Annie asks a great q...

[Lefty]

The dems say they support the war on terrorism but not the war in Iraq.
So Annie asks...
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

[Secretariat]

The dems say they support the war on terrorism but not the war in Iraq.
So Annie asks...
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

The war on terrorism is like the war on poverty. Terroism has been aorund for ages whether it be the mob, Jesse James terrorizing the West, etc...

There is no congressional declared war on terrorism (the body granted by the Constitution to declare war). We went into Iraq based on a faulty claim of WMD's which were as GW described a "grave "threat to our national security. We now know that was not true. There was no "Grae" threat to the US from Iraq. We went into Afghanistan to avenge the attack on the WTC's. We let Bin Laden slip out of our hands at Tora Bora while the Iraqi WMD argument was hammered by the administration and the neocons. Because there are terrorists now in Iraq is not why the resolution was passed by Congress. There are terrorists in Syria, in Chechnya, in Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, the Sudan, Indonesia and doezns of other places.

Coulter's and the administrations' argument is a very poor one. That terrorism exists in Iraq, and that if we leave there it will embolden them.

1. A formal war on all international terrorism has never been formally declared by Congress. Congress has the authority to declare war as granted by the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

2. Equating civilan deaths in Iraq with terrorism because they may be from Jordan is a huge leap. btw..Jordan is an ally of ours. There is a religious civil war going on in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. We are right in the middle of it. This is violence that has emerged because they don't get along with each other and the three are in a stuggle for power.

3. Zarqawai was a non-force in Iraq until the American invasion. The invasion gave Al Queda a training ground to fight in a guerrila way against Americans more easily.

4. There are religious and land disputes that have nothing to do with the security of the united states going on over there, andd as GW stated the other day "Iraq has nothing to do with 911." 911 was the event that lauchend the phrase war on terrorism, not the ill advised pre-emptive invasion of Iraq to suit neocons.

5. The old "embolden the enemy" rhetoric is hogwash. They're pretty damn emboldened now. We heard this same rhetirc in Vietnam. If we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here. That never occurred, and the reason it won't occur in Iraq is becasue it is sectarian violence about power "in" Iraq, not Wisconsin..

Lefty, crazy Annie does it again. Thanks for the laugh.

[Tom]

The war on terrorism is like the war on poverty. Terroism has been aorund for ages whether it be the mob, Jesse James terrorizing the West, etc...



You see, ight thee, ignporance gets the beter of you again. You know full well what we area talking about, and the "ages" you mention can be called the Clintin years. I love the way you demlibs spin the facts when you have nothing to counter facts with.

Check out overstock.com - see if they have any creditbility for sale.

[Secretariat]

Tom,

The war in Iraq is an insurgency.

Here's what happened today. The British take on it is interesting.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_base_looted

Iraqis loot base after British leave
By HAIDAR HANI, Associated Press Writer
Fri Aug 25, 10:46 AM ET

AMARAH, Iraq - Looters ravaged a former British base Friday, a day after the camp was turned over to Iraqi troops, taking everything from doors and window frames to corrugated roofing and metal pipes, authorities said.

About 1,200 British troops had been stationed at Camp Abu Naji in Amarah, 200 miles southeast of Baghdad, and the base had come under almost daily attack. The troops pulled out Thursday to redeploy along the border with Iran to crack down on weapons smuggling.

Shortly after the troops pulled out, Iraqi police managed to disperse looters by firing warning shots into the air, said Dhaffar Jabbar, spokesman for the Maysan provincial governor's office. But the looters returned Friday.

"The British forces left Abu Naji and the locals started looting everything," 1st Lt. Rifaat Taha Yaseen of the Iraqi army's 10th Division told AP Television News. "They took everything from the buildings."

Men, some with their faces covered, ripped corrugated metal from roofs, carried off metal pipes and backed trucks into building entrances to load them with wooden planks.

Several Iraqi soldiers, apparently unarmed, did not seem to make any effort to stop the looting."

[ljb]

Speaking of Annie, did any of you guys see the dyke get bitch slapped on the Hannity show last night ? If not, the video is available on Crooks and Liars. It was a blast watching her cry to Sean for help. Ya gotta love it ! :jump: :jump: :jump:

[Indulto]

... If not, the video is available on Crooks and Liars.Good site, ljb. Thanks for the reference.

[PaceAdvantage]

Dyke LJB? How unbecoming of you.....

