(no subject)
Another youtube argument with the same guy...you know, it's really tough to make a cohesive argument in less than 500 word posts.
billybobjoe57 (3 days ago)
Ann Coulter is a nut. Period.
I have not found anything yet smart about Bush.
I'll grant you he has a pen, and assumedly knows how to write, but I think that's pushing it.
Joe
snorp73 (3 days ago)
He has outsmarted and outwitted Congressional Democrats on the Patriot Act, the NSA program and has shown through contribution of the NY Times by allowing Democrats to remind Americans why National Security isn't their specialty. Moreover; he got two great judges onto the Supreme Court and even Joe Biden's attempts at philosophy couldn't stop them. They kick, they scream, but Bush always gets what he wants. Underestimate him again, I can't wait to chat with you in 2008.
Steve
urgk (1 day ago)
His version of outsmarting and outwitting is to lie and lie loudly until he gets his own way. That's not necessarily smart...a 4 year old can do that. I'll think about believing he's smart when I see the first indication that he's not a puppet of the more experienced neocons around him
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Yet liberals have been unable to produce one shred of concrete evidence against him. No impeachment hearings! Hey you guys better hurry up, we only have 2 years left! I know that you understand this in the case of arab terrorists held at Guantanamo, but you have to make a case of guilt - you don't make one GIANT hysterical accusation and leave it up to me to explain to you in detail why it's nonsense.
urgk (1 day ago)
What's the giant, hysterical accusation? That the Bush administration lies? That the White House that he's responsible for weaved together this elaborate fiction tying Iraq to Al Qaida? Do I need to cite the specific examples of Cheney saying that Iraqi officials had met with Mohammad Atta? Or how about the polls that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq was at least partially behind 9/11? Explain to me in detail how that's nonsense.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
No comments mentioned above moved us into Iraq. There was a barrage of reasons. 1.) WMD 2.) Humanitarian Reasons 3.) Establishing a foothold in the Mid-East for our military 4.) Giving Iraqis the Democracy that you take for granted. WMD intel was the best that anyone had. Mistakes were made, but to call Bush and Rice LIARS is a stretch. Nobody lied to you. The ending result was that we disarmed a lunatic before he had the capability to kill us, thus no North Korea pickle as Clinton gave us.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Moreover; the ideaology of the mideast attacked us on 9/11. Not one man. Osama didnt attack our Marine barracks in 1983 killing 300 marines, Osama didnt attempt to hijack planes just a few months ago. Saddam funded and harbored that ideology. Zarqawi just happened to show up there? Saddam adding "Allah Abkar" to the Iraqi flag in his handwriting meant nothing, right? Yep he was a secular.
urgk (1 day ago)
Wow. My roommate used to do a little something he called "blowing the bullsh*t whistle." It's like calling a foul on somebody for blatantly being full of crap. An ideology didn't attack us. An organization driven by an ideology did. That's like a bank robber getting up on the stand and testifying that it was greed that robbed the bank.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Okay, so now your saying that the BROAD element of "greed" is comparable to the NARROW element of Islamic Extremism. We have 25+ years of attacks on American Interests by Muslim Extremists sponsored in part by lunatics like Saddam Hussein. Not all of them were by one group led by one person. They all share the common vision which is "urqk is an infidel, he must be slaughtered."
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-queda, they all kill Americans. In the case of robbery, we have the luxury of remaining punctilious in locating each on as each crime is committed. Just like with the Nazis, we do not have that luxury now. You have your neck stuck in the sand, and I'd rather hear the phrase your roommate could come up with to cleverly point that out.
urgk (1 day ago)
I'm not saying that at all. What I *am* saying is that we were never attacked by some spectral notion. We were attacked by a group led by Osama bin Laden. We absolutely had the justification to hunt him down and permanently wipe him off the map. What we did not have justification for was to falsify facts in order to invade a country to depose a leader who had nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden.
urgk (1 day ago)
By the way, in case you'd rather hear this, my roommate would have had incredibly apt physiological phrases for where your head seems to be stuck.
snorp73 (21 hours ago)
What I'M saying is that an ideology created stemming back to 1979 when Muslim Extremists were killing American troops as they did in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001! This CREATED bin laden and was never dealt with. I won't explain anymore because you'll never get it, so let me try a new tact. Should we have been punctilious (it's not THAT big of a word) with Hitler, Nazis, and captured them one at a time as they committed crimes? Was WW2 mishandled?
urgk (20 hours ago)
Hey, look... here we have more right-leaning sound-bites and flawed logic stitched together in a sad imitation of informed discussion. It still wasn't an ideology that attacked us, it was a group of angry, devout, misguided men, armed with box-cutters. My point was, and still is, that we should have used every available resource to dismantle the network responsible and to implement intelligence technology and strategies to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
snorp73 (18 hours ago)
We agree! Nothing is stitched, I gave you dates, examples, etc. The intelligence is horrible...why? Ask the crazy Democrats post-Watergate that put all of their ridiculous rules and regulations onto our CIA. They cannot do their jobs! Moreover; the ideology that was never defeated is what CREATED these "angry" men. Again, killing the ideology of Naziism was required. So is this, it's a LONG HAUL. Many administrations will pass.
urgk (14 hours ago)
IF...A) We aren't fighting a nation or an invidual, we are fighting an ideology that must be stamped out, and B) That ideology and its believers are thoroughly understood in all their political and historic significance by the Bush administration...please tell me why....
urgk (14 hours ago)
A) Bush would use the inflammatory "Crusades" reference and B) We would ever think that an avowed "Christian" president could invade a Muslim country and then tell the world he'd made the decision partly because he'd prayed on it? Or that, as a result, the ideology would be quelled?
billybobjoe57 (3 days ago)
Ann Coulter is a nut. Period.
