Made one typo, that "with a sense" should be "with sense". Figured you might have a difficult time figuring that out since you're too busy gargling al qaida cum to think.
Nobody is going to waste their time with unintelligent, uncivil arguments. Try growing up monkey boy and you'll find people will tell you how you are wrong instead of staring at you like some circus freak while you think you are correct because they won't enage your "arguments". The countries we "swarm" from and to are terrorist and dictatorship shitholes, the fact that you defend them speaks loads about your credibility asswipe. Second, we are not here for the rest of the world to like, we are here to do the right thing, which the rest of the world is too cowardly to do. Next, electing Bush was the best thing we could do, it sends a message to all the evil doers in the world that we aren't scared of them and we will be coming after them. Your retarded ass stereotyping of Bush supporters as "hillbillies" is just funny. You don't even fucking know me and you stereotyped me, that says you are one retarded brain dead son of a bitch to anyone with a sense, nice going asshat, but it's not like we didn't already know, dimwit. And I'm sure you do want someone to bomb us, because you're a scared little bitch who'd suck a terrorist's dick so naturally you cheer the mother fuckers on because without us no one would point out your cowardness and weakness. Lastly, we can't stay away because the welfare of the planet affects everybody, we can't just let countries go to shit and think it won't affect us, that is caveman thinking, which is what I am starting to think you are. Have a nice day, fuckface.
Yea, the Europe that didn't have to pay most of the defense bill against the Soviet Union thereby preventing Europe from becoming one large Russian speaking state all those years that we graciously did so it could have all that nice shit. That Europe..
"And now it's modded "flamebait". Trully once again this shows how no one is more persecuted than the middle class white christian male. I mean where are they represented in the government, buisness, and education, and the other power structures of this country?"
Pathetic and desperate.
"Wolfowitz is the Deputy Secertary of Defense. He's widely considered one of the most influential people in the administration. Perhaps you should learn something about the people you're a fan of."
You have no reason to assume I don't know who Wolfowitz is. It doesn't matter what his position is, his judgement may have been clouded or he could've just said something he didn't mean, he may secretly be trying to sabotage the Bush administration, and so on. I can tell you're used to being told what to think.
"I was talking about the Beruit Marine barracks bombing and Iran-Contra. Again, learn something about the people you're a fan of."
You're the one who needs to learn. The way you typed that paragraph made it seem to say something which you now say it didn't. Only a dumb leftwing zealot would pass judgement over an inconsequential mistake, that was mostly their fault to begin with. But anyway, if Reagan had invaded anybody for the Beirut bombing, instead of calling him a coward you'd just be screaming that he's a crazed war monger. Your prejudices are as clear as crystal.
"He froze during the debate repeatedly. The man freezes when he's stressed."
You are second guessing the man's thoughts, you can't know whether he froze for effect (as in, "my opponent is so ineffective I am unmoved") or because he was feeling stupid.
You think only the "feeling stupid" possibility is possible because I suspect when you freeze, it's only because you feel stupid, and hence have no concept of freezing for effect. This is a fault in you, not the president.
"Because Iraq and Afghanastan aren't the same. Because you can't democracize the middle east at the barrel of a gun."
There is no weight in your argument whatsoever, I could as easily say you could, but you have the witless cliche so obviously you win the debate (roll eyes).
"Even the State Department doesn't believe you can."
The State Department hasn't made any good argument against it, they are just being pessimistic and covering their asses. If it works, no one is going to come back on them and make them explain themselves, if it doesn't work but they said it would, they would be in trouble.
It's easy to understand their position in that context.
"You can't impose democracy. You certainly can't impose democracy when your hated by the very people you're imposing it on. It's a fools errand."
We are giving democracy to people who want it badly but have never had a chance at getting it. You seek only to deny them something great out of spite and irrational hatred of Bush, you are a small and petty human.
I thought you were making an implicit point about its content, given the demographics of this website and the underhanded debating tactics of most of its members, apologies.
Popularity is a reliable indicator of accuracy, so we don't need to examine the content of C41.11. And if you disagree with that statement, why did you rely on the popularity fallacy, just trolling on your lunch break?
What about all the people that refuted nazi racism, do you ask them the same question, or are you a typical leftwing hypocrit? I'll enjoy watching you backpedal immensely btw.
Guess I lied about not posting here again, just so long as it's nothing long..
