how I've taken anything out of context - write it out like you would like it to appear - and I'll debate it the same. By running off and whining about us taking it out of context yet not correcting it - you invite the same hilarious responses by me.

quote:

---

I must say, YOU calling ME "STUPID" is quite astonishing!..That is EXACTLY the TYPE of twisted presentation of FACTS, which have caused this country's population to be so confused, that they have inadvertantly ALLOWED this PRESIDENT to emulate the PRE-WW2 styled NAZI's foriegn policies!!!

COME ON now, attacking me, does NOT reinforce EITHER side of an OPINIONATED debate.

---

But calling Bush a Nazi does? I haven't sat there and called Kerry a bed-wetting Socialist have I? Oops I just did...

Your statements can be turned right back against you by simply replacing who you are talking about with yourself. It's called hypocrisy.

quote:

---

I am NO liberal. I never professed to be, and really have become bored with the continued labeling and misrepresentation of my stand against the UNintelligent, and Illogical actions of this president.

---

You are bored with continued labelling and misrepresentation yet start calling us Communists and National Socialists because we attack your statements and not you personally. Once again it's called hypocrisy.

And what would you label yourself as?

quote:

---

no comparison between the two(or three as it could be, based on your view of reality). THAT was a REAL war. We were NOT the agressors(INVADERS). wake up for God's sake!!!

---

So a "real" war has to include millions of casualties as opposed to maybe 1000...? What's your point in this statement? Once again you make absolutely no sense and then have a hissy fit when we don't say "My gosh he's right... my entire concept of logic, reality, common sense, etc. are obviously ingrained through propaganda and Sadaam was the greatest thing since sliced bread and Bush is really a Hitler minus the moustache!"

To my credit - I only read printed news. I rarely listen to radio and I don't watch TV coverage. I read CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. along with columnists of all angles. I've even read people's statements on democraticunderground.com

I made my own opinion through taking in the whole issue and actually looking past the media and propaganda to actually pull basic facts from the twisting and spin.

Basic fact and logic backed Bush 100%. Simply through international law that has existed for quite some time. Argue with that if you can by telling me that either:

A. I'm lying or misrepresenting the circumstance.

B. Calling me a Nazi propagander spouter.

Otherwise - feel free to admit you are wrong. I have no problem admitting that I am wrong - or even changing my position on things. I was anti-abortion, pro-abortion, and back to anti-abortion.

I have no problem changing my views when common sense or my belief warrants it. What about you?

And accuse us of spouting propaganda while doing the same thing yourself not even a sentence later IS a liberal tactic. Label yourself if you are comfortable.

I'm a "Compassionate" Conservative.

[street228]

Again, your response has no intelligent cohesion. and follows the old addage: "smellers the feller".

You continue to make accusations toward me and my statements, based on false interpretation of those statements. all the while accusing me of that which you are guilty.

EXAMPLE:

quote:

---

quote:

I must say, YOU calling ME "STUPID" is quite astonishing!..That is EXACTLY the TYPE of twisted presentation of FACTS, which have caused this country's population to be so confused, that they have inadvertantly ALLOWED this PRESIDENT to emulate the PRE-WW2 styled NAZI's foriegn policies!!!

COME ON now, attacking me, does NOT reinforce EITHER side of an OPINIONATED debate.

But calling Bush a Nazi does? I haven't sat there and called Kerry a bed-wetting Socialist have I? Oops I just did...

---

A ten year old child could see I never called Bush a NAZI, but referred to HIS foreign policies: as:" EMULATING PRE-WW2 styled NAZI's foriegn policies!!!"(And that within itself FITS the definition of TREASON against the AMERICAN people)

You claim to have not accused kerry of anything prior, but this whole THREAD is a direct accusatiion of TREASON.(whew! talk about TWISTING).

