Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #66856] |
Mon, 16 February 2004 10:41   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Lookie! 29 lies about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction!
Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002
Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002
If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002
We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003
We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003
We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003
If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.
Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003
So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.
Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003
Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.
Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003
There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.
Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003
I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.
Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003
One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003
Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.
Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003
But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.
Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003
We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.
George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003
There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003
We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003
I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.
Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003
U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003
I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.
Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003
Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.
Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003
Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.
Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003
They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003
For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.
Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003
It was a surprise to me then — it remains a surprise to me now — that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.
Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003
Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."
Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference
May 30, 2003
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #66874] |
Mon, 16 February 2004 14:00 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
manjiko- you must not read all of my posts because i have said repeatedy, that saddam was bad and needed to be stopped!!!!! as for the whole bombing/tank thing i didnt read at the supermarket, it was online on some site, i dont remember where it was. why do you think google is not letting people look at ceratin sites??? maybe it is because the government, tripped, fell, and accidentally paid them some money. you say politicians are paid to turn away questions, and point out the thighlights of their careers. if about 3000 people getting smashed by some planes is a highlight, then obviously george bush has had a terrible career (duh)! also, you admitted that george bush was horrible at answering questions and cannot do it "as eloquently as others" yet you still support him why? hell, he's worse tan me at speaking, let alone typing (not one of my fine points as you have complained about many times). as for the negative george bush thing people have been focusing on you still havent shon anything . . .
hell, i dont care, i know no one wasnt talking about kerry once again proving you cannot read very well, i was using him as an example. lets talk about kerry, he is a retard, and if he gets nominated you should be happy, there is no way he could win, and it is ludicrous to call him a democrat, he is a pansy mofo, if you ask me.
hey java-
"You suck at sarcasm"
in response
You suck at life. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #66956] |
Mon, 16 February 2004 19:05 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
How Democrats See It:
-Anyone who supports the President is a war monger who drinks oil instead of orange juice!!!
-All Bush supporters must be uber-right-wing conservative evagelical Christians!!!
-Republicans must be paying off the media, because nobody could ever support Bush!!!
-Everything Bush says is a big fat dirty hairy lie, so we can just ignore any counter-arguments as rightist propaganda!!!
-If I can't get every single little bit of information I want, it must be a Bush plot to stifle opposition to the Republican party!!!
DON'T BE A DUMBASS! Using stereotypical crap as an argument is the single worst thing you could have come up with.
[/b]
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #66965] |
Mon, 16 February 2004 19:33 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Oh yeah, I forgot, NO JOKES!
Please, I just posted that picture for some humor. If you want to look at something substantial, look just a couple posts up to find quoted lies about WMDs in Iraq.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67112] |
Tue, 17 February 2004 18:44 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Oh yeah, I forgot, NO JOKES!
Please, I just posted that picture for some humor. If you want to look at something substantial, look just a couple posts up to find quoted lies about WMDs in Iraq.
|
You think it's so freakin' easy to find the WMDs he had in Iraq, don't you? Let's put this in perspective...
At one time, Iraq claimed it had 8,500 liters of liquid anthrax. Colin Powell said he may have three times as many liters as that figure. That would make 25,500 liters of liquid anthrax. If you weighed all of that anthrax, it would come out to be approximately 25.5 tons (1 ton = approx. 1,000 liters of anthrax). Sounds like a lot, doesn't it? If there is so much anthrax, why hasn't George Bush found any of it yet? He must have lied!
But wait! How much space would it take to hold all of that anthrax? One 18-wheeler tanker truck. That's it.
There's more. What if you were to reduce all of that liquid anthrax to powdered anthrax? How much space would that take up? About 12 suitcases. 25.5 tons of liquid anthrax could have been reduced to just twelve simple suitcases. These cases could have been hidden in an area as small as Saddam's spider hole.
Of course, this is with 25,500 liters of liquid anthrax, so 8,500 liters would be even easier to hide.
NOW how easy is it to find all of the weapons of mass destruction Saddam has?
Keep in mind that Saddam had 12 years to perfect these methods of hiding WMDs.
EDIT: Forgot to mention, the UN itself has said Saddam was in possession of 8,500 liters of liquid anthrax and does not know where it could be to this day. Saddam himself has said he once had 8,500 liters of liquid anthrax! Of course, he says he got rid of it, but are you going to honestly trust a man who had murdered millions of his own people?