[Lefty]

lbj, calling names again eh. And you a liberal with all that compassion. Only it's phony compassion; you and Kennedy, Hillary, Howard Dean, John Kerry and the rest of the libs. You are succinct but didn't answer one of Annie's q's. sec was longwinded but did not answer either. Ask a dem a q and you get everything and anything but an answer. I think you guys just incapable of answering a direct q.

[ljb]

Yeah but, did you guys watch the clip ? It is hilarious. :lol:

[Tom]

Just another personal attack, eh Ljb?
tsk tsk tsk.

When libs have no valid arguments, they always resort to persoanl attacks.

[Tom]

LJB - I wathced the video.
You need to have your glasses adjsutged - your eyesight is not good - the dyke was on the left.:lol:

Hilarious? Yes, it was. Anne surrounded two obvious mental midgets, neither with anything to offer, both yapping, trying to double team Anne - she made them both look not only foolish, but, stupid as well. If that bimbo on the left was filing in for Combs, she needs to get down the beady-eyed stare better.
Of the three, only one appeared to be aware of her surroundings, and she wass in the middle.
Thaks for the grat morning laugh,L! :lol::lol:

[ljb]

Glad you enjoyed the video Tom. Now aren't you glad you took my advice ?

[Tom]

Glad you enjoyed the video Tom. Now aren't you glad you took my advice ?

I always enjoy watching libs make fools of themselves. :)

[JustRalph]

I notice that nobody on the left in this thread, has answered the question posted by Anne and Lefty.

LJB takes the thread off topic to avoid answering the question.

[Secretariat]

I notice that nobody on the left in this thread, has answered the question posted by Anne and Lefty.

LJB takes the thread off topic to avoid answering the question.

Sure they have. You just choose not to see it. Read my first post in the thread.

[BenDiesel26]

The war on terrorism is like the war on poverty. Terroism has been aorund for ages whether it be the mob, Jesse James terrorizing the West, etc...

There is no congressional declared war on terrorism (the body granted by the Constitution to declare war). We went into Iraq based on a faulty claim of WMD's which were as GW described a "grave "threat to our national security. We now know that was not true. There was no "Grae" threat to the US from Iraq. We went into Afghanistan to avenge the attack on the WTC's. We let Bin Laden slip out of our hands at Tora Bora while the Iraqi WMD argument was hammered by the administration and the neocons. Because there are terrorists now in Iraq is not why the resolution was passed by Congress. There are terrorists in Syria, in Chechnya, in Sri Lanka, the Phillipines, the Sudan, Indonesia and doezns of other places.

Coulter's and the administrations' argument is a very poor one. That terrorism exists in Iraq, and that if we leave there it will embolden them.

1. A formal war on all international terrorism has never been formally declared by Congress. Congress has the authority to declare war as granted by the Constitution and the War Powers Act.

2. Equating civilan deaths in Iraq with terrorism because they may be from Jordan is a huge leap. btw..Jordan is an ally of ours. There is a religious civil war going on in Iraq between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds. We are right in the middle of it. This is violence that has emerged because they don't get along with each other and the three are in a stuggle for power.

3. Zarqawai was a non-force in Iraq until the American invasion. The invasion gave Al Queda a training ground to fight in a guerrila way against Americans more easily.

4. There are religious and land disputes that have nothing to do with the security of the united states going on over there, andd as GW stated the other day "Iraq has nothing to do with 911." 911 was the event that lauchend the phrase war on terrorism, not the ill advised pre-emptive invasion of Iraq to suit neocons.

5. The old "embolden the enemy" rhetoric is hogwash. They're pretty damn emboldened now. We heard this same rhetirc in Vietnam. If we don't fight them there, we'll fight them here. That never occurred, and the reason it won't occur in Iraq is becasue it is sectarian violence about power "in" Iraq, not Wisconsin..

Lefty, crazy Annie does it again. Thanks for the laugh.

Frankly, I don't necessarily care much for Ann Coulter because she too often tries to resort to personal insults. However, the question was what part of the war on terror do democrats support? I don't see an answer to that question above. I see the disagreements with the war in Iraq, but not what part of the war on terror democrats support, which was actually what the article was kind of about.

[ljb]

OK JR,
I give up what was the question ?
Oh wait a minute I just took a peek at sec's reply.
Dittos from me ;)
ps, did you watch the video of tough Annie weeping to Hannity for help ? If not go there now, it is a riot! :jump: :jump: :jump:

[Secretariat]

Frankly, I don't necessarily care much for Ann Coulter because she too often tries to resort to personal insults. However, the question was what part of the war on terror do democrats support? I don't see an answer to that question above. I see the disagreements with the war in Iraq, but not what part of the war on terror democrats support, which was actually what the article was kind of about.

