| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| frank_black_francis |
Posted - 10/19/2004 : 03:29:18
I remember assuming that it was kinda obvious that Al Gore was going to win, the logic being that the Bush candidacy was a bit of a joke, and a lot of my friends who were in the US were gonna take the opportunity - like I would have - to cast a vote for Nader, in protest to what seemed to be a joke election, knowing Gore had it in the bag. Oh well.
I assumed this time last year that whoever ran against Bush would also have it in the bag (due to the outright ass-clownery in the last 3 years)....but apparently they managed to 'spin' their way to a neck-and-neck race....despite the fact that Bush had proved himself a moron 3 times in a row recently (and also despite the fact that Cheney doesnt even seem to care that people know he is 'Satan' incarnate).
Now I am preparing myself for the worst. |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| VoVat |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 19:23:44
quote:
Are there politicians that don't lie? Oh yeah, that's right...Abraham Lincoln. And George Washington.
I heard that, when Clinton, Bush, and Kerry chopped down cherry trees, they never owned up to it!
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Erebus
Kerry was most decidedly not in Cambodia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh, if you say so.
Well, see, Erebus WAS in Cambodia. And he had really good binoculars, so he could see every other person in the country at the time.
Seriously, though, since when is changing your mind tantamount to lying?
"Signature quotes are so lame." --Nathan |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 19:02:07
uhh, no because most people are not as quick to violence as murder as president bush. maybe the reason you think they are is why you support him.
'k i got you and erebus confused, to be honest i don't read which one of you is posting what. i know if it's republican bullshit then it's going to be one of the two of you. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:58:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
you're the one threatening violence and i'm childish?
you guarantee i spend half my life on some sites but you have no idea what ones? i like the sound of my own voice? my post count is pretty low for how long i've been here.
you could care less what they were doing 30 years ago? doesn't seem that way previously in the thread.
I never threatened violence, I am not a violent person. I was just saying that there is no way that you are as abrasive in "real" life as you are on this site. If you were, you would have been beaten into submission or brutally murdered long ago.
And please point out where in this thread I showed any concern over what Bush or Kerry were doing 30 years ago.
|
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:49:12
you're the one threatening violence and i'm childish?
you guarantee i spend half my life on some sites but you have no idea what ones? i like the sound of my own voice? my post count is pretty low for how long i've been here.
you could care less what they were doing 30 years ago? doesn't seem that way previously in the thread.
|
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:33:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
hahaha add substance? hello mr. pot, this is mr. kettle.
discussion? all i see is a couple of mindless drones spewing out predigested horse shit. you want a discussion? have one with me. you're the only one here throwing around insults with no substance. respond to my comment about bush's activities during the same time period. you won't, because there's nothing you can say that doesn't make you look like an ass.
one of the other sites you "guarantee" i spend half my life at? what sites would those be? i'd like to know. because the only place i spend half my life is work. i live in the real world, not up dick cheney's colon.
edit:
i also think it's hilarious how you insult "the left" and "kerry supporters", when you know that's who you're talking to.
why don't you two get a clue and take your crap somewhere else? nobody here is interested in it.
I'm not even going to try to have a discussion with someone as childish as yourself in this medium, it would be pointless. We could probably sit down somewhere face to face and have an actual discussion because you wouldn't act like such an asshole in fear of getting your ass kicked. But when people like you get behind a computer screen, any chance of a civlized discussion is thrown out the window.
I have no idea what other sites you spend your time at. But you love the sound of your own voice so much I would find it hard to believe that you limit your rants to only this message board.
And I could care less what Bush or Kerry were doing 30 years ago. Their public service record is all I need to make a decision. Kerry tried to run based on his military service record 30 years ago (and ignored his public service record), which made it a relevant discussion to those who cared. Bush has admitted that he was an alcoholic in his younger days and that after he met his wife he settled down, who cares? |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:17:38
hahaha add substance? hello mr. pot, this is mr. kettle.
discussion? all i see is a couple of mindless drones spewing out predigested horse shit. you want a discussion? have one with me. you're the only one here throwing around insults with no substance. respond to my comment about bush's activities during the same time period. you won't, because there's nothing you can say that doesn't make you look like an ass.
one of the other sites you "guarantee" i spend half my life at? what sites would those be? i'd like to know. because the only place i spend half my life is work. i live in the real world, not up dick cheney's colon.
edit:
i also think it's hilarious how you insult "the left" and "kerry supporters", when you know that's who you're talking to.
why don't you two get a clue and take your crap somewhere else? nobody here is interested in it. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:11:37
quote:
Originally posted by Ebb Vicious
hey look this thread turned into another erebus and harringk suck bush's balls fest.
sorry i wasn't paying attention to nip it in the bud when they started.
god you guys are fucking retards. you want to talk about kerry lying in the '60s and '70s, (we'll just forget the issue of whether the Swift Boat guys are reliable sources), why don't you take a look at what your buddy G-Dub was up to around that time. wonderful fella, really.
you guys are ridiculous. take your bullshit elsewhere, it's not appreciated or useful here.
edit:
the most unbelievably hilarious part of the whole thing is that you two seem to think you are unbiased, or somehow less biased than other people on here.
let me clue you in; you're the most biased two people on the forum.
