Patriotic to support president no matter what? or.
- Thread starter sleeper_
- Start date
Very selectively i might add. Just becuase its reported does not mean it is true.sleeper_ said:
i'm not calling you one just saying how you are presenting yourselff.
sleeper_ said:
The document and fact you refer to are hardly that and that is the problem. You say documents were forged. Thats fine, but by who, how were they forged. What did they say.
A single report barely latched on to by a media that would kill each other to get to a crash site first to have an eclusive is hardly a legitimised fact.
It would aid your case by posting links to creditable sites that can give a more indelth analysis then either you or I want to type about.
I am not calling you a wing nut, more of acting as a teacher to help yopu debate your case.
Love you Sparkles
sleeper_ said:
i guess he gave the people an explanation, not necessarily a CONVINCING one, but an explanation nonetheless
nor is he really responsible for giving a convincing explanation until election time, lovely.
Convinced enough people that congress isn't calling for his resignation. If he convinced you or not doesn't mean dick.
He didn't need to convince me of anything.
Not to us but he does have to to congress or they can end his s*** fast!
as for israel:
35+ yrs of a harsh, brutal, and viscious occupation supported unilaterally by the US. Constant terror and attrocities and Palestine retaliates with terrorist bombings which no one really accepts, but then again, WHO is occupying WHOM? the point is both sides are wrong and YET the US UNILATERALLY supports israel's actions which are as terrible or even less "justified" so to speak than palestine's.
35+ yrs of a harsh, brutal, and viscious occupation supported unilaterally by the US. Constant terror and attrocities and Palestine retaliates with terrorist bombings which no one really accepts, but then again, WHO is occupying WHOM? the point is both sides are wrong and YET the US UNILATERALLY supports israel's actions which are as terrible or even less "justified" so to speak than palestine's.
okok, seroiusly though i'm not gonna go do the research. the hole punched evidence has been clearly presented such that you can find info with a little searching and by NO MEANS is it "conspirist" in nature, i'm simply stating the facts. I'm not REACHING with any of the poor evidence but reporting how the initial evidence presented did not stand up at all whatsoever to some simple cross examination.
get off your ass and do some work yourself.
btw, the some of the collected shoddy evidence was obtained from a cbc broadcast re the bush administration's "sell" of the war to the public.
why is the bush administration using such poor evidence? isn't that worse than presenting no evidence at all? guess not in the propagandist's sense; they bombard you with the allegations so much so that you begin to think to yourself, "maybe there is some truth to what they're saying" then once you've done that, the gov't is already successful.
get off your ass and do some work yourself.
btw, the some of the collected shoddy evidence was obtained from a cbc broadcast re the bush administration's "sell" of the war to the public.
why is the bush administration using such poor evidence? isn't that worse than presenting no evidence at all? guess not in the propagandist's sense; they bombard you with the allegations so much so that you begin to think to yourself, "maybe there is some truth to what they're saying" then once you've done that, the gov't is already successful.
as for the forged document from what i remember, it was reported as if someone was paid for the document. someone who was probably desparate for some money. the signatures looked so pathetic in their attempt at authenticity, and of course the US doesn't bother to cross examine the document (well, they probably did, but naively passed it on as CONVINCING evidence and then go on to downplay the damning of it. --> voila! propaganda!.
so, you're saying SINCE bush had managed to convince congress that you're completely behind him? even when the OVERWHELMING evidence and excuses he's use used is actually a far cry from it? ie. this is the ONLY evidence you need to support your president? *laugh*
ie. present some real evidence that has you convinced.
how can you believe someone that tries to pull a fast one on you like that? i'm sorry, i can't.
also, you agree with me that the administration HAS NOT presented their so claimed "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE"?
ie. present some real evidence that has you convinced.
how can you believe someone that tries to pull a fast one on you like that? i'm sorry, i can't.
also, you agree with me that the administration HAS NOT presented their so claimed "OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE"?
First I know the answers such as those I just asked and palestine had to surrender thus the land from which it used to luasch its attack is now isreals that is coomon sense. Isreal has tried far more the Palestine to reach a peace but the leader of the Palestinians favor getting themselves and love ones killed by being jack off. All arguing is pointless. the day Arafat is dead will be the greatest possible chance for peace in that area.
