by teejay 149 Replies latest social current
LOL, are you reading challenged? You just said that my post was "off topic and unrelated", lol. Now you could argue alot of things, but you could never argue that my post was either "off topic" or "unrelated". Now go change your drool cup.
Mods, please note that I asked a question based on the ongoing discussion, rather than making a definitive statement, ie: "you are retarded", which would have been wrong for me to do.
Wow , I think I understand what John Kerry was saying in one of the debates when he asked why the US troops were more interested in guarding the oil fields instead of guarding the Nuclear facilities that apparently contained the stuff mentioned in the article . It was confusing since they didn't actually find WOMD but this I think cleared it up for me .
I removed the comment, even though it was not true to the issues at hand. Feel better?
wow, If you make your choices on false, misleading information, that the Media is now back peddling on, help yourself. I expect nothing less from you....lol
""If you hadn't noticed, Thi Chi, it's "politics" that hopefully will get that treasonous idiot out of the white house.."""
Hey Six, is this why you are concerned:: Your views are "unreal" lol
| 2004 Presidential Race - Head to Head | ||||
| Poll | Date | Bush/ Cheney | Kerry/ Edwards | Spread |
| RCP Average | 10/17 - 10/24 | 49.0% | 45.6% | Bush +3.4 |
| CNN/USAT/Gallup (1195 LV) | 10/22 - 10/24 | 52% | 46% | Bush +6 |
| Rasmussen (3,000 LV) | 10/22 - 10/24 | 46% | 48% | Kerry +2 |
| Los Angeles Times (881 LV) | 10/21 - 10/24 | 49% | 48% | Bush +1 |
| TIPP (792 LV)* | 10/21 - 10/24 | 48% | 41% | Bush +7 |
| Newsweek (880 LV) | 10/21 - 10/22 | 48% | 47% | Bush +1 |
| Time (803 LV) | 10/19 - 10/21 | 52% | 47% | Bush +5 |
| GW/Battleground (1000 LV) | 10/18 - 10/21 | 49% | 45% | Bush +4 |
| FOX News (1000 LV) | 10/17 - 10/18 | 48% | 43% | Bush +5 |
You are just guessing about the black market.
Your right ... thats just a guess, its more likely that the explosives were taken at no cost from those camouflaged sites. Politics and the motive for the topic aside, the easier proliferation of HMX is something I believe the administration shouldn't downplay. But instead of others wasting time pointing fingers, let's instead move on to the more important issue of how to prevent the destruction they can cause.
""Your right ... thats just a guess, its more likely that the explosives were taken at no cost from those camouflaged sites. Politics and the motive for the topic aside, the easier proliferation of HMX is something I believe the administration shouldn't downplay. But instead of others wasting time pointing fingers, let's instead move on to the more important issue of how to prevent the destruction they can cause.""
Interesting viewpoints. Here is my take:
1. This is a lot of tonnage 380+ Looters can?t just cart this stuff off in a wheel barrel, as some have tried to claim. This takes the big rigs and planning....
2. If they can hide explosives, why can?t they hide WMDs too? This may prove what I have been saying all along: It?s not if WMD exist, but where did they go?
Thi Chi,
I noticed you severely attacked TeeJay for being misleading with the Bush picture and the Mission Accomplished sign. He came back with a very sound rebuttal, but you completely ignored it and moved on to the other topics. If you are going to start a debate on something it would be nice to carry it out, or concede if you realize you are wrong...but simply changing the topics when you have no comeback is a bit boring.
I did reply to Teejay?s rationalizations (at least the ones that merit a reply to the issue at hand...). And I rebutted his "Bush can do no wrong" claim against me. What more do you want? The facts of the matter are there for all to read....
If you want to go "around and around" in circles, help yourself.
I am now commenting on a viewpoint Midget brought up and, I guess, wants to address, since it is directed to me. Is that OK?
Please, no more non-issues.....
""..He came back with a very sound rebuttal, ""
Really? He did not rebut any facts I presented. Please post one. In fact, he admitted he was wrong on the "no dates" via his responce. Bush did not state "MA" and did not place the banner (Which is tried to present as a negative and a point for his removal..) And he lied about the Bush is perfect claim (if you can't see what he was trying to do with this one tactic, then you need help) If you can't see that, I can't help you.
And I rebutted his "Bush can do no wrong" claim against me. What more do you want?
For you to reply to his rebuttal to you...here it is again:
Are you saying that Bush had no idea the sign was there? And had no idea or purpose in sending, as it turned out, a crass and overly premature victory message to not only the crew of the USS Lincoln but to the whole world? Are you saying that he had no idea how his "Mission Accomplished" might be misunderstood... that viewers of the photo might be misled? Do you really believe that he went through all of those motions of donning a flight suit, making two fly-bys, landing on an aircraft carrier, standing in front of that sign, all to simply say "job well done" to the crew of that one aircraft carrier? Do you really believe that?
Also:
If you want to go "around and around" in circles, help yourself.
I am now commenting on a viewpoint Midget brought up and, I guess, wants to address, since it is directed to me. Is that OK?
Please, no more non-issues.....
Non-issue? This is an issue that you raised. YOU are the one taking the president's speech out of context. Insinuating that since he didn't personally put the Mission Accomplished sign up and never said those exact words that he wasn't there to deliver a victory message. You would have to have complete tunnel vision to watch that speech and the whole theatrical and not see it as a victory message. If the President wasn't in agreement with the Mission Accomplished sign, do you think he would give a Nationalized television speech in front of it? How ridiculous to state that since he didn't use those exact words that he wasn't giving a premature victory speech.
Face it, he stuck his foot in his mouth by making that speech...and it is just one of MANY reasons why people don't want him to be president.