Another EDIT: One more thing I forgot to mention, twenty-five to thirty Mig-29 jets were found buried beneath the sand, and we weren't even looking for those. How hard do you think it would be to find a place to bury an eighteen wheeler tanker truck or twelve suitcases?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67118] |
Tue, 17 February 2004 19:15 |
jorge the man
Messages: 3
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Although, i am not a fan of kerry because of many of the acts he supports, including no child left behind**, i think he is the only democrat that has a chance. The only other democrat left, is Edwards, who i like a little more, but not much, and he won't win. If Edwards, decided to become vice for kerry, there might be a chance of someone beating bush. Even though i don't like Edwards, i have to say he is smart.
**The no child left behind policy has got to be one of the stupidest policies ever, especially in todays school systems. Basically it's saying if one student fails one of the statewide tedtd, then the teachers are innoficient. Half of the students today couldn't care less if they flunked. This does not mean that the teachers are not profficient, because it is just the lack of effort by the student. We especially don't need this what with the lack of teachers already. Calling some fialures, is not going to help.
Furthermore the bush administration claims to be making education better. But, if you look at the tax cuts, those only went to the rich, so teachers, who definitly don't make much money aren't going to be inspired to teach, because hey, who wants to have to live off nothing. Tax breaks also helped people who were already wealthy enough to go to private schools. I'm not saying that all private schools are better than all public schools, becuase they're not. But, in hickville places, that can barely afford textbooks, the private schools provide a much better education.
So, the bush administration claims to be helping education, while at the same time, they are not allowing more people to have a better education, and are most definitly discouraging people to become teachers. because money is a factor, in what job you take.
This election, i don't like any of the canidate's, republican or democratic, veiw on education. But, i will still vote democratice, because i support some things that the democratic canidates support.
Just becasue my name is jorge doesn't mean that i am an illegal immagrant.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67128] |
Tue, 17 February 2004 19:54 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| jorge the man |
Although, i am not a fan of kerry because of many of the acts he supports,
|
Like the Patriot act. What a stupid act. The main point of it is to let the government arrest people they even slightly suspect of being ists and stick them in Guantanamo Bay without a fair trial or a lawyer. Guantanamo Bay is basically a concentration camp located in Cuba. A while back, the U.S. and Cuba signed a treaty thing that would allow America to always have a military base in Cuba. Now, Castro wishes we were off of his rock, but the U.S. is never leaving because the treaty is indefinite. Now, the U.S. [or should I say "Bush Administration?] uses it to lock people up who they don't like without even requiring evidence.
| jorge the man |
might be a chance of someone beating bush.
|
Kerry is already up in popularity and looks like he will beat Bush if everything keeps going like it is. America is starting to Bush, and the media is starting to gear up against him as well, and the media controls a lot of stupid people's votes.
| jorge the man |
The no child left behind policy has got to be one of the stupidest policies ever
|
Silly 'ole President Bush for passing the NCLB act. It was his way of telling stupid people that he wanted to help education by making an act that looks good on the outside but sucks and doesn't work on the inside. [like Communism] And then, President Bush further showed his support for education by cutting back on funding for it. I guess he shows that even someone with 93 I.Q. can become President, so education isn't important, as long as you have lots of money and rich friends.
| jorge the man |
But, if you look at the tax cuts, those only went to the rich, so teachers
|
His tax cuts didn't only go to the rich, they were just unfairly biased towards the rich. Note to Bush supporters: NOT A FLAT CUT!
hydra, so you're saying "at one time" Iraq had lots of chemical weapons. Is one time now? No. Could Iraq have possibly destroyed those chemical weapons between now and then? [now and then being about 10 years, at least, if I am correct] Well, Bush said Saddam wasn't doing what the U.N. said, so he MUST be right!
| hydra1945 |
Keep in mind that Saddam had 12 years to perfect these ods of hiding WMDs.
|
Or possibly perfecting strategies of disarming WMDs.
| NukeIt15 |
-Anyone who supports the President is a war monger who drinks oil instead of orange juice!!!
-All Bush supporters must be uber-right-wing conservative evagelical Christians!!!
-Republicans must be paying off the media, because nobody could ever support Bush!!!
-Everything Bush says is a big fat dirty hairy lie, so we can just ignore any counter-arguments as rightist propaganda!!!
-If I can't get every single little bit of information I want, it must be a Bush plot to stifle opposition to the Republican party!!!
|
-No, anyone who supports President Bush is uninformed who probably drinks orange juice just like everyone else.
-A lot of them are.
-Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC.
-Bush doesn't have a whole ton of credibility now that his lies about National guard duty have been exposed. I don't ignore counter arguments. I listen to them and then say why they're wrong. It's a lot of fun, but kind of hard to do if you're a conservative. 
-Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC.
I just couldn't resist. 