It really is really pointless for me and you to continue any further dialog. Your only intent is to tear down anyone who does'nt follow your warped view of reason, with rhetoric, rather than logical deduction

And Just something for you to think about: FOR ONE TO HEAR ONLY WHAT ONE CHOOSES TO HEAR, OR TO SEE WHAT ONE ONLY CHOOSES TO SEE IS PSYCHOTIC, TO SAY THE LEAST.( something which appears you and BUSH have in common)

[Guest $iLk]

LOL

quote:

---

And Just something for you to think about: FOR ONE TO HEAR ONLY WHAT ONE CHOOSES TO HEAR, OR TO SEE WHAT ONE ONLY CHOOSES TO SEE IS PSYCHOTIC, TO SAY THE LEAST.

---

Can I get a hallelujah? Goodness you crack me right the Hell up...

quote:

---

A ten year old child could see I never called Bush a NAZI, but referred to HIS foreign policies: as:" EMULATING PRE-WW2 styled NAZI's foriegn policies!!!"(And that within itself FITS the definition of TREASON against the AMERICAN people)

---

So you didn't call him a Nazi - you just accused him of emulating Nazi foreign policy... look dude if you are going to try and play semantics you need to learn how to word your statements better - and trying to argue with what you took from my statement makes no sense... considering that you just called him a Nazi in my view again... learn to use the English language to form your charges logically - such as

I believe Bush's foreign policy is similar to pre-1932 Nazi Germany because... (fill in the blank logic boy)

quote:

---

You claim to have not accused kerry of anything prior, but this whole THREAD is a direct accusatiion of TREASON.(whew! talk about TWISTING).

---

Whew talk about twisting is right... I said that I hadn't called Kerry a bed-wetting socialist. And I hadn't... up until then. (and now)

quote:

---

It really is really pointless for me and you to continue any further dialog. Your only intent is to tear down anyone who does'nt follow your warped view of reason, with rhetoric, rather than logical deduction

---

Didn't I already logically deduce that it was 100% legal for Bush to invade Iraq due to international law? Isn't it you who ignores that and continues harping the "Bush is a Nazi" diatribe?

Why can't you answer my logical points instead of talking about logical deduction and then rambling something about player hating or whatever...

[Kalshion]

Street do use all a favor

LAY OFF THE FREAKING CAPS!

And admite that you're wrong, Silk has presented a hell of a lot more facts (hell, more than jaguar, which is RARE) if you're not capible of reading his posts and taking in what he is saying then why are you here?

[street228]

I have IGNORED many of your responses and you can rest assured, I will CONTINUE to do so.

this whole thing has passed the point of absurdity with you AND the position you have attempted to establish. Especially concerning Kerry being guilty of treason, as a justification for Bush leading this country down a path of indisputable, if not CRIMINAL, insanity.

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

I have IGNORED many of your responses and you can rest assured, I will CONTINUE to do so.

---

I think a wise man once said "FOR ONE TO HEAR ONLY WHAT ONE CHOOSES TO HEAR, OR TO SEE WHAT ONE ONLY CHOOSES TO SEE IS PSYCHOTIC, TO SAY THE LEAST." Wait that was you three posts ago... nevermind

quote:

---

this whole thing has passed the point of absurdity with you AND the position you have attempted to establish.

---

And trying to establish Bush as an analogy to Hitler hasn't crossed into absurdity...

You claimed that Bush had no right to go into Iraq.

According to international law he did.

You are wrong - end of point.

You tried to muddy the issue by harping on liberal talking points, and got into a hissy fit when we didn't cave and responded with logic. You are a prime example of why liberal talk radio will not succeed.

quote:

---

Especially concerning Kerry being guilty of treason, as a justification for Bush leading this country down a path of indisputable, if not CRIMINAL, insanity.

---

I offered up throughout the thread that I didn't know whether or not it was true but that it had been reported. And I haven't said "HA - this means you should vote for Bush" - I offered that the DNC should find another torch bearer if it turned out to be completely true (which details are still surfacing).

It's not as bad as I originally thought... but it's still damaging.

[street228]

quote:

---

Street do use all a favor

LAY OFF THE FREAKING CAPS!

And admite that you're wrong, Silk has presented a hell of a lot more facts (hell, more than jaguar, which is RARE) if you're not capible of reading his posts and taking in what he is saying then why are you here?

---

First of all, I do not FEEL, you have a right to DICTATE how I write my post(unless you are an administrator. Then you are welcome to delete my post or ban me from the forum.) If that is the case, I welcome it. (Another example as to how extremest right winger's view their present position in this country, and THEIR obligation to RULE other's through cohersive FORCE).

Second: I will NOT admit to that which your FANTASIES perceive as truth.

Third: I only remain here, due to the fact, you are doing EXACTLY that which turned me AGAINST this present administration:(i.e. Attacking and demeaning the validity of ANY who stand against your warped views, as to how this administration conducted it's perverted agenda, and DEMAND I run and hide with my tail between my legs).

oh and FIFTH: you spelled ADMIT wrong!!....lol!!!

[Guest $iLk]

Even if I was an administrator I'd leave you hear for the comedic value of it... because I haven't made a *liberal implode in quite some time.

quote:

---

I will NOT admit to that which your FANTASIES perceive as truth.

---

But you expect us to fall on our knees and thank you for your fantasies and accept them as truth?

You claim that Bush had no right to invade Iraq. According to international law he did. You can't argue with it yet you:

A. Refuse to admit you are wrong.

B. can't show me 'logically' that I am mistaken in my interpretation of international law.

C. Hang around regardless and throw a hissy fit.

Now you've made several statements which you still put forth as "logical precepts of truth divined by enhanced reasoning of street" or whatever - but when I logically demolish those points you go into hissy fit mode and claim that I am simply misrepresenting your statements. Get a grip. If you can't debate without going into a hissy fit, calling everyone Nazis and Right-Wing-Extremists if they disagree with you - why are you here? http://www.democraticunderground.com/ seems to be your forte'

quote:

---

I only remain here, due to the fact, you are doing EXACTLY that which turned me AGAINST this present administration:(i.e. Attacking and demeaning the validity of ANY who stand against your warped views, as to how this administration conducted it's perverted agenda, and DEMAND I run and hide with my tail between my legs).

---

So I haven't offered any logical counterpoints right? Or have you just ignored them. I'll leave that to anyone reading to figure out.

Regardless take a chill pill - I know a *liberal meltdown can get ugly but damn...

*derived from my interpretation of your talking points and Kalshion's classification above.

I think Kalshion said it best: "A liberal will believe only themselves, and can't stand hearing the truth"

[street228]

You claimed: "yatta yatta yatta".

You lie as much as bush. Stop showing your ignorance, by accusing me of making STATEMENTS which you have twisted from my post and move on to something real.

I am sorry your reading comprehension has to be so limited, that you feel the need to read your own interpretation into that which another speaks.

and NO you have NOT offered any LOGICAL arguements to ANYTHING which I have stated, but arguements to your twisted version of what you claim I have stated.

Your WHOLE arguement with me is self created and absurd. In effect, your really fencing with your own delusions.

[ 04-01-2004, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: street ]

[Guest $iLk]

Darn you've got me... I've got to put up my Joseph Goebbels loudspeaker and my fake Hitler moustache and quit spouting that darn propaganda...

Seriously though - do you really believe this crap or are you just doing a really bad overdone impression of a liberal?

And I didn't see how:

A.Pointing out that the terms of the cease-fire of the Persian Gulf War were broken and thus the Persian Gulf War was still in effect.

B.Pointing out that Sadaam did in fact have terrorist ties - and correcting the assumption that all of terrorism is only Al Quaida and 9/11

twisted ANYTHING from your statements out of context. In fact they are both as logical and factual as it is possible to make a statement.

The only thing you've claimed I've twisted was what you meant when you said Sadaam had the right to invade Kuwait... nevermind that 32 major nations disagreed with you on that point.

Throughout the entire thread - you have called anyone who has disagreed with you National Socialists, Communists, Extremists, etc. - while you yourself have refused to debate me point for point on any of this - because you can't!

You said yourself:

quote:

---

well, I was going to answer your points point by point, until I read the last one. LOL, I will let it go now. I can see, you have already catagorized me as a TERROrIST(Baathist?). TYPICAL of the LOGIC of this administration. ta ta.(smile)

---

So if I really equated you as a terrorist - you've just equated the term terrorist to members of Sadaam's regime! -

I know, I know - it's a conundrum - but don't you worry about it... the real thinkers here will tackle that one - and you just skip right along

quote:

---

You lie as much as bush. Stop showing your ignorance, by accusing me of making STATEMENTS which you have twisted from my post and move on to something real.