Read my post again.

Crazy Annie's question is:WHAT PART OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM DO THEY SUPPORT?

First, there is no formal congressional war declared on terrorism. The action in Adfganistan was taken to capture those responsible for 911. Almost everyone, including myself supported this action. The Iraq War was to disarm Hussein of WMD's which posed as GW stated a "Grave" threat to our naitonal security. Last weekm GW stated there was no connection between Hussein and 911. 911 was the catalyst for support of the so-called war on terror. Bin Laden and Al Queda in Afghanistan were responsbile for 911. Iraq and Hussein was not. I don't know how much clearer one can get on this.
If you beleive Hussein ws reponsible for 911 then I can understand tying the two. But there is no link. That's the problem.

So if you need it even clearer all Dems support the pursuit and capture of Bin Laden, Zawahari, Omar, the following of the money trail, holding Saudis involved responsible. We just don't see the link between Iraq and 911. Apparently, GW doesn't anymore either.

[prank]

Didn't we already win the War on Drugs (WoD)?

I think the solution was "Just Say No".

Has anyone tried this with the WoT? Tell the young recruits (to the other side): "Just Say No".

And show some of those really spiffy ads:
"This is your brain."
"This is your brain on a bomb vest. Any questions?"

If we're not done with the War on Drugs, maybe we should get back to it.

[Tom]

Marion Berry said he would win the war, on drugs.:rolleyes:
When arrested, he was amazed and said,"I TOLD you I would get drugs off the streets!" :lol:

[Lefty]

sec, you better read HER column again. It's irrelevent there's no formal declaration of war on terrorism. Are you purposely missing her point? She says the demlobs keep saying they're for the war on terrorism but against the war on Iraq. So you bring Iraq into the discussion also irrelevent cause that's not the subject. She wants to know how you libs support the war on terrorism the way you say you do. Cause you're against everything the Pres wants to do. So she wants to know how the demlibs would conduct the war on terrorism; the one they say they support. So answer the question and quit obfuscating.

[ljb]

In a hurry here but, I supported, and continue to support, going after Osama bin forgotten. The real perpetrator of 9/11.

[Show Me the Wire]

In a hurry here but, I supported, and continue to support, going after Osama bin forgotten. The real perpetrator of 9/11.


So you support the invasion of a foreign sovereign state, namely Pakistan?

[Secretariat]

sec, you better read HER column again. It's irrelevent there's no formal declaration of war on terrorism. Are you purposely missing her point? She says the demlobs keep saying they're for the war on terrorism but against the war on Iraq. So you bring Iraq into the discussion also irrelevent cause that's not the subject. She wants to know how you libs support the war on terrorism the way you say you do. Cause you're against everything the Pres wants to do. So she wants to know how the demlibs would conduct the war on terrorism; the one they say they support. So answer the question and quit obfuscating.

It's not irrelvant there is no formal declaration of the war on terorism. I know Annie says Bin Laden is irrelvant, but Congress declares wars via the Constitution, not the Prez.

Obfuscating? Very good Lefty, a four letter word, something GW has never used.

Kidding aside Lefty, Here's what you said above Lefty:

"She says the demlobs keep saying they're for the war on terrorism but against the war on Iraq. So you bring Iraq into the discussion also irrelevent cause that's not the subject. She wants to know how you libs support the war on terrorism the way you say you do."

How can I not bring Iraq into the discussion when she just did with her question. It is the crux of her question.

The bottom line is the amount of terrorism as a threat to the US occurring in Iraq prior to the invasion was nil. GW has declared Iraq had nothing to do with 911. There were no Iraqis on any of the jets that hit the trade center and the Pentagon. The war on terrorism was declared as a response to 911. Iraq had nothing to do with 911 (per GW's own words). Bin Laden hated Hussein. Hussein was a secular tyrant, a Sunni in show. Bin Laden is a religous extremist. Bin Laden called Hussein a "socialist" and has asked the people of Iraq to rise up against him. Did we unwittingly do Bin Laden's bidding?

"An MSNBC.com report on the bin Laden tape carried the following sentence: "At the same time, the message also called on Iraqis to rise up and oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who is a secular leader." This clearly confirms the clarity of mind Osama bin Laden displayed in regard to Saddam Hussein, and conforms to the recorded message heard by millions and millions of people around the world.

