Anything Forums

Allied intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMDs. France, Germany, US, UK, Russia all had that same inteligence. Some countries are surrender monkeys and wouldnt go in without the backing of their daddy, the UN.

How did we know Iraq didnt have WMDs, Saddam had them when he killed the kurds, why couldnt and shoulndt he have them in 2003.

Christ I hate being serious.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11715

Wether or not they did find WMD they did make the country better for the people. But because of that disruption, it still caused problems for the future, since I can almost guarantee the saddam regime is planing something, and al queda too possibly. I'm sure they had it all planed that someone takes the place of SoDamnInsane™.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11721

William Wallace wrote:

Bookworm wrote: You are assuming that he lied. He was definitely mistaken, but a lot more people than just President Bush believed the WMDs existed. And what purpose would he have had for letting people die? Just a rousing bit of morning fun, I suppose.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! LOSER

Wrong. Bush FED that idea to people and they gobbled it up. No one believed that until Bush pulled it out of the wazoo and told you that.

Also, soldiers are dying every day because of your precious war.

You seem to be gobbling up a bunch of false information yourself. No one believed the WMDs existed? I'm sure thousands of dead Kurds would disagree with you.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11734

Bookworm wrote:

William Wallace wrote:

Bookworm wrote: You are assuming that he lied. He was definitely mistaken, but a lot more people than just President Bush believed the WMDs existed. And what purpose would he have had for letting people die? Just a rousing bit of morning fun, I suppose.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! LOSER

Wrong. Bush FED that idea to people and they gobbled it up. No one believed that until Bush pulled it out of the wazoo and told you that.

Also, soldiers are dying every day because of your precious war.

You seem to be gobbling up a bunch of false information yourself. No one believed the WMDs existed? I'm sure thousands of dead Kurds would disagree with you.

Right, I'm sure Saddam killed them with a Super Laser of Death....


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11774

Or chemical weapons. Whichever you prefer.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11800

William Wallace wrote:

Bookworm wrote: You are assuming that he lied. He was definitely mistaken, but a lot more people than just President Bush believed the WMDs existed. And what purpose would he have had for letting people die? Just a rousing bit of morning fun, I suppose.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! LOSER

Wrong. Bush FED that idea to people and they gobbled it up. No one believed that until Bush pulled it out of the wazoo and told you that.

Also, soldiers are dying every day because of your precious war.

Yeah, so what? So a lot of people were mistaken about the WMD's. Does that mean that they were not mistaken? Have we really discended to that level of "group think" where if everyone makes the same mistake, then it's really not a mistake at all? It's the same bullshit that's going on with Bush smearing Kerry's war record. If you say the same lie enough times and create enough smoke around the issue, people will believe it, even though it's based on the same rhetoric and half-ways reliable information that the lie itself was based on the first time it was used.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11803

shenbaw wrote:

William Wallace wrote:

Bookworm wrote: You are assuming that he lied. He was definitely mistaken, but a lot more people than just President Bush believed the WMDs existed. And what purpose would he have had for letting people die? Just a rousing bit of morning fun, I suppose.

BEEP! BEEP! BEEP! LOSER

Wrong. Bush FED that idea to people and they gobbled it up. No one believed that until Bush pulled it out of the wazoo and told you that.

Also, soldiers are dying every day because of your precious war.

Yeah, so what? So a lot of people were mistaken about the WMD's. Does that mean that they were not mistaken? Have we really discended to that level of "group think" where if everyone makes the same mistake, then it's really not a mistake at all? It's the same bullshit that's going on with Bush smearing Kerry's war record. If you say the same lie enough times and create enough smoke around the issue, people will believe it, even though it's based on the same rhetoric and half-ways reliable information that the lie itself was based on the first time it was used.

Bush has praised his war record. Saying Kerry served his country heroically.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11825

Joe wrote: Bush has praised his war record. Saying Kerry served his country heroically.

Hmm, praised his war record and called him a hero, yet at the same time refuses to condemn 527 ads that call him a liar and a coward.

Something doesn't seem right here. Oh, wait, wait, where's all this smoke coming from? I'm having trouble opening my eyes. I can't see!

Oh, that's better. John Kerry? Yeah, he's a liar! You can't believe anything the guy says. I'm voting for Bush, at least he didn't lie about his war record. I mean National Gaurd record. Did he?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11829

shenbaw wrote: Oh, that's better. John Kerry? Yeah, he's a liar! You can't believe anything the guy says. I'm voting for Bush, at least he didn't lie about his war record. I mean National Gaurd record. Did he?

Yeah, he's a liar, cheat, and a fraud! That's what I heard, Uncle Karl called me... wait... is this 2000?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11831

shenbaw wrote:

Joe wrote: Bush has praised his war record. Saying Kerry served his country heroically.

Hmm, praised his war record and called him a hero, yet at the same time refuses to condemn 527 ads that call him a liar and a coward.

Something doesn't seem right here. Oh, wait, wait, where's all this smoke coming from? I'm having trouble opening my eyes. I can't see!

Oh, that's better. John Kerry? Yeah, he's a liar! You can't believe anything the guy says. I'm voting for Bush, at least he didn't lie about his war record. I mean National Gaurd record. Did he?

Actually he has condemned 527 ads. Kerry is also questioning Bush's record now is that wrong too.


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11840

Their both lyers and stealers!

