2. That's pretty much all we've ever had professor.
ROTF!

Bush invaded Iraq and killed 65,000 innocents because, according to him, GOD told him to do it.

Nuff said.

Bush invaded Iraq and killed 65,000 innocents because, according to him, GOD told him to do it.
Freethinker: "Well, he .....caused over 600,00 human beings in Iraq to be killed...."


Dude, you've been out-Dopped.
Don't worry. He'll never top your 100,000 dead in New Orleans jab. Classic.

Freethinker: "Well, he .....caused over 600,00 human beings in Iraq to be killed...."


Dude, you've been out-Dopped.
Don't worry. He'll never top your 100,000 dead in New Orleans jab. Classic.

FT is correct, I was off by a factor of 10.

No matter how much you spin the new orleans argument -- the truth of the matter is ... america killed 655,000 in Iraq and that number is no longer disputed.

Deal with it.

america killed 655,000 in Iraq and that number is no longer disputed.
There, you see......he absolutely REFUSES to be "out-Dopped". You better up the ante there FT; looks like he just took you by 10%. Might I suggest you see his 10 and raise him 15???

I bet he folds. Even he would fear looking like a nut bag then.

I don't mind a good debate... but when someone keeps trying to point out that one's opinion is wrong because they're not quoting EXACTLY from historical documents, that's not a debate, it's more like dodgeball.

Sort of like entering a religious discussion with the following PROOF that God exists:

Jesus loves me, this I know.
'Cause the bible tells me so.

Who could argue with that logic?

;)
SMW

Looks like we have some common ground SMW -- I agree.

And I don't accept your premise that flag burning and gay marraige were major election issues (unless some people here can tell me that's what they based their decision on).

IF you think Bush did not use abortion, gay marriage, and flag burning as a way to motivate a certain base, you need to wake the fuck up!

Brooks, what I see here from all your posts is that no matter what happens, you will ALWAYS defend Bush. And it is probably so, because of this whole GAWD thing.

IF you think Bush did not use abortion, gay marriage, and flag burning as a way to motivate a certain base, you need to wake the fuck up!

Brooks, what I see here from all your posts is that no matter what happens, you will ALWAYS defend Bush. And it is probably so, because of this whole GAWD thing.

While these issues may be the driving force for a minority of voters, I highly doubt that that is what gave GWB the presidency. All parties play toward the base... just like Hillary and Obama courting the Far Left, Gulianni and Thompson will court the Far Right. It's the ones that take the most moderates that will win the Whitehouse. Both sides play to the extreme wings for money... they already have their votes... just in case you were interested.

BTW... your posting techniques and attacking of Brooks is a bit uncalled for. I don't think he (or any other posters here) are asleep, and very few fit the "GAWD" mode that some here like to bring up.

1. IF you think Bush did not use abortion, gay marriage, and flag burning as a way to motivate a certain base, you need to wake the fuck up!
2. Brooks, what I see here from all your posts is that no matter what happens, you will ALWAYS defend Bush. And it is probably so, because of this whole GAWD thing.1. Both sides used abortion and gay marraige to motivate their base. I don't remember flag burning being a major issue in this election.
Then again, you did say f__k, so you must be right.

2. I disagree with him on Saudi Arabia, immigration, the environment, the Dubai Ports deal, gay marraige, drilling in ANWR and probably other areas.
Can you name as many areas in which you agree with him.
If not you're less balanced than I am.

2. I disagree with (Bush) on Saudi Arabia, immigration, the environment, the Dubai Ports deal, gay marraige, drilling in ANWR and probably other areas.
Can you name as many areas in which you agree with him.
If not you're less balanced than I am.

Oh brother.

Let's play out this little game.

Here are 6 things I do not like about Jeffery Daumer; I do not like that he was a predator who went out looking for people to assault and kill, I do not like that he murdered several people, I do not like that after he killed them he hacked them to pieces, I do not like that he kept their body parts in the fridge, I do not like that he cooked and ate pieces of them, I do not like the sort of person he seemed to be.

Now.

By your logic, unless you can name six things that you DO like about him.............I am more balanced in my assessment of him than you are. Right?? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Do you see now how unfair such a **Well, since I disagree with B*sh on more issues than you agree with him, that proves you're not as balanced in your political views as I am!** ploy is....................................???

Looks like we have some common ground SMW -- I agree.

Do you agree with her that the President's job is to "keep us safe", just because he says so, even though that is not what it says his job is in the Constitution?

BTW... your posting techniques and attacking of Brooks is a bit uncalled for. I don't think he (or any other posters here) are asleep, and very few fit the "GAWD" mode that some here like to bring up.