"Things as on non-american I don't get is why that/your *asshole, IMHO* of a president can say "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" amazes me, divide his own country into two"
Uhm, I'm no mind reader and neither are you, but I can say with reasonable certainty that the president did not mean that literally, don't you ever get out and talk to people, they say and do things they don't mean all the time, life is hard and it's hard to know exactly what to say to get someone to support a cause even if it's the right cause, he just thought he was energizing his support base, he was not being sincere, come on now stop trolling..
"... spreading unverified (to 100%) information about a country having WMD (as it's a grave eminet threat to 'your' saftey) AND not taking the time to verify the claims (to 100%) prior doing any engaging......"
What's verification? If the US intelligence agencies thought it was true, and the French President and his agencies thought it was true, and the Vladimir Putin and the Russian Agencies thought it was true and the head of the UN as well as the security council and just about every member state thought it was true, I'd say that is as close to verification as you're going to get in this imperfect world. You can't ask for anything better, and I and many others are not convinced WMD and personel weren't shipped out of Iraq on the eve of the war, it's not like Saddam and Co. didn't have warning. No WMD found is not the same as no WMD.
"And still not be ashamed of himself (and how he behaved) and feel honorless."
Because he didn't do anything wrong, he followed the rules the best he could with the information supplied to him by the world. Even without the WMD issue, I see nothing wrong with democratizing a backwards country, and am personally disheartened that so many people would see the poor country ruled by Saddam's iron fist just because they harbor irrational hatreds of Bush and/or the right.
Hey, look at that, I get modded a troll and this guy gets modded insightful. Shows how childesh the left is. Anyways, this is my LAST post in this thread no matter what, no matter what you write and no matter what I write, we can both rebut just about each and every thing in each others posts, and I have a life, so this is it.
"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as the United States invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. The two were not related at all, as numerous bipartisan investigations have confirmed. That lie, more than anything else, is why Bush adminstration is despised. We can not trust this administration with the power of war."
Did I say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, nice red herring. I wasn't even talking about Iraq, I was talking about how Soro's says Bush's foreign policy changed, and I was listing reasons why it changed, read more carefully please. Now you got all worked up for nothing, but how do you plan to undo the damage? Oh? By pretending you didn't make a mistake as leftists always do? Ok then..
"On September 12, 2001, the administration was already drawing up invasion plans for Iraq; even though we were attacked from Afghanistan. It just doesn't make any sense. Their initial reaction wasn't to strike back at those who attacked us, but rather carry out their wet dream of converting the middle east to democracy at the barrel of a gun. As their report said, they would need "a cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to carry this out."
If Bush makes a war plan before non-compliace: "Bush is a war monger and was going to invade anyway". If bush didn't make a war plan before non-compliance: "Bush can not anticipate his enemies and should not be in office, etc" You really need to open your mind about things, there are many more ways to see things and some way more enlightened than what you come up with. As it is, I'm sure Bush anticipated Iraq's actions (like that was hard) and tried to make the best plan for America in response. Gasp, say it ain't so! And when attacked by Osama, they were probably mad. But who cares and ready to kick a lot of ass, they see 9/11 as a result of the irresponsible anti-americanism being spewed by a lot of people and if I were them I'd be looking for key proponents of anti-american tripe to mess up too, Saddam was just stupid enough to not comply with resolutions. I don't see what it matters when they formulated a plan and why, they followed the same rules as if they hadn't been mad over 9/11, non-compliance = democratization, no less, no more. Everything else is a red herring.
"The truth is, as Wolfowitz admitted [usatoday.com], Iraq's WMD was just a convient excuse. An excuse that doesn't hold up under scrutiny."
Red herring. Let me make an analogy. "A key police officer today admitted that serial killing was just an excuse and Charles Manson was arrested because he had a beard." First of all, Wolfowitz may have been talking out of his ass, it happens, politicians are people too. Second, even if Bush used it as an excuse, then what reason would they go to war over and why would they risk discrediting the entire right wing for non-sense. Third, it is still a red herring, Saddam broke the rules and I don't care if Bush disliked his mustache, he had to go (let's convientently ignore the fact he throws women in wood chippers and children into rooms that drip acid and had a whole lot of mass graves, I know that doesn't matter to most of you, but I consider that a reason for removal itself.) Leftists always have a pet conspiracy theory, I see yours is revenge for Iraq 1 (roll eyes). Ok, moving right along..