That's what being a politicien is all about!

(my dad would kill me for this though, since he used to be one )

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11841

Joe wrote: Actually he has condemned 527 ads. Kerry is also questioning Bush's record now is that wrong too.

No, he hasn't "condemned" any ads. He has said he thinks that no 527 ads should run, Mainly because of the moveon.org against him., but he has always stopped short of condemning particular ads. I haven't said that questioning anyone's record is "wrong." If there are missing records, missing pay stubs, missing witnesses to a certain event or series of eventst then yes, it's obviously appropriate to question what happened durring this supposed event or period of time. When someone has medals and records and acknowledgement from our own military forces that he served and served with honor in combat and then some people come out with an ad 25 years later that call him a liar and a fraud with absolutely no factual evidence to back up their accusations, that's just scared, pathetic people trying to create smoke to benefit the Bush campaign.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11855

Bush on 527 ads....
One reporter cited the swift boat ads and asked, “When you say that you want to stop all –” “All of them,” Bush responded. “That means that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I don’t think we ought to have 527s.”




Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11863

Like I said,

shenbaw wrote: he hasn't "condemned" any ads. He has said he thinks that no 527 ads should run, mainly because of the moveon.org against him, but he has always stopped short of condemning particular ads.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11864

There is a difference between condeming an ad and saying all ads should stop. Bush says 527's should stop because of the tax loopholes, not because of the content. He refuses to condemn them based on their claims, only their existance. Why would he condemn their existance but go out of his way to avoid condemning the message? A good president would do both.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11883

So don't you think those vets have a right to put out the ad?

Just asking

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11888

Joe wrote: So don't you think those vets have a right to put out the ad?

Just asking

Do they have a right? Sure. It's the same right that allows me to call you a liar and a cheat and a fraud and any other names I feel like spewing out at the time. None of which have any substantiation whatsoever. No factual basis, no documentation or lack thereof, no meaningful content whatsoever. All their ads consist of are these bitter old men sitting around saying what they think about John Kerry. Do they have a right to say it? Sure. Does that mean that they should be spending millions of dollars to televise their opinions in an effort to underhandedly influence this election? Hell No!!!


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11890

shenbaw wrote:

Joe wrote: So don't you think those vets have a right to put out the ad?

Just asking

Do they have a right? Sure. It's the same right that allows me to call you a liar and a cheat and a fraud and any other names I feel like spewing out at the time. None of which have any substantiation whatsoever. No factual basis, no documentation or lack thereof, no meaningful content whatsoever. All their ads consist of are these bitter old men sitting around saying what they think about John Kerry. Do they have a right to say it? Sure. Does that mean that they should be spending millions of dollars to televise their opinions in an effort to underhandedly influence this election? Hell No!!!

There not bitterl old men. Do you know the vets personally?


Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11892

Joe wrote: There not bitterl old men. Do you know the vets personally?

When I hear people speaking ill words about public figures with absolutely no facts to back up the things they are saying, yes, they do come across as being extremely bitter people who want to play a role in the upcoming election in any way they can. And yes, most of them are quite old.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11893

Joe wrote: There not bitterl old men. Do you know the vets personally?

None of these men know John Kerry personally. None of them even served with him.

I'll pose a question:

John Kerry testified against cruel and inhuman torture by US troops during the Vietnam war. Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened? The commercial implies that it was wrong to testify before congress and that he lied about what happened.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11899

MrSelf wrote: Do you think it is wrong for him to be truthful about events that happened?

I'd have to say a definite NO on that one. Personally, I'd rather have a President who fought and has some regrets than have one that didn't fight and couldn't be more proud.

"I mean come on, do we really want a President who isn't smart enough to avoid going to Vietnam?" - Rob Corddrey

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11978

Shenbaw instead of making rude comments about me and making unproven assumptions, why don't you have a real discussions with some facts. I ask for the same treatment I gave you. I am done with this topic, but first I’ll answer MrSelf's question.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11979

Joe wrote: Shenbaw instead of making rude comments about me and making unproven assumptions, why don't you have a real discussions with some facts. I ask for the same treatment I gave you. I am done with this topic, but first I’ll answer MrSelf's question.

Explain, Shenbaw has made no rude comments or made unproven assumptions. I can go through and point out all the facts with sources if you like.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11984

If you want to see rude comments mention stuff they strongly support, such as homies.

I will shut my mouth now. Oh and did anyone watch the game last night?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11985

Joe wrote: Shenbaw instead of making rude comments about me and making unproven assumptions

What did I say about you Joe? Other than

-> It's the same right that allows me to call you a liar and a cheat and a fraud and any other names I feel like spewing out at the time. None of which have any substantiation whatsoever. No factual basis, no documentation or lack thereof, no meaningful content whatsoever.[/quote wrote:Sticks and stones, Joe. Sticks and Stones. They weren't meant as insults, they were meant to show that I have no reason to call you those things and consequently would not do so without some kind of basis, which I don't have, so I'm not going to call you those names. Do you follow? Now how about these unproven assumptions? Where did I make those?<!--QuoteBegin-Joe] why don't you have a real discussions with some facts. I ask for the same treatment I gave you. I am done with this topic, but first I’ll answer MrSelf's question.

First, I thought we were having a real discussion with facts. Second, you forgot to answer MrSelf's question.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:939, old post ID:11987