Less than twenty minutes after this report appeared on MSNBC, that sentence was deleted from the report"

Read this:

http://www.president-bush.com/osamabinhussein.html

"But the administration has continued to link Saddam Hussein, a man Bin Laden has called "an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam", with al-Qa'ida. "

There was no connection on the war on terror, and Iraq. Iraq was based on a "grave "threat to our national security based on massive stockpiles WMD's that no one has been able to find. Stockpiles which Donald Rumsfeld declared "we know where they are."

Crazy Annie's points are just flat out wrong again.

[ljb]

So you support the invasion of a foreign sovereign state, namely Pakistan?
We had him in Afghanistan until we diverted our resources to Iraq for an as yet to be determined reason.

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

So you really do not continue to support going after Bin Laden as you originally stated?

[ljb]

smtw,
You are using an old tactic started by Lefty putting words into my mouth. Does not work with me, sorry.
As I said I support going after Osama bin forgotten and will continue to do so. This does not necessarily require the invasion of a sovereign country. It was excellent police action that caught the liquid bombers in England. A method suggested by Kerry in the last election and ridiculed by Cheney. Try to broaden your thought process here and you will see there are many ways to reach a goal.

[Show Me the Wire]

These are your words.


In a hurry here but, I supported, and continue to support, going after Osama bin forgotten. The real perpetrator of 9/11.


I am interested in how you would like to see the U.S. carry forward on your desires. The best guess of Bin Laden's where abouts is in Pakistan. So the question is if you promote the opinion the responsible culprit for 9-11 be captured, the capture has to be done in Pakistan.

To actively pursue your goals the surest way of going after Bin Laden is to invade Pakistan, because the Pakistanian government is not going to turn its people against it by actively searcing for Bin Laden.

So to capture the culprit do you support the action of invading the sovereign nation of Pakistan?

The above question about your continiung support for Bin Laden's capture is not tied to previous actions taken in Afghanistan.

[Tom]

Do you support wire taps in the caves, Ljb?
If you read someting other than lib cartoon sites, you would understand that a major reason we toook Afghanistan so quickly and easily was that we used local to do much of the ground work - those capable of moving around unnoticed and getting thinkgs done without a major confrontation every couple of miles. We used that same strategy at Tora bora and it dind't work. That's war - you don't hit a homerun every time.

My opinion - invaded, destroy, nuke - whatever it takes. If we think he is within a hundred mile radius, nuke it so heavy nothig will every be able to come out of the caves.

[Show Me the Wire]

smtw,
You are using an old tactic started by Lefty putting words into my mouth. Does not work with me, sorry.
As I said I support going after Osama bin forgotten and will continue to do so. This does not necessarily require the invasion of a sovereign country. It was excellent police action that caught the liquid bombers in England. A method suggested by Kerry in the last election and ridiculed by Cheney. Try to broaden your thought process here and you will see there are many ways to reach a goal.


The excellent police action used there would violate our constitution here. Sort of a catch 22, huh.

Praise police work not constrained by the U.S. constitution, but say the same type of police work in the U.S. is unaccepatble as a violation of civil rights.

[ljb]

I am in full support of getting Osama bin forgotten. Using any method required. Of course we are stretched quite a bit with the neocons foray into Iraq for whatever reason they happen to come up with today. You guys gotta quit trying to spin my statement into more then it is.
And Tom should try to avoid faux infotainment for a couple of days he is slipping back into the fold.

[Tom]

I am in full support of getting Osama bin forgotten. Using any method required. Of course we are stretched quite a bit with the neocons foray into Iraq for whatever reason they happen to come up with today. You guys gotta quit trying to spin my statement into more then it is.
And Tom should try to avoid faux infotainment for a couple of days he is slipping back into the fold.

So, violating laws IS acceptable when YOU agree withi the reason?
Hmmm. interesting. So you would not bject doing ithere if YOU agreed?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but you sound like you are condoning violating laws in some cases.

And for your infor, I DO NOT wathc Fox News. I do not like Fox news. While I think they are fair and balanced, and do cover sgories impartially, I do not like the Fox announcers and the metod they use to deliver news - the hurry up, quick, quick, answer now, we have to move on type of dews. I think CNN does a far better job of delivery, but a tainted message, alas!

What I do find amusing is that now than I am registered with moveon.org, I can generally predict within a dat what next little tidbits of info will be posted here. Notihng like yummy pies.:lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Thanks for your response. I only asked questions, not sure why asking you a question is spinning. If spinning is trying to understand your position, I am guilty of spinning.

[Lefty]

The reason Annie asked the q is because you just cannot get a straight answer on that from the demlibs and the carbon copies of the demlibs, sec and lbj just cannot do anything but dance around and bring iraq into it which was not the crux of the question but they won't answer because they haven't got an answer so i give up.