"I can hear you now. "But EVERYONE thought he had WMD!". Not exactly. As subsequent investigations have determined, the western world's intellegence apparatus is an echo chamber. Chalabi had been telling the US whatever he thought would get the US to invade Iraq, so he could be setup as the new strongman. His reports were considered by many in the CIA to r
Wasn't a red herring, I misunderstood the asshat, giving him more credit than I should have, hell I thought he almost had an argument, but after your post I reread it and see he was just rambling to look like he had something to say. And partisanship has nothing to do with whether my arguments are correct or not, that is your partisanship showing.
Ok, you asked nicely and intelligently and I suspect you may be not a troll, so I'll just throw some stuff out there for you:
"President Bush ran on the platform of a 'humble' foreign policy in 2000."
Hellooooo, 9/11, non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. This guy is basically saying that since Bush didn't want to invade before he had a good reason, he should not have wanted to after he got a good reason (9/11 and Saddam's non-compliance giving us sufficient reason to believe he was a threat being the good reasons).
"If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences."
The consequence is that young women are no longer thrown into wood chippers and rooms that drip acid every few inches for political crimes, there will be no more mass graves for political dissidents, etc.
"As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight."
He throws around a lot of meaningless words about a situation that requires real resolve.
I want to sing kumbaya with the terrorists too but it ain't going to happen, and I'm not about to sit around while they try to kill us either.
"But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle."
This borders on being his oppinion, but he wants us to accept it as a fact so I'll dispute it as such (some people just can't help but to try to have their cake and eat it too). Respect from people who will not act to defend us means very little to me (and I should hope the rest of us), justice means much more. Removing tyrrants from power means more to me than the friendship of France, who should be our friends anyway. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any violence against us will stop if we change our foreign policy. Osama and Saddam's non-compliance are responsible for this latest round, are we supposed to just take 9/11 on the chin to see if it breaks the cycle? What if that doesn't work, then we take another on the chin, and so on? There's a word for that, it's called "sucker". Leftists always want us to think we caused this and we caused that, and poor other countries are always just picked on. Why don't they take it on the chin and break the cycle of violence? No answer for that, they just must always be allowed to attack and we must always take it on the chin, because that's what's right. As you can see it would take me a year to write about everything wrong with this guys opinion (and that was his aim, to make so much garbage that no one in their right mind would waste time rebutting it all), see take this:
"When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home."
If I rebut this article but not this sentence, then most people would automatically subconsiously assume it was right and I was incapable of rebutting it. If I rebut every sentence that is wrong with this article I will be here until the election writing on it. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's no work to think of a bulletproof rebuttal to it. But if you seriously want rebuttals to his arguments, list specific ones you are concerned about, but not a whole bunch, nobody has time. Or check out some right leaning blogs, imo they are much more clear about what is opinion and what is fact that the other side, and way less emotional. Just my opinion, disagree but don't troll me leftists..
You must be young. Let me give you a free clue, all these people you're addressing, don't believe anything they say, they just say whatever supports their cause.
Nice red herring, you can't face the fact that the democrats supported a blood thirsty tyrant like Saddam and that Bush did the right thing so you go digging for conspiracy theories to justify your weak politics. If we're stealing Iraqi oil, why is gas 2 bucks a gal? Answer, because we're not stealing it, just helping them develope it, asshat.
I fail to see the difference, most democrats only "know" that "bush is, like, stupid n stuff", it could be argued that most republicans aren't pro-Bush, they're pro-republicans, so what Bush says in his campaign ads matters little.
And as for your last line, I guess you just can't stand a news channel that doesn't hate America and peddle forged documents to smear those that don't.
"flip-flopping" is a 2nd grade level phrase that makes it easier for Bush supporters to understand, plus it sounds funny? WTF do you call "chimp", "cowboy", "retard" that we hear daily from the left? Take your head out of the sand 'cause if there's one pragmatic side here, it sure as HELL ain't the left.
Slashdot Mirror
OMG J00 R TEH FUNNAY!
Made one typo, that "with a sense" should be "with sense". Figured you might have a difficult time figuring that out since you're too busy gargling al qaida cum to think.
