1
   

Never forget. Some need a reminder. Powerful video clip

 
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:18 pm
Xena wrote:
KactusK wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
KactusK I'd like to offer a warm welcome to A2K! We can never have too much reason here. Stick around... you'll learn to love it here.


Thank you for the welcome, but apparently you CAN have too much reason here as every single post I submitted has been deleted.

OCCOM BILL - Was I dreaming last night? What other explanation could there possibly be?

I notice the person to whom I was responding still has a few of her "flame-baiting" posts available for all to see.

Xena - don't hold your breath waiting for that apology from Willow. Unless you want to turn blue and pass out, that is.


I don't expect an apology.. From day one I've been viciously attacked for anything I've posted that certain people don't agree with. They go on and on in their little click, taking turns spewing hate filled posts.. I have from time to time responded with not so nice words, like stupid or ignorant. Igorant isn't really too harsh, but noone likes to be called that.

This post was an emotional one though. It is good to get stuff off your chest and as you have seen, people did take a step back. After the first initial post, they've had time to think about it and others brought them along. I don't know if she stills wants to beat me up though!

Welcome!
I have been told by someone i respect that my fighting statement was not necessary and obviously not taken how it was meant..it was meant tongue in cheek ..because i disagree with the war, with our actions there, and how our president has handled the iraqi situation i am labled unpatriotic and unamerican...and told i have forgotten 9/11..and that feels like a personal attack and "them be fighting" words :wink: and I agree that i take things a little too personal ..but am amazed that those that spew ugliness are always aghast when they get it back..the video is obviously used to generate emotions and if it is not the emotion you expect...whoops...Did you not expect there would be negative reactions to your posting? But my roommate has pointed out to me that neither one of us are going to change each others mind so i am not sure if anything can really be settled. You will keep thinking i am an unpatriotic "ignorant" american and I will continue to think that you will never understand that the labels you place on me hurt. You can release your breath now :wink: ....Tammie
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:27 pm
And another excellently entertaining brawl comes to a close as the sun sets on A2K...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Oct, 2004 07:28 pm
Boys, go home. Scheduled cat fight has been pre-empted by regular programming.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 07:24 am
When I first started messages boards one of the first things I noticed was the use of the word "trolls". I didn't know what it meant and I asked.

I think responding to these kinds of threads only feed such threads.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 07:27 am
Edited - no longer relevant.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 07:41 am
dlowan wrote:
Rolling Eyes


Why do you roll your eyes?

I read from the last page of this thread and all I saw was a poster appealing to the lower emotionalism that Bush and his like have been putting out since they have managed to be in office.

At least with foxfrye and McG they may be on the other side but there is more to them than with others like the poster who started this thread. I guess I was in my own way just expressing my feelings with folks Ann Colter and the like. From now on after the response of the rolling eyes I think I will just keep my un asked for opinions to myself.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 07:43 am
There was an eyeroll-worthy post that is no longer here -- I think that may have been what dlowan was referring to, not yours (which I assume you saw too, based on your "troll" comment...?)
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 08:48 am
No, I was more or less just talking about the main thread's topic and it being a thread designed to cause fights.
0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 09:14 am
If fueling these kind of cat ights really pis**s people off, why is this thread still going?
:-)
>not an attack,, just a question <
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:01 am
revel wrote:
dlowan wrote:
Rolling Eyes


Why do you roll your eyes?

I read from the last page of this thread and all I saw was a poster appealing to the lower emotionalism that Bush and his like have been putting out since they have managed to be in office.

At least with foxfrye and McG they may be on the other side but there is more to them than with others like the poster who started this thread. I guess I was in my own way just expressing my feelings with folks Ann Colter and the like. From now on after the response of the rolling eyes I think I will just keep my un asked for opinions to myself.


Sorry Revel - I was not, indeed, rolling my eyes at you!!!!

In fct, I shall edit such eyes out, as they no longer have anything to roll at.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:04 am
shewolfnm wrote:
If fueling these kind of cat ights really pis**s people off, why is this thread still going?
:-)
>not an attack,, just a question <


Actually - I think there was some perfectly good debate here - and also, I do feel a need, when stuff like the video that started this thread is posted, to name it for what it is - not just leave it unchallenged.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:14 am
and what's wrong with a good cat fight?
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:18 am
dlowan wrote:
shewolfnm wrote:
If fueling these kind of cat ights really pis**s people off, why is this thread still going?
:-)
>not an attack,, just a question <


Actually - I think there was some perfectly good debate here - and also, I do feel a need, when stuff like the video that started this thread is posted, to name it for what it is - not just leave it unchallenged.


It was hard for me to separate the message from the messenger...
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:35 am
Xena wrote:

* * * *
I don't agree with any of your post.

Quote:
That Unity was EXPLOITED by the WARRIOR faction, gaining even Kerry's vote?


I guess Kerry doesn't have much of a mind of his own then. Do you know anything about what the Democrats said since 1998?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb
18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of
mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton
Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years,
every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show
that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


If you are going to plagerize, people will not take your opinion about anything seriously.

For those who actually care about integrety, here are the sites Xena listed.

http://liberalscum.com/donkeymouth.html


Quote:



Do you know who said Iraq was an imminent threat?


Yes, BUSH and his OFFICE.