[BenDiesel26]

In general fox news gets the bad rap because it is synonomous with O'Reilly. But besides O'Reilly I don't know how people can complain. You have Hannity but Colmes seems to be about as far left as they come. But I wonder if they purposely picked the nerdiest looking democrat that they could find for Hannity to rag on. If so, then maybe people are right.

[JustRalph]

In general fox news gets the bad rap because it is synonomous with O'Reilly. But besides O'Reilly I don't know how people can complain. You have Hannity but Colmes seems to be about as far left as they come. But I wonder if they purposely picked the nerdiest looking democrat that they could find for Hannity to rag on. If so, then maybe people are right.


Hannity should have his own show. Dump Colmes or give him a weekend slot. I actually kind of like Colmes radio show.

[Lefty]

What's wrong with O'reilly? He's in the middle. He gets ragged on by left and right. He has the biggest viewership of any cable news show. Fox gets it from the left because they ARE fair and balanced and the left just hates that.

[BenDiesel26]

I suppose I should have worded it differently. They get the rep as a conservative station. I like O'Reilly and I think he reports fairly as well. But most don't consider him moderate, most would say he is definitely a conservative, despite the fact that he will question anybody if he thinks they are wrong. I think my favorite interview of all time was with the Sanchez lady who would not answer his question on whether she thought the US should have an open border. I think it was sometime back in May.

[Lefty]

They get the rep from the left as a conservative station because the left can't stand to see any conservative view at all. When you look at who works for them; both fulltime and partime, and look objectively, they have more libs working there than conservatives. But, alas, we've been dn this road before; explaining why libs hate Fox.

[ljb]

ljb:

Thanks for your response. I only asked questions, not sure why asking you a question is spinning. If spinning is trying to understand your position, I am guilty of spinning.
Your question is posted as a statement. "So you support invading a sovereign nation" rather then does this mean you support invading a sovereign nation ?
This is an example of spin.

[ljb]

So, violating laws IS acceptable when YOU agree withi the reason?
Hmmm. interesting. So you would not bject doing ithere if YOU agreed?
Not trying to put words in your mouth, but you sound like you are condoning violating laws in some cases.

And for your infor, I DO NOT wathc Fox News. I do not like Fox news. While I think they are fair and balanced, and do cover sgories impartially, I do not like the Fox announcers and the metod they use to deliver news - the hurry up, quick, quick, answer now, we have to move on type of dews. I think CNN does a far better job of delivery, but a tainted message, alas!

What I do find amusing is that now than I am registered with moveon.org, I can generally predict within a dat what next little tidbits of info will be posted here. Notihng like yummy pies.:lol:

Well, well, well.
I knew I should have included any method that is morally acceptable. No i do not support breaking laws. Just like i did not support the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq (for an as yet to be determind reason).
Glad to see you have registered with moveon.org. Have you learnt anything yet ?

[Show Me the Wire]

ljb:

Respectfully disagree with your assessment of spin. Spin is trying to intentionally confuse the facts to obscure the truth. May have been guilty of a leading question,, but not spinning.

[Tom]

Glad to see you have registered with moveon.org. Have you learnt anything yet ?

Real truth is, sicne they went to color, MAD magazine got too pricey - MO gives me plenty of laghts for FREE! :lol:

[ljb]

Tom,
Look around a bit. Everythings gotten pricey since the neocons took over.

[skate]

simple, Anne eats em up and spits em out.

time after time...

i think the libbers get upset, cause the conservatives chicks are "good looking"


kinda leaves em, lonely and unwanted.

[Lefty]

Tom,
Look around a bit. Everythings gotten pricey since the neocons took over.
If you respond to this he will say, 1.he didn't say it. 2. he doesn't agree with it. 3. or he'll just write something that doesn't make a lick of sense.

[Secretariat]

i think the libbers get upset, cause the conservatives chicks are "good looking"


Is there any truth to the rumor that annie is a transsexual?

[Show Me the Wire]

sec:

Repeating rumors, in writing, can be contrued as libel.

[Tom]

If you respond to this he will say, 1.he didn't say it. 2. he doesn't agree with it. 3. or he'll just write something that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Don't worry, I am done with him for a while. I get more intellectual stimulation out of peek a boo with my neighbor's baby. :bang:

[rrpic6]

simple, Anne eats em up and spits em out.

time after time...

i think the libbers get upset, cause the conservatives chicks are "good looking"


kinda leaves em, lonely and unwanted.