Nobody is going to waste their time with unintelligent, uncivil arguments. Try growing up monkey boy and you'll find people will tell you how you are wrong instead of staring at you like some circus freak while you think you are correct because they won't enage your "arguments". The countries we "swarm" from and to are terrorist and dictatorship shitholes, the fact that you defend them speaks loads about your credibility asswipe. Second, we are not here for the rest of the world to like, we are here to do the right thing, which the rest of the world is too cowardly to do. Next, electing Bush was the best thing we could do, it sends a message to all the evil doers in the world that we aren't scared of them and we will be coming after them. Your retarded ass stereotyping of Bush supporters as "hillbillies" is just funny. You don't even fucking know me and you stereotyped me, that says you are one retarded brain dead son of a bitch to anyone with a sense, nice going asshat, but it's not like we didn't already know, dimwit. And I'm sure you do want someone to bomb us, because you're a scared little bitch who'd suck a terrorist's dick so naturally you cheer the mother fuckers on because without us no one would point out your cowardness and weakness. Lastly, we can't stay away because the welfare of the planet affects everybody, we can't just let countries go to shit and think it won't affect us, that is caveman thinking, which is what I am starting to think you are. Have a nice day, fuckface.
Do me a favor and move to Iran, we have a present for you soon.
Nothing, but I guess he expects us to cry cause the world's gonna take their ball and go home. oh well, see ya!
Boy I wish they'd improve security at mental hospitals so I wouldn't have to read retarded shit like this..
Yea, the Europe that didn't have to pay most of the defense bill against the Soviet Union thereby preventing Europe from becoming one large Russian speaking state all those years that we graciously did so it could have all that nice shit. That Europe..
"92% if you only count HD portables." It's apple, so it's a good monopoly, right?
"And now it's modded "flamebait". Trully once again this shows how no one is more persecuted than the middle class white christian male. I mean where are they represented in the government, buisness, and education, and the other power structures of this country?" Pathetic and desperate. "Wolfowitz is the Deputy Secertary of Defense. He's widely considered one of the most influential people in the administration. Perhaps you should learn something about the people you're a fan of." You have no reason to assume I don't know who Wolfowitz is. It doesn't matter what his position is, his judgement may have been clouded or he could've just said something he didn't mean, he may secretly be trying to sabotage the Bush administration, and so on. I can tell you're used to being told what to think. "I was talking about the Beruit Marine barracks bombing and Iran-Contra. Again, learn something about the people you're a fan of." You're the one who needs to learn. The way you typed that paragraph made it seem to say something which you now say it didn't. Only a dumb leftwing zealot would pass judgement over an inconsequential mistake, that was mostly their fault to begin with. But anyway, if Reagan had invaded anybody for the Beirut bombing, instead of calling him a coward you'd just be screaming that he's a crazed war monger. Your prejudices are as clear as crystal. "He froze during the debate repeatedly. The man freezes when he's stressed." You are second guessing the man's thoughts, you can't know whether he froze for effect (as in, "my opponent is so ineffective I am unmoved") or because he was feeling stupid. You think only the "feeling stupid" possibility is possible because I suspect when you freeze, it's only because you feel stupid, and hence have no concept of freezing for effect. This is a fault in you, not the president. "Because Iraq and Afghanastan aren't the same. Because you can't democracize the middle east at the barrel of a gun." There is no weight in your argument whatsoever, I could as easily say you could, but you have the witless cliche so obviously you win the debate (roll eyes). "Even the State Department doesn't believe you can." The State Department hasn't made any good argument against it, they are just being pessimistic and covering their asses. If it works, no one is going to come back on them and make them explain themselves, if it doesn't work but they said it would, they would be in trouble. It's easy to understand their position in that context. "You can't impose democracy. You certainly can't impose democracy when your hated by the very people you're imposing it on. It's a fools errand." We are giving democracy to people who want it badly but have never had a chance at getting it. You seek only to deny them something great out of spite and irrational hatred of Bush, you are a small and petty human.
Your post screams "I can't debate so I ad hom", dumbass.
I thought you were making an implicit point about its content, given the demographics of this website and the underhanded debating tactics of most of its members, apologies.
Popularity is a reliable indicator of accuracy, so we don't need to examine the content of C41.11. And if you disagree with that statement, why did you rely on the popularity fallacy, just trolling on your lunch break?
What about all the people that refuted nazi racism, do you ask them the same question, or are you a typical leftwing hypocrit? I'll enjoy watching you backpedal immensely btw.
The links explains it as "The temperature as which the brain begins to die". Modded insightful for being too lazy to visit the link, that's absurd..
