Jindal Lied

[Joe Steel]

Apparently, Bobby Jindal has a somewhat casual relationship with the truth.


Remember that story Bobby Jindal told in his big speech Tuesday night -- about how during Katrina, he stood shoulder-to-shoulder with a local sheriff who was battling government red tape to try to rescue stranded victims?

Turns out it wasn't actually, you know, true.

...

Jindal had described being in the office of Sheriff Harry Lee "during Katrina," and hearing him yelling into the phone at a government bureaucrat who was refusing to let him send volunteer boats out to rescue stranded storm victims, because they didn't have the necessary permits. Jindal said he told Lee, "that's ridiculous," prompting Lee to tell the bureaucrat that the rescue effort would go ahead and he or she could arrest both Lee and Jindal.

But now, a Jindal spokeswoman has admitted to Politico that in reality, Jindal overheard Lee talking about the episode to someone else by phone "days later." The spokeswoman said she thought Lee, who died in 2007, was being interviewed about the incident at the time.

Jindal Admits Katrina Story Was False (http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/jindal_admits_katrina_story_was_false.php)

Of course, this probably won't be a problem for Jindal's political future. If history is to be believed, Republicans don't need their truths to be truth in the sense of being actual truth. Being somewhat close to something they'd like to be true usually is enough.

[hjmick]

So it would seem as if Jindal took some license with the story in an effort to make a point. Not a good idea, especially when the opposition, on both sides, is looking to jump on even the smallest misstep and tear a person down. On the upside, he didn't plagiarize a speech from another politician.

[Silver]

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee...Jindal

Teepell said the exchange took place in the week following Katrina....

Someone gets the dates mixed up...is this recent, like Katrina was years ago....

So one says "during Katrina" and the other says "in the week following Katrina"....

Is this what its all about.....???

Man...get a fuckin' life already....WHO GIVES A SHIT

[Mr. P]

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee...Jindal

Teepell said the exchange took place in the week following Katrina....

Someone gets the dates mixed up...is this recent, like Katrina was years ago....

So one says "during Katrina" and the other says "in the week following Katrina"....

Is this what its all about.....???

Man...get a fuckin' life already....WHO GIVES A SHIT

Thanks for pointing out the twist...I'm sure Jindal, nor any other politician, would make a response speech on National TV and outright lie. Well, cept the democraps. :beer:

[PostmodernProphet]

agreed...it's not like he told a real whopper....like "there's no pork in this bill"......

[Joe Steel]

As I said:


Of course, this probably won't be a problem for Jindal's political future. If history is to be believed, Republicans don't need their truths to be truth in the sense of being actual truth. Being somewhat close to something they'd like to be true usually is enough.

[emmett]

And of course it is different for democrats right?

[bullypulpit]

So it would seem as if Jindal took some license with the story in an effort to make a point. Not a good idea, especially when the opposition, on both sides, is looking to jump on even the smallest misstep and tear a person down. On the upside, he didn't plagiarize a speech from another politician.

No, not "license", he lied. And below are some other things he (and other Republicans) dissembled upon, either during his rebuttal or elsewhere...

<blockquote>Do some of the Republican claims you've heard about the stimulus bill sound too awful to be true? We find a few that are wildly exaggerated or downright false.

* It's not true that the bill contains spending for "golf carts." It has $300 million to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, some of which may be electric cart-like utility vehicles like those already in use on military bases and at other government facilities.

* Money claimed to be for "remodeled federal offices" is mostly designated for upgrading buildings to "green" status through such things as thicker insulation and highly efficient lighting, not new drapes or paneling.

* A widely repeated claim that $8 billion is set aside for a "levitating train" to Disneyland is untrue. That total is for unspecified high-speed rail projects, and some of it may or may not end up going to a proposed 300-mph "maglev" train connecting Anaheim, Calif., with Las Vegas.