Hardly, she justs makes up a lot of crap, then tries to profit from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNxMw59aIz8

[Tom]

Sec, do you still beat your wife?
Do you still masterbate on the bus?







Low enough for you?
:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[Tom]

Hardly, she justs makes up a lot of crap, then tries to profit from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNxMw59aIz8

I think you are thinking of Randi Rhodes. :D

[ljb]

If you respond to this he will say, 1.he didn't say it. 2. he doesn't agree with it. 3. or he'll just write something that doesn't make a lick of sense.
Lefty,
I like your new method. Respond to something without really responding to it. Did you learn this by watching faux ? :lol:
And Tom,
You should take a little break, oh wait a minute you are.
:lol:
This is my response to personal attacks by both of you.

[Lefty]

lbj, just tellin like it is and the great non-answerer of q's put to him dares q me? The same guy that doesn't like fair and balanced Fox but loves the biased moveontosocialism.org? No wonder it's so easy to best you. And if you think the things i've said are a personal attack, you better reread your own posts and see the things you've said about me. In the area of personal attacks, i don't hold a candle to lbj!

[Tom]

Lefty - remeber the Magic 8 Ball?

A dozen or so pre-printed answers, tip the ball upside donw, and one randomly floats to the little window? No matter what the question?

Remind you of anyone here? :lol::lol::lol:

[ljb]

lbj, just tellin like it is and the great non-answerer of q's put to him dares q me? The same guy that doesn't like fair and balanced Fox but loves the biased moveontosocialism.org? No wonder it's so easy to best you. And if you think the things i've said are a personal attack, you better reread your own posts and see the things you've said about me. In the area of personal attacks, i don't hold a candle to lbj!
Lefty,
Did you have a question? I did not see one in your previous post. Seems there are more who have given up on faux infotainment. Check out the latest ratings. Moveon.org is a political organzation that supported the Democratic candidate last election, hardly a radical group. I will admit we have both made personal attacks however, I was commenting on your inability to even address the point I made and just replied with a personal attack.
Oh and you are ugly too but, you make Tom look pretty. (just to keep the insults alive) ;)

[Lefty]

Lefty - remeber the Magic 8 Ball?

A dozen or so pre-printed answers, tip the ball upside donw, and one randomly floats to the little window? No matter what the question?

Remind you of anyone here? :lol::lol::lol:
Tom, methinks you're on to something....Hmmmmm....

[Lefty]

Lefty,
Did you have a question? I did not see one in your previous post. Seems there are more who have given up on faux infotainment. Check out the latest ratings. Moveon.org is a political organzation that supported the Democratic candidate last election, hardly a radical group. I will admit we have both made personal attacks however, I was commenting on your inability to even address the point I made and just replied with a personal attack.
Oh and you are ugly too. (just to keep the insults alive) ;)
lbj, i had some in prev threads and you gave obtuse and diametrically opposed ansets. You don't think moveon is radical? Well that says a lot. The biggest contributor, Soros, thinks more and more taxes on this country are great. Meanwhile, the bulk of his fortune is parked offshore where it can't be taxed.
Also, after that election, where they supported the dem, they said they OWNED the Dem party. That's not radical?

[ljb]

Ahhh now, ain't that cute? Tom and Lefty cannot respond to the issue so they are having their own private little love in. If you guys get any cozier you may want to take it to PM. :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ljb]

lbj, i had some in prev threads and you gave obtuse and diametrically opposed ansets. You don't think moveon is radical? Well that says a lot. The biggest contributor, Soros, thinks more and more taxes on this country are great. Meanwhile, the bulk of his fortune is parked offshore where it can't be taxed.
Also, after that election, where they supported the dem, they said they OWNED the Dem party. That's not radical?
Lefty,
Your opinions do not make moveon radical.

[Lefty]

and your opinions, lbj, does not make them mainstream. I submit that any group that says they have taken over any mainstream party is radical. I submit a man that wants us to pay more taxes but hides his money to shield them from the same taxes is radical. Agree? or not.Just say yes or no.

[ljb]

Lefty,
Have you stopped beating your wife ?
Yes or no.

[Show Me the Wire]

and your opinions, lbj, does not make them mainstream. I submit that any group that says they have taken over any mainstream party is radical. I submit a man that wants us to pay more taxes but hides his money to shield them from the same taxes is radical. Agree? or not.Just say yes or no.

I would say the behavior is more hypocritical. With apologies in advance to a particular individual, I stand by my assertion the democratic leadersip and its large contributors are rift with hypocrits influencing the party's agenda.

Soros is a great example, his group did pay for the purchase of the Democratic party, and a true believer of do what I say not as I do philosophy.