Guess I lied about not posting here again, just so long as it's nothing long..
......"
"Things as on non-american I don't get is why that/your *asshole, IMHO* of a president can say "you are either with us, or with the terrorists" amazes me, divide his own country into two"
Uhm, I'm no mind reader and neither are you, but I can say with reasonable certainty that the president did not mean that literally, don't you ever get out and talk to people, they say and do things they don't mean all the time, life is hard and it's hard to know exactly what to say to get someone to support a cause even if it's the right cause, he just thought he was energizing his support base, he was not being sincere, come on now stop trolling..
"... spreading unverified (to 100%) information about a country having WMD (as it's a grave eminet threat to 'your' saftey) AND not taking the time to verify the claims (to 100%) prior doing any engaging
What's verification? If the US intelligence agencies thought it was true, and the French President and his agencies thought it was true, and the Vladimir Putin and the Russian Agencies thought it was true and the head of the UN as well as the security council and just about every member state thought it was true, I'd say that is as close to verification as you're going to get in this imperfect world. You can't ask for anything better, and I and many others are not convinced WMD and personel weren't shipped out of Iraq on the eve of the war, it's not like Saddam and Co. didn't have warning. No WMD found is not the same as no WMD.
"And still not be ashamed of himself (and how he behaved) and feel honorless."
Because he didn't do anything wrong, he followed the rules the best he could with the information supplied to him by the world. Even without the WMD issue, I see nothing wrong with democratizing a backwards country, and am personally disheartened that so many people would see the poor country ruled by Saddam's iron fist just because they harbor irrational hatreds of Bush and/or the right.
Hey, look at that, I get modded a troll and this guy gets modded insightful. Shows how childesh the left is. Anyways, this is my LAST post in this thread no matter what, no matter what you write and no matter what I write, we can both rebut just about each and every thing in each others posts, and I have a life, so this is it.
"What did Iraq have to do with 9/11? Attacking Iraq after 9/11 makes as much sense as the United States invading Brazil after Pearl Harbor. The two were not related at all, as numerous bipartisan investigations have confirmed. That lie, more than anything else, is why Bush adminstration is despised. We can not trust this administration with the power of war."
Did I say Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, nice red herring. I wasn't even talking about Iraq, I was talking about how Soro's says Bush's foreign policy changed, and I was listing reasons why it changed, read more carefully please. Now you got all worked up for nothing, but how do you plan to undo the damage? Oh? By pretending you didn't make a mistake as leftists always do? Ok then..
"On September 12, 2001, the administration was already drawing up invasion plans for Iraq; even though we were attacked from Afghanistan. It just doesn't make any sense. Their initial reaction wasn't to strike back at those who attacked us, but rather carry out their wet dream of converting the middle east to democracy at the barrel of a gun. As their report said, they would need "a cataclysmic event -- like a new Pearl Harbor" in order to carry this out."
If Bush makes a war plan before non-compliace: "Bush is a war monger and was going to invade anyway". If bush didn't make a war plan before non-compliance: "Bush can not anticipate his enemies and should not be in office, etc" You really need to open your mind about things, there are many more ways to see things and some way more enlightened than what you come up with. As it is, I'm sure Bush anticipated Iraq's actions (like that was hard) and tried to make the best plan for America in response. Gasp, say it ain't so! And when attacked by Osama, they were probably mad. But who cares and ready to kick a lot of ass, they see 9/11 as a result of the irresponsible anti-americanism being spewed by a lot of people and if I were them I'd be looking for key proponents of anti-american tripe to mess up too, Saddam was just stupid enough to not comply with resolutions. I don't see what it matters when they formulated a plan and why, they followed the same rules as if they hadn't been mad over 9/11, non-compliance = democratization, no less, no more. Everything else is a red herring.
"The truth is, as Wolfowitz admitted [usatoday.com], Iraq's WMD was just a convient excuse. An excuse that doesn't hold up under scrutiny."
Red herring. Let me make an analogy. "A key police officer today admitted that serial killing was just an excuse and Charles Manson was arrested because he had a beard." First of all, Wolfowitz may have been talking out of his ass, it happens, politicians are people too. Second, even if Bush used it as an excuse, then what reason would they go to war over and why would they risk discrediting the entire right wing for non-sense. Third, it is still a red herring, Saddam broke the rules and I don't care if Bush disliked his mustache, he had to go (let's convientently ignore the fact he throws women in wood chippers and children into rooms that drip acid and had a whole lot of mass graves, I know that doesn't matter to most of you, but I consider that a reason for removal itself.) Leftists always have a pet conspiracy theory, I see yours is revenge for Iraq 1 (roll eyes). Ok, moving right along..