---

You call me a liar, and ignorant (of your truth which is a h00t!!! )

quote:

---

I am sorry your reading comprehension has to be so limited, that you feel the need to read your own interpretation into that which another speaks.

---

Insult my reading comprehension... of course I'll simply point to my well-structured and properly formatted paragraphs and vocabulary which consists of more than "Logical" or "Absurd" and "Right-wing-extremist-nazi-streethater!!!"

quote:

---

Your WHOLE arguement with me is self created and absurd.

---

Is this another one of those times where I can point out the hypocrisy without gaining another well-written damaging bit of rhetoric from street which seriously makes me want to reconsider my political and social and common sense beliefs... not!

Feel free to continue... I'm enjoying the show as much as anyone

[Guest]

quote:

---

Originally posted by street:

You claimed: "yatta yatta yatta".

You lie as much as bush. Stop showing your ignorance, by accusing me of making STATEMENTS which you have twisted from my post and move on to something real.

I am sorry your reading comprehension has to be so limited, that you feel the need to read your own interpretation into that which another speaks.

and NO you have NOT offered any LOGICAL arguements to ANYTHING which I have stated, but arguements to your twisted version of what you claim I have stated.

Your WHOLE arguement with me is self created and absurd. In effect, your really fencing with your own delusions.

---

If ignorance is bliss, you must be the most Blissful person on the planet.....

That's gonna be my last statement on this thread for a bit, but Street, if you don't chill out, I am going to start deleting your posts.

Also, $iLk, absolutely, he must remain, no banning, every forum needs a liberal, just to remember what we are fighting against.

[street228]

quote:

---

A.Pointing out that the terms of the cease-fire of the Persian Gulf War were broken and thus the Persian Gulf War was still in effect.

B.Pointing out that Sadaam did in fact have terrorist ties - and correcting the assumption that all of terrorism is only Al Quaida and 9/11

---

A) Regardless of your interpretation, or the Bush administration's interpretation, that the terms of the cease-fire were broken. That does NOT mean that was the case. There are many credible people who can equally state, that it was not the case. And because, the UN submitted to it, does not mean it was CORRECT. It only means, we got away with it for the time being, at the expense of alienating many of our allies. THERFORE: the great division throughout this country, and the world, concerning the whole escapade.

b)Saddams only true terrorist ties, are the misrepresentation of the word terrorist. When people of any country fought against an oppressor, or an invading army,(in the past) They were designated as FREEDOM FIGHTERS, or patriots. Now they are TERRORIST. I am truly sorry your not old enough to have been around and know what the real definition of those words are. There are other words which have new definitions today, as well. I am old enough to remember.

Just as any Judgement, concerning any legal issue: interpretation of the law is up to the Judge, and NOT the dictionary.

quote:

---

nevermind that 32 major nations disagreed with you

---

And how many of those countries are DICTATORSHIPS, MONARCHIES and SOCIALIST?..hummm.

quote:

---

Feel free to continue... I'm enjoying the show as much as anyone

---

I am sure you are, as that seems to be your REAL intention

[Kevin Trotter]

Street you are wasting your time. You will plant no flags here. Thier beleifs like are intransigent. It makes no sense to discuss a subject with someone who has already made up his mind on this and every other subject. They will pick what they consider the weakest paert of your argument out and then drown you with a post long enough to choke Vanessa Del Rio. They will quote right wing idealogues as bearers of truth and demonize anyone who disagrees as a traitor or a fool. Thier intent is to flabbergast you long enough to keep your eyes from the truth, or frustrate you to the point of hysterics.

Take a break, have a beer have sex or something but dont give them the satisfaction.

$ilk, I meant no disrepect to ANYONE who has served thier country under fire, but Bush dont fall in that category and Kerry does. Why turn to conspiracy theories just cause the truth doesnt suit you? Oh I forgot that tactic number 26 in the "Karl Rove, you too can be a Republican handbook!" I'll pass on the book and wait for the movie, which I hear will be "Wag The Dog II: The Dog Bites Back"