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67134] |
Tue, 17 February 2004 20:30 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
this is what will happen if bush is re elected
http://albinoblacksheep.com/flash/end.php
(that was a joke for all of you uptight freaks)
java, if you dont "suck at life" then how come you spend all your time on a site about a computer game when you are a grown man?
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67224] |
Wed, 18 February 2004 13:44 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
hydra: Didn't even think of the amount of space any biological or chemical agents take up- nice one.
I might take this opportunity to point out that the smallest operational nuclear warhead fits in a suitcase or backpack, and both the US and Russia have weapons of that size. Since Russia is known for selling weapons on the black market, is it not possible that everyone's favorite dictator could hava aquired one? Note that this is just speculation now, not factual evidence- just something to get the 'ol mental gears turning. If you could hide those 20-someodd fighters under the desert, how easy would it be to hide a single suitcase or backpack (building on hydra's anthrax example)?
Remember to keep your minds open- I know the possibility exists that we may never find a biological or nuclear weapon in Iraq (chemical is another story, since we've already found thousands of gallons of stuff that could be used in those)...anyone else should remember that Iraq is still a big place, with plenty of sand to bury things under, and you really can't say "it isn't there" until the entire country has been thoroughly searched- and that could take years, I'm sorry to say; instant results are not guaranteed by looking through established military sites. This is not a simple matter of walking up to an Iraqi official and asking for the keys to the WMD cabinet.
HERE IS THE IMPORTANT PART:
As far as I'm concerned, if Saddam refused to allow inspection of his country by UN officials, he had to have been hiding something big- if he were dismantling it, there would be no reason to keep that information secret, since it could have only benefited him.
Whenever any weapon of mass destruction is dismantled, it MUST be observed, or it has not been dismantled at all. If no one can see it happen, then it cannot be confirmed. Papers do not serve as acceptable proof; any document can be forged, and any photograph can be doctored and edited(yes, I DO realize this goes both ways). An eyewitness or some other form of visual observation that is NOT under the control of the weapon's owner must be available to prove that the destruction was indeed carried out. Saddam never provided solid eveidence, only paper.
Take the US and Russia for example- you may not be aware, but when either one dismantles a weapon, it is done in front of UN observers. Aerial reconnaisance and satellites confirm the destruction of such things as nuclear-capable bombers, ICBM silos, mobile launchers, and even ballistic missile submarines. Both nations have dismantled their Chemical and Biological warfare programs, and did that under inspection as well.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67233] |
Wed, 18 February 2004 14:26 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Yes, Iraq is a big place where stuff could be hidden easily, but that is what intelligence is for. Funny how Tenet said that Iraq was not an "imminent threat". Well, I guess we need a war to set things straight.
Crimson, yes, you have shown that graph before. Funny thing is, it doesn't show that Bush's tax cuts were unfairly biased to the rich. It shows that the rich pay most of the taxes. Therefore, that graph is completely irrelevant since it doesn't state Bush's tax cuts.
| K9Trooper |
PS. One of my favorite sites
|
I think it's kind of ironic that Rush Limbaugh lost his hearing since he never listened to any political issues anyway. He used to always say how horrible anyone who uses is, until he got caught being addicted to a prescription , which he used his power to obtain in large quantities. Now, he says that he NEVER said anything about people who are addicted to illegal , which is not true. The only reason Rush SURVIVES is because he surrounds himself with a bunch of morons [dittoheads] who believe anything he says. In studies, its been shown that people who listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show [comparative to stuff like reading the newspaper and watching CNN] think that they are the most informed about political issues, yet when they take a test, it shows that they are the LEAST informed. Rush Limbaugh just lies about everything and these crazy people BELIEVE HIM!
| Rush Limbaugh |
The economy is doing pretty well. It's roaring back. You've got to get in gear and understand that Kerry and his willing accomplices in the press all paint an entirely different picture.
|
The economy ISN'T doing pretty well. It's roaring back...what he means is this: About 6 months ago, Bush went out to say that he would turn the economy around. Now, Bush has to make 150,000 jobs a month to break even. Recently, he created about 90,000 jobs in a month, and all the Republicans are declaring it the economic victory. But, in fact, he lost 60,000 jobs that month. Now that he's almost 3 million net jobs down, he's still losing jobs and saying he won.
You know why Rush won't go on TV shows any more? Because anyone besides his crazy audience who listens to his radio show S HIM. One time he showed up on the David Letterman show, and by the end of the show the crowd was booing him so much David Letterman remarked, "Do you wake up some nights just feeling like you're full of hot air?" Amid the audience clapping heavily.