"I can hear you now. "But EVERYONE thought he had WMD!". Not exactly. As subsequent investigations have determined, the western world's intellegence apparatus is an echo chamber. Chalabi had been telling the US whatever he thought would get the US to invade Iraq, so he could be setup as the new strongman. His reports were considered by many in the CIA to r
Sorry about that one big paragraph post, I forgot slashdot does that.
Wasn't a red herring, I misunderstood the asshat, giving him more credit than I should have, hell I thought he almost had an argument, but after your post I reread it and see he was just rambling to look like he had something to say. And partisanship has nothing to do with whether my arguments are correct or not, that is your partisanship showing.
Ok, you asked nicely and intelligently and I suspect you may be not a troll, so I'll just throw some stuff out there for you: "President Bush ran on the platform of a 'humble' foreign policy in 2000." Hellooooo, 9/11, non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. This guy is basically saying that since Bush didn't want to invade before he had a good reason, he should not have wanted to after he got a good reason (9/11 and Saddam's non-compliance giving us sufficient reason to believe he was a threat being the good reasons). "If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences." The consequence is that young women are no longer thrown into wood chippers and rooms that drip acid every few inches for political crimes, there will be no more mass graves for political dissidents, etc. "As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight." He throws around a lot of meaningless words about a situation that requires real resolve. I want to sing kumbaya with the terrorists too but it ain't going to happen, and I'm not about to sit around while they try to kill us either. "But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle." This borders on being his oppinion, but he wants us to accept it as a fact so I'll dispute it as such (some people just can't help but to try to have their cake and eat it too). Respect from people who will not act to defend us means very little to me (and I should hope the rest of us), justice means much more. Removing tyrrants from power means more to me than the friendship of France, who should be our friends anyway. And there is no evidence whatsoever that any violence against us will stop if we change our foreign policy. Osama and Saddam's non-compliance are responsible for this latest round, are we supposed to just take 9/11 on the chin to see if it breaks the cycle? What if that doesn't work, then we take another on the chin, and so on? There's a word for that, it's called "sucker". Leftists always want us to think we caused this and we caused that, and poor other countries are always just picked on. Why don't they take it on the chin and break the cycle of violence? No answer for that, they just must always be allowed to attack and we must always take it on the chin, because that's what's right. As you can see it would take me a year to write about everything wrong with this guys opinion (and that was his aim, to make so much garbage that no one in their right mind would waste time rebutting it all), see take this: "When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home." If I rebut this article but not this sentence, then most people would automatically subconsiously assume it was right and I was incapable of rebutting it. If I rebut every sentence that is wrong with this article I will be here until the election writing on it. Just because it's wrong doesn't mean it's no work to think of a bulletproof rebuttal to it. But if you seriously want rebuttals to his arguments, list specific ones you are concerned about, but not a whole bunch, nobody has time. Or check out some right leaning blogs, imo they are much more clear about what is opinion and what is fact that the other side, and way less emotional. Just my opinion, disagree but don't troll me leftists..
You must be young. Let me give you a free clue, all these people you're addressing, don't believe anything they say, they just say whatever supports their cause.
Nice red herring, you can't face the fact that the democrats supported a blood thirsty tyrant like Saddam and that Bush did the right thing so you go digging for conspiracy theories to justify your weak politics. If we're stealing Iraqi oil, why is gas 2 bucks a gal? Answer, because we're not stealing it, just helping them develope it, asshat.
I fail to see the difference, most democrats only "know" that "bush is, like, stupid n stuff", it could be argued that most republicans aren't pro-Bush, they're pro-republicans, so what Bush says in his campaign ads matters little. And as for your last line, I guess you just can't stand a news channel that doesn't hate America and peddle forged documents to smear those that don't.
Meant "leftist's", not "democrat's" - my fault.
It's pragmatism, dontcha know?
"flip-flopping" is a 2nd grade level phrase that makes it easier for Bush supporters to understand, plus it sounds funny? WTF do you call "chimp", "cowboy", "retard" that we hear daily from the left? Take your head out of the sand 'cause if there's one pragmatic side here, it sure as HELL ain't the left.