I have not found anything yet smart about Bush.
I'll grant you he has a pen, and assumedly knows how to write, but I think that's pushing it.
Joe
snorp73 (3 days ago)
He has outsmarted and outwitted Congressional Democrats on the Patriot Act, the NSA program and has shown through contribution of the NY Times by allowing Democrats to remind Americans why National Security isn't their specialty. Moreover; he got two great judges onto the Supreme Court and even Joe Biden's attempts at philosophy couldn't stop them. They kick, they scream, but Bush always gets what he wants. Underestimate him again, I can't wait to chat with you in 2008.
Steve
urgk (1 day ago)
His version of outsmarting and outwitting is to lie and lie loudly until he gets his own way. That's not necessarily smart...a 4 year old can do that. I'll think about believing he's smart when I see the first indication that he's not a puppet of the more experienced neocons around him
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Yet liberals have been unable to produce one shred of concrete evidence against him. No impeachment hearings! Hey you guys better hurry up, we only have 2 years left! I know that you understand this in the case of arab terrorists held at Guantanamo, but you have to make a case of guilt - you don't make one GIANT hysterical accusation and leave it up to me to explain to you in detail why it's nonsense.
urgk (1 day ago)
What's the giant, hysterical accusation? That the Bush administration lies? That the White House that he's responsible for weaved together this elaborate fiction tying Iraq to Al Qaida? Do I need to cite the specific examples of Cheney saying that Iraqi officials had met with Mohammad Atta? Or how about the polls that a majority of Americans believed that Iraq was at least partially behind 9/11? Explain to me in detail how that's nonsense.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
No comments mentioned above moved us into Iraq. There was a barrage of reasons. 1.) WMD 2.) Humanitarian Reasons 3.) Establishing a foothold in the Mid-East for our military 4.) Giving Iraqis the Democracy that you take for granted. WMD intel was the best that anyone had. Mistakes were made, but to call Bush and Rice LIARS is a stretch. Nobody lied to you. The ending result was that we disarmed a lunatic before he had the capability to kill us, thus no North Korea pickle as Clinton gave us.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Moreover; the ideaology of the mideast attacked us on 9/11. Not one man. Osama didnt attack our Marine barracks in 1983 killing 300 marines, Osama didnt attempt to hijack planes just a few months ago. Saddam funded and harbored that ideology. Zarqawi just happened to show up there? Saddam adding "Allah Abkar" to the Iraqi flag in his handwriting meant nothing, right? Yep he was a secular.
urgk (1 day ago)
Wow. My roommate used to do a little something he called "blowing the bullsh*t whistle." It's like calling a foul on somebody for blatantly being full of crap. An ideology didn't attack us. An organization driven by an ideology did. That's like a bank robber getting up on the stand and testifying that it was greed that robbed the bank.
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Okay, so now your saying that the BROAD element of "greed" is comparable to the NARROW element of Islamic Extremism. We have 25+ years of attacks on American Interests by Muslim Extremists sponsored in part by lunatics like Saddam Hussein. Not all of them were by one group led by one person. They all share the common vision which is "urqk is an infidel, he must be slaughtered."
snorp73 (1 day ago)
Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-queda, they all kill Americans. In the case of robbery, we have the luxury of remaining punctilious in locating each on as each crime is committed. Just like with the Nazis, we do not have that luxury now. You have your neck stuck in the sand, and I'd rather hear the phrase your roommate could come up with to cleverly point that out.
urgk (1 day ago)
I'm not saying that at all. What I *am* saying is that we were never attacked by some spectral notion. We were attacked by a group led by Osama bin Laden. We absolutely had the justification to hunt him down and permanently wipe him off the map. What we did not have justification for was to falsify facts in order to invade a country to depose a leader who had nothing whatsoever to do with bin Laden.
urgk (1 day ago)
By the way, in case you'd rather hear this, my roommate would have had incredibly apt physiological phrases for where your head seems to be stuck.
snorp73 (21 hours ago)
What I'M saying is that an ideology created stemming back to 1979 when Muslim Extremists were killing American troops as they did in 1983, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2001! This CREATED bin laden and was never dealt with. I won't explain anymore because you'll never get it, so let me try a new tact. Should we have been punctilious (it's not THAT big of a word) with Hitler, Nazis, and captured them one at a time as they committed crimes? Was WW2 mishandled?
urgk (20 hours ago)
Hey, look... here we have more right-leaning sound-bites and flawed logic stitched together in a sad imitation of informed discussion. It still wasn't an ideology that attacked us, it was a group of angry, devout, misguided men, armed with box-cutters. My point was, and still is, that we should have used every available resource to dismantle the network responsible and to implement intelligence technology and strategies to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
snorp73 (18 hours ago)
We agree! Nothing is stitched, I gave you dates, examples, etc. The intelligence is horrible...why? Ask the crazy Democrats post-Watergate that put all of their ridiculous rules and regulations onto our CIA. They cannot do their jobs! Moreover; the ideology that was never defeated is what CREATED these "angry" men. Again, killing the ideology of Naziism was required. So is this, it's a LONG HAUL. Many administrations will pass.
urgk (14 hours ago)
IF...A) We aren't fighting a nation or an invidual, we are fighting an ideology that must be stamped out, and B) That ideology and its believers are thoroughly understood in all their political and historic significance by the Bush administration...please tell me why....
urgk (14 hours ago)
A) Bush would use the inflammatory "Crusades" reference and B) We would ever think that an avowed "Christian" president could invade a Muslim country and then tell the world he'd made the decision partly because he'd prayed on it? Or that, as a result, the ideology would be quelled?