|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bush ceding US ports to the enemy? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
he got several death threats regarding "dogma." But was that because it was blasphemous, or because it was a shitty movie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5932 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
It sure didn't feel like reality with a bunch of fanatic Xians promising death for watching a movie... but it happened. Of course where I live WMDs were not found. What is reality to you? Simple yes or no question. Are the following weapons of mass destruction?
” Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium ” Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons ” Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas ” Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs ” Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin People don't kill people Cartoons kill people
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Simple yes or no question. Are the following weapons of mass destruction?
Shit, that's easy: NO. 1) Those are materials which could be used in WMDs.2) Those are materials which were known and under UN oversight, or (in a few cases) old discarded materials which were not known to Sadddam, or small weapons contructed by forces having nothing to do with Saddam after our invasion was complete using materials previously mentioned, and so could not possibly have been the WMDs that Bush and Co were referring to. 3) Bush himself has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures, so his answer would be NO. I forgot to mention that in my reality Bush has admitted that no WMDs were found and has moved on to blame intel failures. What's it like where you are? holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are the following weapons of mass destruction? Uranium for power plants? Sarin so degraded that the two GI's who got a faceful of it were back to their regular duties the next day? No, I wouldn't say those are WMD's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tal Member (Idle past 5932 days) Posts: 1140 From: Fort Bragg, NC Joined: |
Shit, that's easy: NO. Wrong. You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest. Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality. This message has been edited by Tal, 03-03-2006 09:53 AM People don't kill people Cartoons kill people
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Wrong. I got it! I got it! Bizarro world, right? Heheheh. Explain how those materials were not what I said they were, and why you believe Bush is saying WMDs (the ones he was discussing for invasion) were found. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1722 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest. Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one. How much mass destruction did any of these things cause? How much more likely was it that they would fall into terrorist hands after the invasion than before? Saddam was controlled. That's what the evidence says. He had re-admitted the inspectors but we invaded anyway. We've got memos all over the place laying out clearly the Administration's knowing plan to decieve the American people into supporting the war. And just like Democrats predicted, it's developed into civil war.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2425 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
See, what you're supposed to do now, if you had any interest in debate, or in salvaging your position, is to rebut with more detailed information that supports your case.
You'd answer their direct questions. But you didn't do any of those things. (You never do) From where I'm standing, you just let them win. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-03-2006 01:01 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Tal, there's absolutely nothing honest about you. You're a liar. Probably a disgrace to your uniform, if we can even believe that you wear one. That is totally outside the bounds of debate here at EvC and a personal attack on a poster. Your posting privileges have been suspended. Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You and Crash simply are not intellectually honest. Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality.
This was something you felt you had to edit in? Interesting. Does that last line come from somewhere? It seems out of character for you. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
It's a paraphrase of "nattering nabobs of negativism", which is how Spiro Agnew referred to the press.
Because when suggesting that accusations against the executive branch are unfounded, Agnew is apparently a... good choice for quoting? "We had survived to turn on the History Channel And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied: You're what happens when two substances collide And by all accounts you really should have died." -Andrew Bird
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
docpotato Member (Idle past 5302 days) Posts: 334 From: Portland, OR Joined: |
Because when suggesting that accusations against the executive branch are unfounded, Agnew is apparently a... good choice for quoting? I think Agnew's all they've got. (Thank you for yet another hearty laugh.) "In Heaven, everything is fine." The Lady in the Radiator Eraserhead One Movie a Day/Week/Whenever
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 6163 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Tal
Nattering nabobs of nonconsequentiality. And yet you took the time off your busy schedule to reply so kindly to them. Bravo soldier.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 6074 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Eventually a large body of the Congress including Reps came together to question the ports deal which Bush supported. They were ready to pass legislation that would end its possibility and Bush threatened a veto. Ultimately the UAE decided to cede control to US owned companies.
Intriguingly Bush's reaction to this has been to damn the decision of congress and as such the will of the american people. He has argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation in allowing a foreign nation (its not just a foreign company as he likes to spin it) to control our ports, particularly one in a relatively unstable part of the world, and with less transparency and intel capabilities. Indeed, in trying to defend his own position, he is arguing as if it was just a paranoid race based decision, which will doom business relations between the US and MidEast companies. Isn't that exactly what a president should not be doing at this time? Shouldn't the president be trying to smooth over any issues this might cause instead of inflaming passions against the US, particularly by painting americans as anti-arab? I am firmly in support of MidEast companies doing business with the US, but even I saw there was a legitimate question here. It doesn't seem to help matters for a president to pretend there was none, and use his air time to perhaps create the prophecy he has set out. And somehow argue a position that we should let whomever run whatever they want within the US, even some of the most vital spots, or we are somehow being unfair. That is not a good president... uhm, I mean precedent. holmes "What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3971 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I hesitate posting this, as it might cause a topic derailment.
He has argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation in allowing a foreign nation (its not just a foreign company as he likes to spin it) to control our ports, particularly one in a relatively unstable part of the world, and with less transparency and intel capabilities. My "bolds". The same President that "argued as if there was no valid reason for hesitation" in the situation, as he led the U.S. into the current Iraq war. If only Congress had then had the backbone to question that situation. Moose
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024