Ebb have you ever added anything of substance to any thread on this site? You come into every thread throwing around insults and trying to sound tough hoping that you can stifle any actual discussion that is taking place. Once, just once, why don't you try to act like a civilised person and actually contribute to a discussion instead of trying to shut it down.
If that is too much to ask from you then just mosey on down to one of the many other sites I guarantee you spend half your life at and spread your hate there. |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:09:52
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
The fact remains, you have no justification to call Bush or Blair a liar based on their pre-war WMD claims.
ok how about just reckless shitheads for going to war far before it was even remotely necessary?
how about totally fucking inhuman for wasting human lives to make haliburton and saudi arabia happy?
how about liars for constantly trying to paint a happy face on death and misery?
why don't you do everyone here a favour and throw your keyboard in the garbage bin. there's nothing you'll ever type that's worth reading. |
| frank_black_francis |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:05:39
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Just another Kerry lie for you. The Department of Labor Statistics, however, says that in 2002 the unemployment rate for black males in New York City stood at 12.6 percent. And for the first six months of 2004 it calculated the unemployment rate for black men and women at 12.6 percent -- just a tad lower than Kerry's 50 percent.
Actually, a little point of fact....The Dept of Labor Statistics bases its unemployment figures on the 'employable' population....in other words, it calculates how many people are receiving unemployment insurance benefits, compares it to those who are employed and derive their percentage. Once those people have been unemployed for 6 months, they drop of the list considered for employment rates (they are classified as not looking for employment anymore)....based on the whole population of 18 years-65 years, the unemployed percentage is more like 50%.
....or you could just run with your mis-information....see how far it'll take ya. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 18:00:19
quote:
Originally posted by El Barto
You promised, change your vote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041008/news_1n8weapons.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons
http://www.ktvu.com/politics/3792265/detail.html
Did you even read those articles?
All they said is that they have admitted that we haven't found any stockpiles of WMD and there may not have been any there. Shit man, that ain't no smoking gun, it says nothing about WHAT THEY KNEW BEFORE THE WAR, it only says what was discovered after we had the benefit of an unfettered search. It doesn't change the fact that they trusted the intelligence that they would find WMD before the invasion. If you're surprised those stories weren't major headlines you're dumber than I thought.
I said show me something that proves that Bush/Blair KNEW AHEAD OF TIME THAT IRAQ HAD NO WMD AND THEY WOULDN'T FIND ANY. That is the only way you can justify the liar tag your side throws around.
Your whole point of view doesn't even make sense. IF Bush/Blair knew ahead of time that there were no WMD, why would they make that the main argument to go to war knowing they wouldn't find any? Or if they're as evil as you all seem to think, why didn't they just plant a little antrax, or nerve gas to justify their reasoning? If they knew all of this ahead of time they could've made just as good of a case for war without ever bringing up WMD and would've received the same amount of support from those of us that are still supporting them. All you crybabies wouldn't have supported them no matter what they said or what they found anyway.
The fact remains, you have no justification to call Bush or Blair a liar based on their pre-war WMD claims.
|
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 17:54:36
ebb vicious exists so i don't have to. |
| Ebb Vicious |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 17:46:47
hey look this thread turned into another erebus and harringk suck bush's balls fest.
sorry i wasn't paying attention to nip it in the bud when they started.
god you guys are fucking retards. you want to talk about kerry lying in the '60s and '70s, (we'll just forget the issue of whether the Swift Boat guys are reliable sources), why don't you take a look at what your buddy G-Dub was up to around that time. wonderful fella, really.
you guys are ridiculous. take your bullshit elsewhere, it's not appreciated or useful here.
edit:
the most unbelievably hilarious part of the whole thing is that you two seem to think you are unbiased, or somehow less biased than other people on here.
let me clue you in; you're the most biased two people on the forum. |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 17:07:40
me too |
| n/a |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 17:03:43
I would like to point out he's not representative
Frank Black ate my hamster |
| bumblebeeboy2 |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:49:56
same over here... intelligence misleading... but no regrets for going to war (ie removing saddam and his regime)
i kind of agree with the war and am pro-blair. not *really* a fan of bush, but don't think he's as bad as people make out... gore would have been good, liked clinton, not too sure about kerry at all.
and that's a uk'ers view of things.  i shall craw back under my great rock...