Also, if you look on the website, you can find out how Rush Limbaugh is incredibly obsessed with himself.
| Rush Limbaugh's website |
The Rush Parody Achive features over 100 parodies from the greatest radio show on earth!
|
Also, he just always says stuff like "Liberals are bad blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Just because."
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67243] |
Wed, 18 February 2004 15:19 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7431
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Have you actually read his stuff?? A lot of it is good old fashioned common sense.
Right from the home page he has a quote from him basically saying that if he denies allegations made about him, he must be lying, but if Kerry denies having that affair with an intern, it's OK and we believe him. Interesting double standards.
I'm not sitting here and saying the Rush is god and he's absolutely correct in everything. Yes, he's a bit radical and exaggerates a bit, but I don't take his words as gospel truth, but use them as a basis for what I believe to be true.
And he doesn't say "liberals are bad just because". He's got plenty of data to back that up. What he says makes a lot more sense than the wild accusations made my the desperate Democrats trying to pull themselves out of being the minority party... just don't forget that there's a REASON they are now the minority party. There are things that they said, did, or want to do that has brought this upon them.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67253] |
Wed, 18 February 2004 16:27 |
|
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| jorge the man |
But, if you look at the tax cuts, those only went to the rich, so teachers
|
His tax cuts didn't only go to the rich, they were just unfairly biased towards the rich. Note to Bush supporters: NOT A FLAT CUT!
|
Lets get one thing straight. The tax cuts were not just given to rich people. They were given to the people who PAY TAXES. See, that's was a TAX CUT does, it allows people to keep more of the money they make by not taking it away from them through income taxes. The majority of low-income families DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES AT ALL!!!!!
| SuperFlyingEngi |
hydra, so you're saying "at one time" Iraq had lots of chemical weapons. Is one time now? No. Could Iraq have possibly destroyed those chemical weapons between now and then? [now and then being about 10 years, at least, if I am correct] Well, Bush said Saddam wasn't doing what the U.N. said, so he MUST be right!
|
So you're going to trust Saddam Hussein's word that he dismantled those weapons of mass destruction without any proof at all? Do you know the magnitude of the man's lying?
For all we know, Saddam could have been planning on handing off all of his weapons to Osama Bin Laden before the US ever set foot in Iraq to foil his plans. You would have taken the risk of believing him when he said he dismantled those weapons?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| hydra1945 |
Keep in mind that Saddam had 12 years to perfect these ods of hiding WMDs.
|
Or possibly perfecting strategies of disarming WMDs.
|
Again, you would take the risk of believing Saddam Hussein, a man who gassed millions of his own people?
| NukeIt15 |
-Anyone who supports the President is a war monger who drinks oil instead of orange juice!!!
-All Bush supporters must be uber-right-wing conservative evagelical Christians!!!
-Republicans must be paying off the media, because nobody could ever support Bush!!!
-Everything Bush says is a big fat dirty hairy lie, so we can just ignore any counter-arguments as rightist propaganda!!!
-If I can't get every single little bit of information I want, it must be a Bush plot to stifle opposition to the Republican party!!!
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
-No, anyone who supports President Bush is uninformed who probably drinks orange juice just like everyone else.
-A lot of them are.
-Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC.
-Bush doesn't have a whole ton of credibility now that his lies about National guard duty have been exposed. I don't ignore counter arguments. I listen to them and then say why they're wrong. It's a lot of fun, but kind of hard to do if you're a conservative.
-Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC.
|
-Anyone who supports George Bush realizes the threat terrorism poses to the United States
-How the hell do you know? Have you gone out and asked each and every Republican what is religion is and where he would fall on the political spectrum?
-So? The son of Newsweek's main editor is the head of the Socialist Party. Who the hell cares?
-Why was he honorably discharged if he went AWOL? Who the hell cares?This recent attack on George Bush's service in the National Guard is nothing new to Democrats. Cal Thomas sums it up pretty well. It's time to get back to the issues at hand.
-Blow me.
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
(<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
(<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67283] |
Wed, 18 February 2004 19:17 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
-How the hell do you know? Have you gone out and asked each and every Republican what is religion is and where he would fall on the political spectrum?
|
That was sarcasm, numbnuts. I was poking fun at that moronic cartoon engi posted. :rolleyes: I personally happen to be an atheist Bush supporter who considers himself somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum (or half on one side and half on the other, since I tend to be somewhat extreme in my views). At the moment, Bush is going for what I consider to be most important- The War on Terror. After looking closer at the tax cuts, I support him on those now too (you pay more money, you get more back. It's that simple).
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Feb 10 11:27:19 MST 2025
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01744 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