[Tom]

Lefty, I like the way he jumps right in a make my point for me!:lol:

Here is one from MO I got today - seems that NO and Mayor Wonka are not capable of collecting thier own garbage - they blame Bush for thier trash piling up on the streets.

From :
–Nita, Justin, Eli, Ilyse and the MoveOn.org Civic Action Team
Tuesday, August 29th, 2006

QUOTE:


"Dear MoveOn member,

One year ago today Hurricane Katrina made landfall. For many of us, it was a moment of clarity: "this is what government looks like when it's run by people who don't believe in it."

A year later, dead bodies are still lying in abandoned homes, garbage has yet to be collected from New Orleans streets and countless residents have no home, temporary or permanent." END QUOTE

They then go on to tell everyone to write letters to the editor, and give specific points to make and phrases to include.

QUOTE:
Write a letter to the editor. The administration's media tour is designed to whitewash the government's terrible response to this disaster. Let's not let them get away with it. The opinion pages are the most popular pages in the newspaper—if they're flooded with our letters, we can help shape public opinion. (There are some talking points below.) Click here to get started. (http://civic.moveon.org/lte/?lte_campaign_id=64&id=8613-7019913-EjUCGjENPf8bHP7QItugDQ&t=4)
END QUOTE

I must say, if Bush really wanted to help NO, he would go there and take out the trash........MAYOR NAGING and the ditzy govenor! :D

I will montior the board this week and report any of the talking points that appear here by our crack reporting staff. :lol:

[Tom]

Lefty,
Have you stopped beating your wife ?
Yes or no.

Oh, so now you are quoting me and not giving credit?
I asked that of Sec last night.
Cheap, Ljb - get your own material!


"It is not likely!"

[Lefty]

lbj, i win my bet. I just bet my righthand that you would come back with that "do you still beat your wife" childishness. If i'm not dealing with an adult that's capable of articulating a consistent viewpoint and personal opinion there's no point in wasting time with you.

[Lefty]

lbj, i win my bet. I just bet my righthand that you would come back with that "do you still beat your wife" stuff, once again proving you have to just copy others. If i'm not dealing with an adult that's capable of articulating a consistent viewpoint and personal opinion there's no point in wasting time with you.

[Lefty]

Messed up.tried to edit my post but wound up changing it a little and posting it twice. Says about the same thing. LBJ, just won't give a strght anser. Must be what he's "learnt" learned at moveontosocialism.org

[Lefty]

BTW, lbj, I HAVE stopped beating my wife, cause these days she hits back!

[Tom]

Point here, Lefty, is you said the same thing both times.
That disqualifies you every becoming a democrat! :D

[ljb]

glad to see you two are still stroking each other. But you really should consider pm for this type activity.
Have you stopped beating your wife has been used for years Tom. You really can't take credit for it. And I am sure Moveon is happy with you posting their links here. Hope you aren't taking their stuff out of context.
And more to the point. You guys are using a lot of bandwidth and still avoiding the issue. Whee ! What a joy ride ! :jump: :jump: :jump:
Maybe I should start another thread so you guys can avoid another truth. :D

[skate]

Is there any truth to the rumor that annie is a transsexual?


your rumor, your truth


and that's what people here have been trying to translate to you

[skate]

Hardly, she justs makes up a lot of crap, then tries to profit from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNxMw59aIz8


ohoh oh, no , never does she "just makes things up", no no no

hey you can dispute what she says, and if you stay tuned and Ask questions about what she says, then the answer will appear as if magical


ok ok , i admit, she Makes Money, what the heck

point being, we are seeking her points, nice points too...

[ljb]

Lefty, I like the way he jumps right in a make my point for me!:lol:

Here is one from MO I got today - seems that NO and Mayor Wonka are not capable of collecting thier own garbage - they blame Bush for thier trash piling up on the streets.

From :
–Nita, Justin, Eli, Ilyse and the MoveOn.org Civic Action Team
Tuesday, August 29th, 2006

QUOTE:


"Dear MoveOn member,

One year ago today Hurricane Katrina made landfall. For many of us, it was a moment of clarity: "this is what government looks like when it's run by people who don't believe in it."

A year later, dead bodies are still lying in abandoned homes, garbage has yet to be collected from New Orleans streets and countless residents have no home, temporary or permanent." END QUOTE

They then go on to tell everyone to write letters to the editor, and give specific points to make and phrases to include.