The Monkey Helper has arrived http://www.monkeyhelper.co.uk (that is my band) |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:45:11
quote:
[i]Originally posted by El Barto
Bush and Cheney admit that a major argument they used to go to war, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, *WAS A FUCKING LIE*, and you hear about it for what? A day?
I believe they are "admitting" that a basis for going to war was in ERROR, not "a fucking lie". You can see the difference, can't you? And perhaps you can even see why the story had no legs? Seems to me that the Bush supporters you so despise might just possess rational faculties you yourself lack. |
| El Barto |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:25:11
You promised, change your vote:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041008/news_1n8weapons.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=1&u=/ap/20041007/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_weapons
http://www.ktvu.com/politics/3792265/detail.html
You know what makes me sick about this? That nobody cares. You know that there are people out there who support Bush who haven't even HEARD this news? Clinton lied about a blowjob, and it was headlined for months and months. Bush and Cheney admit that a major argument they used to go to war, WHICH RESULTED IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, *WAS A FUCKING LIE*, and you hear about it for what? A day? I searched news sites the NEXT FUCKING DAY and could not find a trace of the story. I guess you can see who controls the media. Had this been headline news for a week, Bush wouldn't stand a chance.
...then again, I'm giving the American People the benefit of the doubt. The average Bush supporter is too stupid to put 2 and 2 together...they think it makes 5.
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:25:09
Hey, I want to be called an idiot too. I must be at least as stupid as harringk. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:23:45
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Your side is like a broken record screeching that Bush/Blair lied. Where is the proof? You claim to be a scientist, don't you deal with facts? And no, the fact that no significant WMD has turned up in Iraq doesn't prove your case. The only thing that proves is bad intelligence by various intelligence agencies around the globe.
Show me a smoking gun that Bush/Blair KNEW there would be no WMD found in Iraq but proceeded anyway and continued to claim it was there and I'll change my vote.
I'm not going to waste my time. Nothing I post would enough for you and your 1 vote doesn't matter to me. There are plenty of articles and memos showing that the Bush administration emphasized intelligence that supported their case, while ignoring and keeping from other public officials intelligence that contradicted their claims. Also, BEFORE the war the UN inspections (another agency from aroud the globe) found no evidence for WMD.
And I don't claim to be a scientist. I am a scientist. |
| El Barto |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 16:20:28
quote:
Your side is like a broken record screeching that Bush/Blair lied. Where is the proof? You claim to be a scientist, don't you deal with facts? And no, the fact that no significant WMD has turned up in Iraq doesn't prove your case. The only thing that proves is bad intelligence by various intelligence agencies around the globe.
Show me a smoking gun that Bush/Blair KNEW there would be no WMD found in Iraq but proceeded anyway and continued to claim it was there and I'll change my vote.
What more proof do you need other than the fact that Bush and Cheney came out and admitted they knew Saddam didn't have WMD, but if they hadn't done anything, "he would get them eventually."? Did you miss that news story? I think it was sometime last week...it was a blip on the radar. THEY FUCKING ADMITTED IT. They also admitted that they weren't very sure about the intelligence they received, THE INTELLIGENCE THEY USED TO GO TO WAR. The intelligence they based their whole fucking argument on...they weren't sure about it. How about Rice admitting that they weren't sure about Saddam's connection to Al-Qaeda? How about the Iraq report which stated Saddam hadn't manufactured any weapons since 92?
Your idiocy makes me sick to admit I share the same species with you. I hope all those who support Bush will rot in hell.
I guess I just wasn't made for these times. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 15:17:26
Just another Kerry lie for you. Reminds me of the "disenfranchise one million black voters" lie they've been using lately, evidently on the basis of bogus extrapolation from the number of black voters allegedly disenfranchised in Florida 2000.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20041021.shtml
[in a debate] Kerry said, "I don't know how you can govern in this country when you look at New York City and you see that 50 percent of the black males there are unemployed." Really?
Kerry apparently got his 50 percent figure from the Community Service Society of New York, an organization that purports to "lead the fight against poverty in New York City." Their February 2004 annual report states, "In 2003 barely one-half (51.8 percent) of New York black men were employed," citing data derived from "Current Population Surveys," "monthly estimates" and "statistical models."
The Department of Labor Statistics, however, says that in 2002 the unemployment rate for black males in New York City stood at 12.6 percent. And for the first six months of 2004 it calculated the unemployment rate for black men and women at 12.6 percent -- just a tad lower than Kerry's 50 percent.
|
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:55:50
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I do in fact have a short memory. Terrible thing.
Scroll up yourself and see my reply.
Ok, I missed this predictable little tidbit at the bottom of your post.
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
Regime change does not equal war. Plus, I have hard time holding someone at fault for supporting the President when the President and his administration was lying to him about the situation. Kerry may have thought Saddam was an imminent threat, but it has become clear that was due to Bush's lies.
Your side is like a broken record screeching that Bush/Blair lied. Where is the proof? You claim to be a scientist, don't you deal with facts? And no, the fact that no significant WMD has turned up in Iraq doesn't prove your case. The only thing that proves is bad intelligence by various intelligence agencies around the globe.
Show me a smoking gun that Bush/Blair KNEW there would be no WMD found in Iraq but proceeded anyway and continued to claim it was there and I'll change my vote.
|
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:51:21
Ronald J. Watkins = rightwing asshat.
So! There tha'rt bare again, nowt but a bare-arsed lass an' a bit of a Lady Jane! |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:38:56
I found this an insightful thought experiment regarding the anything-to-win mendacity of Kerry.
http://www.sunnyblog.com/
If Bush had not invaded Iraq
10/19/2004
Democrat Presidential nominee John Kerry delivered a speech today condemning President Bush for failing to invade Iraq in the follow-up of military action against the Talaban and Al Qaeda in Afghanastan. "Leaving this tyrant in power in contravention of numerous United Nations resolutions is unconscionable," Kerry told the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "He has left available a base of operations and a source of supply and money."
Kerry went on to criticize the war against terror as "stalled" while the real threat to America, "Saddam Hussein’s Iraq goes untouched." Kerry said, "People are murdered daily in Baghdad and throughout the country. Rape rooms are a tragic reality. Torture chambers are full as Saddam’s sons carry out their sadistic impulses on the helpless and hapless victims of this regime. President Bush has done nothing as this brutal dictator takes the money from the Oil for Food to build palaces while his people go without food...
"There can be no doubt of Saddam’s ties to our terrorist enemies. We know that in 1998, after bin Laden issued his public fatwa against the United States, two al Queda members went to Iraq where they met with Iraqi intelligence. Within weeks, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden and extend to him safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden remained with the Talaban, but the invitation from Saddam was always there. Al-Zarqawi has long received refuge in Iraq. The terrorist Forouk Hijazi is known to train his forces there. Abu Nidal has safe haven in Baghdad as he plots murders. Abu Abbas, who planned the hijacking of the Achille Lauro, lives in safety in Iraq. And at Salman Pack, just south of Baghdad, terrorists train using the fuselage of a commercial jet airline. The trail of evidence revealing Saddam Hussein’s ties to terrorists is self-evident to all but those in the White House.
"Our own intelligence organizations and those of Great Britain, France and Germany, agree that Saddam is aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. For all that, he has been left free to further develop his weapons of mass destruction which he can deliver into the hands of those who make war against us at any moment. Saddam Hussein has trained, financed and armed terrorist who attack and murder us, yet our President stands stalled on the border of Iraq, preoccupied with wiping up the last remnants of the Talaban in Afghanistan. To leave this cancer in the midst of the Middle East is to have assured defeat in this so-called war against terror. We need fresh leadership, a President with the vision to remove those who support our enemies from power. To have not invaded Iraq, when the whole world acknowledged the necessity, is to leave a job undone and is the height of arrogance and criminal stupidity."
|
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:37:14
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Unfortunately if you get your wish and Kerry wins, I think you'll actually see what armageddon is.
Oooh, yeah...good ol' tasty fear. Love it, donchya?
You know what I'm afraid of?
I'm afraid that Kerry is going to have his hands so full picking up after Bush's 4 years of right-wing idiocy that he won't be able to concentrate on domestic issues as much as he'd like to...thereby providing indivduals like yourself with more ammunition to cut him down.
We're ready for all of it, though - and we've been ready since 2K.
No worries. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:26:26
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I thought we needed to attack because Iraq had WMD. Not because they could make WMD or that Saddam himself is a WMD, but because they HAVE them. Bush sure fucked that one up. Cost him a second term.
You have a short memory Darwin. Scroll up the page a bit and read Kerry's quotes again. Kerry's position on Iraq was the same as Bush's until Dean started to pull away in the primaries by opposing the war. Then Kerry changed his entire song (the first time but not the last this would happen).
I do in fact have a short memory. Terrible thing.
Scroll up yourself and see my reply. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:24:52
Unfortunately if you get your wish and Kerry wins, I think you'll actually see what armageddon is.
Kerry: "Lets give nuclear fuel to terrorists just to test them, if they don't blow us (or israel) up we'll know they were honest about their intentions. I mean it worked great with Clinton and the N Koreans, so lets do it again."
Good plan buddy... |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:24:01
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
You really should check out the Swift Boats book. The text rings true, and the Swift representatives could not have been more credible each time I saw them on TV.
Don't you ever wonder what's in those military records Kerry won't release? My own belief is that he may not have received an honorable discharge until Carter's Vietnam amnesty program went into effect. We're dealing with world class scum here, and I think you know it.
I don't. And, honestly I can't really believe that you think that Swift Boat book is credible. I need to work (so can't keep googling) but there has been plenty of documentation that the Swift Boat guys are liars. But, it doesn't really matter. This flare up was in August and the campaign has moved on. |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:13:52
I'm still voting for him and so are millions of other people who want Alfred E. f-ing Newman and the Armageddon Boyz out of the whitehouse.
So! There tha'rt bare again, nowt but a bare-arsed lass an' a bit of a Lady Jane! |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:11:56
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Here is a funny one for you.
While pandering to one group or another Kerry insists "I don't own an SUV" When confronted about a Suburban kept at the family home in Idaho (only 1 of 6 SUVs owned by the family) what was Kerry's reply? "The family has it, I don't have it."
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3835&format=
Of course most of his defenders will just say "who cares" we're talking about a stupid car, much the same way they defended Clinton's BJ lies. But it says a lot about his character, or lack thereof.
We have a similar situation, except our Prime Minister lied about Iraq's weapons capability in order to persuade us to go to war. Same difference I guess.
"You ever seen a man say goodbye to a shoe?"
"Yes, once..." |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:06:05
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Here is a funny one for you.
While pandering to one group or another Kerry insists "I don't own an SUV" When confronted about a Suburban kept at the family home in Idaho (only 1 of 6 SUVs owned by the family) what was Kerry's reply? "The family has it, I don't have it."
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3835&format=
Of course most of his defenders will just say "who cares" we're talking about a stupid car, much the same way they defended Clinton's BJ lies. But it says a lot about his character, or lack thereof.
Your right lying about an SUV when Kerry considers that his wife's car is worse than lying about nuclear material, WMD, being a "steward" for the environment, ect.
If that's the best you got, it's going to be a landslide. First the Red Sox! Next Kerry! It's going to be a great Fall. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:05:45
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I thought we needed to attack because Iraq had WMD. Not because they could make WMD or that Saddam himself is a WMD, but because they HAVE them. Bush sure fucked that one up. Cost him a second term.
You have a short memory Darwin. Scroll up the page a bit and read Kerry's quotes again. Kerry's position on Iraq was the same as Bush's until Dean started to pull away in the primaries by opposing the war. Then Kerry changed his entire song (the first time but not the last this would happen). |
| Erebus |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:03:44
You really should check out the Swift Boats book. The text rings true, and the Swift representatives could not have been more credible each time I saw them on TV.
Don't you ever wonder what's in those military records Kerry won't release? My own belief is that he may not have received an honorable discharge until Carter's Vietnam amnesty program went into effect. We're dealing with world class scum here, and I think you know it. |
| harringk |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 14:01:00
Here is a funny one for you.
While pandering to one group or another Kerry insists "I don't own an SUV" When confronted about a Suburban kept at the family home in Idaho (only 1 of 6 SUVs owned by the family) what was Kerry's reply? "The family has it, I don't have it."
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=3835&format=
Of course most of his defenders will just say "who cares" we're talking about a stupid car, much the same way they defended Clinton's BJ lies. But it says a lot about his character, or lack thereof. |
| darwin |
Posted - 10/21/2004 : 13:57:19
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
Kerry was most decidedly not in Cambodia.
Oh, if you say so.
quote:
If you read the first half of the Swift Boats book you'll see that Kerry lied and falsified himself into his medals.
Hehe, you're a funny guy. Swift Boats book = proof. Good one.
quote:
And Bush said we need to act BEFORE Iraq became an imminent threat.
I thought we needed to attack because Iraq had WMD. Not because they could make WMD or that Saddam himself is a WMD, but because they HAVE them. Bush sure fucked that one up. Cost him a second term. |