Sorry if I seem to be attacking brooks or anybody. We are all here to debate and not attack. Thanks for pointing that out OldPhart.

http://www.terranova.net/content/images/beavis-butthead.jpg

Do you see now how unfair such a **Well, since I disagree with B*sh on more issues than you agree with him, that proves you're not as balanced in your political views as I am!** ploy
No, but it does show that a man in his 50's is capable of making very juvenile analogies.

Mesk said "....you will ALWAYS defend Bush. And it is probably so, because of this whole GAWD thing" to show that I am one sided with President Bush (and inexplicably brings God into it).

If always siding with him shows one-sidedness, then always siding against him shows the same thing.

I showed I wasn't one-sided and I think the accuser should do the same.

Do you agree with her that the President's job is to "keep us safe", just because he says so, even though that is not what it says his job is in the Constitution?For some reason several people have latched onto this.

If the President was responsible for the next disaster would you then say "Well that wasn't his job anyway."?

http://www.terranova.net/content/images/beavis-butthead.jpg



Napsterbater, I just love your pic!!

Beavis and Butthead fit Bush and Cheney perfectly!

Thank you!

Well, Dharma, I guess you think the title COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF is just window-dressing, huh?

Def: A commander-in-chief is the commander of a nation's military forces or significant element of those forces. In the latter case, the force element may be defined as those forces within a particular region or those forces which are associated by function. As a practical term it refers to the military competencies which reside in a nation-state's executive, head of state or government. Often, a given country's commander-in-chief need not be or have been a commissioned officer or even a veteran, and it is by this legal statute that civilian control of the military is realized in states where it is constitutionally required.

What the Constitution does NOT require the president to do is make decisions on whether or not gays can marry, women can have abortions, 100% of Americans have healthcare, children get a quality education, etc., etc.

You know? The very things you libs complain so much about him NOT doing?

Other than those little discrepancies, I'd say your post is 100% incorrect.

;)
SMW

OK, I admit I did a double-take when reading Debate Sound Bites from the Republican candidates meeting at Drake University over the weekend. Here's what Tom Tancredo said:

"My task as President of the United States is primarily to do one thing -- by the way, not to make sure everybody has health care or everybody's child is educated -- my task is to do one thing: to protect and defend this country."

Now why does THAT sound familiar?

:)
SMW

and Bush is doing a lousy job on every task. Tom Tancredo would be much worse. What an asshole both of them are....

we are not any safer today than we were on January 19, 2001, the last day we had a freely elected President.

we are not any safer today than we were on January 19, 2001, the last day we had a freely elected President.
AllForums categories should include World News, Politics and Cliches.

and Bush is doing a lousy job on every task. Tom Tancredo would be much worse. What an asshole both of them are....

we are not any safer today than we were on January 19, 2001, the last day we had a freely elected President.

I'm not a big fan of Tancredo, but at least he'd DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration. Unlike our present Prez, who'd rather set his hair on fire than actually close our borders to any damned stray that wanders in. :mad:

I'm not a big fan of Tancredo, but at least he'd DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration. Unlike our present Prez, who'd rather set his hair on fire than actually close our borders to any damned stray that wanders in. :mad:
I couldn't agree more.

Tom Tancredo would make George Bush look like a Saint.

Good grief.

Tom Tancredo would make George Bush look like a Saint.

Good grief.

So you're good with our wide-open borders?

I'm not a big fan of Tancredo, but at least he'd DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration. Unlike our present Prez, who'd rather set his hair on fire than actually close our borders to any damned stray that wanders in. :mad:
So would Ron Paul! :D

Unlike our present Prez, who'd rather set his hair on fire than actually close our borders to any damned stray that wanders in. :mad:Both accurate and eloquent.

I'm not a big fan of Tancredo, but at least he'd DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration. Unlike our present Prez, who'd rather set his hair on fire than actually close our borders to any damned stray that wanders in. :mad:
Apparently he has a plan to deal with terrorism too -- to bomb Mecca and Medina. What a crackhead.

Apparently he has a plan to deal with terrorism too -- to bomb Mecca and Medina. What a crackhead.

The extreme Rightwing's manuevering to bomb Mecca and Medina has nothing to do with their being *crackheads*.

It has to do with their being dedicated Fascists, who operate from the attitude -- "Fuck every other human being on Earth. We will take whatever we desire. And we will kill anyone and everyone who gets in the way of that agenda".

It is all spelled out in excrutiating detail in the public documents of the Project For a New American Century.

Signatories include people in the highest positions of power in the RightWing status quo and the B*sh Administration, including --- Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry Rowen, Vin Weber and George Weigel.

Fuck every other human being on Earth. We will take whatever we desire. And we will kill anyone and everyone who gets in the way of that agenda".


Wow.. who said that?

Wow.. who said that?
Oh, didn't you know, Decka?

It's expressly contained within the PNAC documents. It's signatories include Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Jeb Bush, Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry Rowen, Vin Weber and George Weigel.