QUOTE:
Write a letter to the editor. The administration's media tour is designed to whitewash the government's terrible response to this disaster. Let's not let them get away with it. The opinion pages are the most popular pages in the newspaper—if they're flooded with our letters, we can help shape public opinion. (There are some talking points below.) Click here to get started. (http://civic.moveon.org/lte/?lte_campaign_id=64&id=8613-7019913-EjUCGjENPf8bHP7QItugDQ&t=4)
END QUOTE

I must say, if Bush really wanted to help NO, he would go there and take out the trash........MAYOR NAGING and the ditzy govenor! :D

I will montior the board this week and report any of the talking points that appear here by our crack reporting staff. :lol:

Oh Tommy,
If you want to be part of the "crack reporting staff", you will have to stop parsing the quotes. Doing so makes you look like a reporter for faux. This is a start but you still have a way to go before we can accept you into the truth squad.

[BenDiesel26]

Can you give examples of all the reporters for fox that have parsed quotes?

[lsbets]

Can you give examples of all the reporters for fox that have parsed quotes?

I've asked him to show that several times, and he has yet to do so.

[Lefty]

lbj, you constantly make insulting personal remarks and then take umbridge when you THINK you've been insulted. You're thinskinned: you can dish but can't take.
And you've skirted the whole issue of this thread. HOW, you and other dems would fight terrorism? I answered your silly q now anser my serious one about Soros and moveon. Can you bring yourself to honest debate?

[ljb]

Can you give examples of all the reporters for fox that have parsed quotes?
Well just recently there was a congressman that is running unopposed on the Colbert Report. Colbert got him to say "I like cocaine because it is fun". This after much cajoling and joking by Colbert. Faux news ran the quote sans the cajoling, joking and coaxing. Giving the impression the congressman just made the statement in sincerity.

[ljb]

lbj, you constantly make insulting personal remarks and then take umbridge when you THINK you've been insulted. You're thinskinned: you can dish but can't take.
And you've skirted the whole issue of this thread. HOW, you and other dems would fight terrorism? I answered your silly q now anser my serious one about Soros and moveon. Can you bring yourself to honest debate?
Lefty,
Read my post I said we have both used personal insults. I was just commenting on your inability to respond to the point I made. And in your desire to respond you just posted a personal insult. And what was your question ? And you are still ugly but cuter then Tom. Insult added for emphasis. :lol:

[ljb]

On Monday's episode of "Special Report" (8/28), host Brit Hume offered a snarky thirty-second piece during his "Two Minutes of Hate" segment (AKA "Grapevine") discussing the obstructionist Senator that is blocking legislation "to open an easily searchable online database of federal spending to the public." Now that the Senator has been unmasked as a Republican, will Hume provide his viewers with a follow-up segment?
Just another example of faux's biased broadcasting.

[BenDiesel26]

I asked for examples of parsing quotes. So far, you have given an example where a quote was used in full, and another where Brit Hume reported that a republican senator did something wrong. Can you give some examples where full quotes were parsed, such as asked originally?

[BenDiesel26]

I must add also that I have already seen twice on Fox News, a clip from the Jimmy Kimmel show of President Bush's press conference around a week ago, where Kimmel edited the clip so that it appeared the press was laughing at everything the president said. Is this unfair to you? I would assume that the Colbert thing you speak of was probably on the same exact segment, which is always shown as a humor segment at the end of that show.

[Tom]

Ben, he doens't know what parse means. He thinks it is a garnish.
(personal attack alert!)

46 gets away with calling our president a rutabega, so I guess I am not so bad calling ljb "parsley!" :lol:

And for the records, Hcap and Sec have confused poor Ljb - he thinks a quote must be every word spoken, not just a sample.
I quoted two sentences, and narrated the gist of the rest of it, sans the links to the brains needed to write the letters! But "the garnish" is free to quote the rest and let everyone else decide if I tried to change the message.
Actually, by leaving out the instructions to watch the Spike Lee special on HBO made them look not as irrelevant as they really are.

[Lefty]

Lefty,
Read my post I said we have both used personal insults. I was just commenting on your inability to respond to the point I made. And in your desire to respond you just posted a personal insult. And what was your question ? And you are still ugly but cuter then Tom. Insult added for emphasis. :lol:
Still can't hold your own in an honest debate, eh? Dance all over the place.
Unblvble, no you're a lib, most blvble!

[Lefty]

lbj, calling you thinskinned is a personal insult? Now i'm not sure you have any skin.

[ljb]

So then your fear of Hillary can be just another manifestation of your wife beating habits ?

[ljb]

Parsed was not the correct word, i should have used the statement. Taking out of context.
Sorry, hope i didn't confuse you guys.