Quote:

"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

"We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
• President Bush, 7/17/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat...He was a threat. He's not a threat now."
• President Bush, 7/2/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended."
• President Bush 4/24/03

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended."
• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
• President Bush, 3/19/03

"The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations."
• President Bush, 3/16/03

"This is about imminent threat."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03

Iraq is "a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03

Iraq poses "terrible threats to the civilized world."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03

Iraq "threatens the United States of America."
• Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Well, of course he is."
• White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question "is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?", 1/26/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. ... Iraq is a threat, a real threat."
• President Bush, 1/3/03

"The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands."
• President Bush, 11/23/02

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Saddam Hussein is a threat to America."
• President Bush, 11/3/02

"I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq."
• President Bush, 11/1/02

"There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein."
• President Bush, 10/28/02

"The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace."
• President Bush, 10/16/02

"There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists."
• President Bush, 10/7/02

"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"There's a grave threat in Iraq. There just is."
• President Bush, 10/2/02

"This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined."
• President Bush, 9/26/02

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

"Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness."
• Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

In Bush's own words, but you were too busy trying to take out Kerry to even notice.



Quote:

Quote:
Involvement with and support of the al Quaeda might have been a somewhat legitimate reason... but THAT, as it turns out, was NOT the case?


More plagerized links. . .

http://www.probush.com/ryan_saddam_hussein_and_bin_laden.htm

http://kerryhaters.blogspot.com/2004_07_04_kerryhaters_archive.html


Quote:

Nobody abused their position. If Gore was in office I would have expected him to do the exact same thing, given all the evidence. It would have been irresponsible if he didn't.


The evidence didn't point to Iraq, no matter HOW MUCH you want to believe it. The evidence presented to the UN and the US population was skewed intel pointed towards Hussen because of pressure, simple as that. Read the intel and look at how it is worded or written, it's pointed data, not real data. He used this to march to war with, why do you think the UN was not on board? Not because of the oil for food BS, it was because they KNEW our reports were BS. The weapons inspectors did their job and reported to the UN, we then chose to ignore their reports and invade anyway, actually telling them to leave the country!!!!!

If you think it was over anything Bush told you, you're wrong, it was a treasonist action who IS the real terrorist. The sad fact is theat he doesn't even see his own faults, but then again, why should he? He's never had to do anything his entire life, his dad was GHWB for Christ sakes.


Quote:

The only thing we did not find were the stockpiles of WMD. That still could happen.


You disillusioned soul, wake up and open your eyes. Now, you are believing Newsmax and CSNNews when Bremmer, Bush AND Cheney admit there were no WMDs. Jeesh, talk about living on the edges of reality.

[quotte]Iraq is a big place and we still don't know if they were shipped off to Syria.. Saddam wanted everyone to think he had them, Egypt and Jordon told Tommy Franks they were there. Saddam kept the entire region hostage with the threat. So, Bush didn't lie, he took action. [/quote]

And ended up tarnishing our name to not only half of America, but the rest of the world as well. It's because of ignorance, and people like yourself that we went into Iraq in the first place. It's a handbag of crap and Bush has put us there. He has been a miserable failure on EVERYTHING he has touched.

If I was you, I would use a little bit more brains when it comes to posting the propaganda you're spewing, the people at A2K are willing to debate, but not willing to sit there and read obvious propaganda all day. The choice is up to you.

Quote:

Since 1998, regime change was US policy. Clinton's Administration did that. Now that Bush actually finished the job, he is now a liar? I don't think so........


Do you want me to SHOW YOU everywhere that Bush lied? Well, maybe he didn't lie, maybe it was just an EX-AGG-ER-ATION Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
willow tl
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:53 am
I really don't think you pointing out their mistakes will change how they believe. It's like when you or I first realized Santa Claus was a myth.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 10:54 am
You can't fight Republicanism with logic. It's like hammering away at a pillow.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:25 am
I've been circling this road kill thread like a turkey buzzard but I can't find any sustenance. Its title is a cloaking device used by warmongers to rally the troops.
Yeah, like I need a reminder:

That the 10,000 to 15,000 civilian casualties in Iraq are somehow not innocent victims in comparison to the 3,000 innocent victims of 9/11. Oh alright, I'll grant you there's 5,000 insurgents mixed up in that mountain of bodies and body parts who deserved to be exterminated. When will we have exacted revenge? I don't know...there's ratio rules to exacting revenge for a sneak attack on our citizens.

That if Iraqui citizens posted videos of the horror and carnage they're subjected to...well...that's just the price they have to pay for democracy and Hussein in a cell...besides, they are posting videos...of beheadings....onward Christian soldiers..

Like I need a reminder that if we'd kept our eyes on the prize in Afghanistan and other terrorist hotspots we'd have done something concrete to secure our borders and citizens all over the world.

I shant post on a political thread again ...perhaps til way past the election. What's the point? There's no exchange anymore...it's down to cut and paste for both sides...and one way hearing obstructions.

Yeah, this thread was the catalyst. I'm firmly in the get him out camp. The missus is a registered Republican...that's being remedied post haste.

I remember...that's the problem.
0 Replies
 
Joe Republican
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You can't fight Republicanism with logic. It's like hammering away at a pillow.

Cycloptichorn


Not true at all, I am an ex-republican voter I am a moderate on the issues, hence my abhorent feelings towards Bush. I watched the political system revolve to my viewpoints, the repubs AND dems swung right, the dems just ended up in the middle, where I was, and the repubs ended up in fascism land. It's no wonder they playcate to dictators so much.

I think you should re-phrase your statement to the following:

You can't fight IGNORANCE with logic.

Political parties have nothing to do with it. I've met a few die hard dems who were just as bad, but they're on my side now, so I won't call them out. Well, that is unless they post the garbage Xena posts, then their fair game.

Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:29 am
Will miss your imput, Panzade. But...totally understand your thoughts and frustrations. Be well.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Oct, 2004 11:32 am
It's a shame this train wreck of a thread was the catalyst, but panzade, I think that is one of the most thoughtful posts I've ever read of yours.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 11:31:50