Aditionaly the governemet never had to convice me to go into Iraq at all. Evidance was completely un needed. Another reasone I question your surces is that for all that I read and all that i listen to, and yes I seek out both sides as much as I can and is as I am doing now and I have yrt to hear anything you have stated as legitimate. I have heard it but the evidance to back it up was lackluster and in itself full of holes.
Aditionaly the governemet never had to convice me to go into Iraq at all. Evidance was completely un needed. Another reasone I question your surces is that for all that I read and all that i listen to, and yes I seek out both sides as much as I can and is as I am doing now and I have yrt to hear anything you have stated as legitimate. I have heard it but the evidance to back it up was lackluster and in itself full of holes.
sleeper_ said:
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE is very subjective and can be denied no matter its validity. Evindace is only such is someone un biased is observing it. I needed no convincing as I wanted to see that POS dead since the early 90s. the worst mistake we ever made was acking off them then and now were back. I support him as i trust in his judgement. You do not thus if he personaly walked you threw a Iraq Chemical weapon plant you would still deny the evidance.
the non intelligence dossier:
http://www.lynnejones.org.uk/iraqme.htm
(at the bottom) as "dodgy dossier"
some more:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm
just look up "dodgy dossier iraq" in google
http://www.lynnejones.org.uk/iraqme.htm
(at the bottom) as "dodgy dossier"
some more:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DA63.htm
just look up "dodgy dossier iraq" in google
1st MP3 in NH said:
how about they very hand that supplied him with arms in the iraq-iranian war?
don't say that the US isn't partly responsible for where iraq is today.
as for overwhelming evidence, ALL i'm asking for is some good solid evidence of which i've seen none. just point some out to me is what i'm asking; i've done my job is showing the excuses presented by the US are full of holes.
http://www.bushwatch.com/iraqevidence.htm
probably biased to a degree (i haven't read it)
some other things to search:
"IAEA aluminum casings iraq"
"iraq forged documents evidence"
"iraq former cia agent prague"
probably biased to a degree (i haven't read it)
some other things to search:
"IAEA aluminum casings iraq"
"iraq forged documents evidence"
"iraq former cia agent prague"
Last edited:
First how the hell can you trust any peice of any information on that sight as it is a fully biased and completely unlegitamet soure. There is no way to tell what has been altered. those ass holes are every bit as politicaly modivated to spead lies as is any other politician.
Now if you go to there counter Dossier its the most unlogic list of crap I have ever read. You talk about Propaganda jesus could you have picked a worse source then them to back you up.
Spiked I will continue to read for a counter point as they seem pliticaly unalligned, so thank you, but the English Labour Party. WTF were you thinking!
Now if you go to there counter Dossier its the most unlogic list of crap I have ever read. You talk about Propaganda jesus could you have picked a worse source then them to back you up.
Spiked I will continue to read for a counter point as they seem pliticaly unalligned, so thank you, but the English Labour Party. WTF were you thinking!
my point is that the counter evidence i got was from a credible source (cbc news broadcast), elaboration on those can be found with scrutiny at VARIOUS sources.
just keep reading the evidence is there, and i'm sorry the media agrees with me whether they make a big issue of it or not.
and i take no responsibility in you missing any of these broadcasts.
and i'm sorry, i haven't seen anything in the media regarding GOOD evidence by the administration and obviously i've seen more media than you since i've seen the media that you claim to not have seen.
just keep reading the evidence is there, and i'm sorry the media agrees with me whether they make a big issue of it or not.
and i take no responsibility in you missing any of these broadcasts.
and i'm sorry, i haven't seen anything in the media regarding GOOD evidence by the administration and obviously i've seen more media than you since i've seen the media that you claim to not have seen.
Last edited:
oh right.. i'm saying media in that multiple sources all reinforce eachother ON SIMPLE FACT.. ie. something as UNBIASED AS:
- 2+2=4
- that document was plagiarised based on such and such document
sorry, observation and reports such as those leave very little room for bias, even if given the maximum amount of bias, doesn't change the truth. also, if a biased group reports the same as a nonbias means the information is biased? hardly. i'm done.
be you as you will :rollseyes:
- 2+2=4
- that document was plagiarised based on such and such document
sorry, observation and reports such as those leave very little room for bias, even if given the maximum amount of bias, doesn't change the truth. also, if a biased group reports the same as a nonbias means the information is biased? hardly. i'm done.
be you as you will :rollseyes:
