1
   

Another hard hitter by Ann (adams appleless) Coulter

Forums: Current Events
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Sep, 2007 07:32 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;34416 wrote:
One you can prove the other you cant? Next.


take the blinkers off !
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:07 am
@Drnaline,
The blinders will come off as soon as you put proof directly in front of my face about the other?
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:32 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35284 wrote:
The blinders will come off as soon as you put proof directly in front of my face about the other?


You sure make a lot of demands....getting any returns? LOL
Proof? You wanting proof, and you can't even explain your posts.
If proof were provided, you still wouldn't be able to make sense of it....you have to be able to read, "and comprehend".
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:33 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35284 wrote:
The blinders will come off as soon as you put proof directly in front of my face about the other?


you still waiting for them to find WMDs are you :wtf:
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:35 am
@aaronssongs,
aaronssongs;35298 wrote:
You sure make a lot of demands....getting any returns? LOL
Proof? You wanting proof, and you can't even explain your posts.
If proof were provided, you still wouldn't be able to make sense of it....you have to be able to read, "and comprehend".
Yup, that's the way it works, you make accusations and then i ask you to back it up. Your post it the typical answer the an inquiring question. Still waiting.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:37 am
@scooby-doo cv,
scooby-doo;35299 wrote:
you still waiting for them to find WMDs are you :wtf:
They did find WMD's where were you? They didn't find stockpiles if that's what you ment. But like we all know, just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they were not there.
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:42 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35304 wrote:
They did find WMD's where were you? They didn't find stockpiles if that's what you ment. But like we all know, just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they were not there.


oh come on ! tony blair admitted they found no WMDS,they stopped looking for them a long time ago !
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:46 am
@Drnaline,
Try your search feature. There are a few article posted on this site.
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:50 am
@Drnaline,
BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US reveals Iraq nuclear operation

The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.

"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.

He said it would keep "potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists".

Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 "highly radioactive sources" were also removed.

The material was taken from a former nuclear research facility on 23 June, after being packaged by 20 experts from the US Energy Department's secret laboratories.

It was flown out of the country aboard a military plane in a joint operation with the Department of Defense, and is being stored temporarily at a Department of Energy facility.
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:53 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35309 wrote:
Try your search feature. There are a few article posted on this site.


Yes, articles about the remnants of a defunct, and impotent arms program that was no threat what so ever to the U.S., doused with hyperbole and emotional rhetoric to gain momentum for the neocon agenda. Hook, line, and sinker.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:56 am
@Drnaline,
NOne the less WMD's. So your saying the BBC is lieing?
scooby-doo cv
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 08:58 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35309 wrote:
Try your search feature. There are a few article posted on this site.


your still clinging on to this WMDs garbage,blair admitted none were found !
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:01 am
@Drnaline,
WMD's only but one of the reason, why do you discard the others?
0 Replies
 
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:14 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35315 wrote:
NOne the less WMD's. So your saying the BBC is lieing?


If they claimed they were somehow a threat to the US, than yes, I am.

(lying would be the proper spelling, but like facts, don't let that stand in your way.)
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:36 am
@Drnaline,
When and if you never make a mistake again, then i will consider satifying your desire.
92b16vx
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:42 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35326 wrote:
When and if you never make a mistake again, then i will consider satifying your desire.


When, and if, you ever decide to make sense, we will listen.
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:43 am
@Drnaline,
I will say regardlesss.
0 Replies
 
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:50 am
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35301 wrote:
Yup, that's the way it works, you make accusations and then i ask you to back it up. Your post it the typical answer the an inquiring question. Still waiting.


'Your post it the typical answer the an inquiring question."

I invite anyone in this forum to try to explain this "nonsensical" statement.
Now, this is supposed to be your boy...and no one can come to his defense, on this? You're going to leave him "hanging in the wind"? He is crashing and burning and the silence is deafening. So much for cohesion and unity , right? It's why the Repubs, now, are so willing to throw Craig "under the bus". Because he is "an embarrassment".
0 Replies
 
Drnaline
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Sep, 2007 09:52 am
@Drnaline,
Personally i'm glad he's sticking up for himself. I care not his sexual persuasion but evidently you do? He didn't embarrase me.
aaronssongs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Sep, 2007 03:27 pm
@Drnaline,
Drnaline;35339 wrote:
Personally i'm glad he's sticking up for himself. I care not his sexual persuasion but evidently you do? He didn't embarrase me.


Sticking up for himself? The man pleaded guilty to a crime...no one held a gun to his head...he did so, after he had been mirandized. I don't care about his sexual persuasion...he could have been a heterosexual senator soliciting a prostitute...the fact remains, he was a public official, in a public setting, committing a crime, which he admitted to, despite the fact that he was married and had a family. He embarrassed himself, his family, his constituents, Congress, The Republican Party , and the nation....how's that for impact>?
Yet, he didn't embarrass "you"...wonder what that says about you?
And you still didn't explain your previous posting....I don't think you can, is why.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Fergusonj shooting, autopsy in, all shots from front - Discussion by gungasnake
BBC Documentary - Blaming The Jews (Muslim Antisemitism) - Question by wmwcjr
About the 2022 monkeypox outbreak - Discussion by JGoldman10
What is: Scientology? - Question by cheater120
Paris goes big with bicycles. One million bicyclists take over streets. - Discussion by coluber2001
Willard Scott just passed - Discussion by JGoldman10
Africa Facebook group muted me until Aug 19 - Discussion by dirrtydozen22
What would George Carlin talk about if he was still around? - Question by JGoldman10
Were the Atlanta spa killings that transpired recently politically-motivated? - Question by JGoldman10
What newsworthy things has Biden done since he got into office? - Question by JGoldman10
The aftermath of the 2020 Covid-19 pandemic and crisis - Discussion by JGoldman10
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Another hard hitter by Ann (adams appleless) Coulter
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 04:30:50
▲ ▼