* There's no money in the bill specified for butterfly parks, Frisbee golf courses or water slides, despite a GOP congressman's claim that the bill "will fund" those projects. He culled those silly-sounding items from a list of 18,750 city projects that the U.S. Conference of Mayors cobbled together as examples of "shovel-ready" projects. - <a href=http://www.factcheck.org/politics/gop_stimulus_myths.html>FactCheck.org</a></blockquote>

Piyush "Bobby the Exorcist" Jindal forgot the cardinal rule of politics...Your lies shouldn't be so transparent they can be disproved upon their utterance. It just goes to show that being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't exempt one from politically fatal stupidity. Just look at Bill Clinton.

And then there was the GOP claim that Gov. Jindal was a "...rising voice outside of Washington", when nothing could be further from the truth.

<blockquote> * Bobby Jindal was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2001 to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation.
* Bobby Jindal was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004 as a Republican, taking over for now-Senator David Vitter and serving until January of 2008. (Something even the right-wing Newsbusters felt important enough to point out, though they got the years of his service wrong.)
* Bobby Jindal, upon coming to Congress in 2004, was elected Republican Freshman Class president by his GOP colleagues. How outsidery.
* Bobby Jindal, while in Congress, voted with Congressional Republicans, the ones he is soooo far away from now, an average of nearly 89% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly’s annual review (password required) of votes.
* Bobby Jindal, while in Congress, collected campaign contributions from notorious sources like disgraced former Majority Leader and consummate GOP insider Tom Delay’s ARMPAC.
* Bobby Jindal, as noted above, only left Congress last year when he became Governor of Louisiana - <a href=http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902250017>MediaMatters</a></blockquote>

If this is the best the GOP can do, they've relegated themselves to a long period of irrelevance, which can only be good for the country and the world.

[Sitarro]

No, not "license", he lied. And below are some other things he (and other Republicans) dissembled upon, either during his rebuttal or elsewhere...

<blockquote>Do some of the Republican claims you've heard about the stimulus bill sound too awful to be true? We find a few that are wildly exaggerated or downright false.

* It's not true that the bill contains spending for "golf carts." It has $300 million to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, some of which may be electric cart-like utility vehicles like those already in use on military bases and at other government facilities.

* Money claimed to be for "remodeled federal offices" is mostly designated for upgrading buildings to "green" status through such things as thicker insulation and highly efficient lighting, not new drapes or paneling.

* A widely repeated claim that $8 billion is set aside for a "levitating train" to Disneyland is untrue. That total is for unspecified high-speed rail projects, and some of it may or may not end up going to a proposed 300-mph "maglev" train connecting Anaheim, Calif., with Las Vegas.

* There's no money in the bill specified for butterfly parks, Frisbee golf courses or water slides, despite a GOP congressman's claim that the bill "will fund" those projects. He culled those silly-sounding items from a list of 18,750 city projects that the U.S. Conference of Mayors cobbled together as examples of "shovel-ready" projects. - <a href=http://www.factcheck.org/politics/gop_stimulus_myths.html>FactCheck.org</a></blockquote>

Piyush "Bobby the Exorcist" Jindal forgot the cardinal rule of politics...Your lies shouldn't be so transparent they can be disproved upon their utterance. It just goes to show that being a Rhodes Scholar doesn't exempt one from politically fatal stupidity. Just look at Bill Clinton.

And then there was the GOP claim that Gov. Jindal was a "...rising voice outside of Washington", when nothing could be further from the truth.

<blockquote> * Bobby Jindal was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2001 to be Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services for Planning and Evaluation.
* Bobby Jindal was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2004 as a Republican, taking over for now-Senator David Vitter and serving until January of 2008. (Something even the right-wing Newsbusters felt important enough to point out, though they got the years of his service wrong.)
* Bobby Jindal, upon coming to Congress in 2004, was elected Republican Freshman Class president by his GOP colleagues. How outsidery.
* Bobby Jindal, while in Congress, voted with Congressional Republicans, the ones he is soooo far away from now, an average of nearly 89% of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly’s annual review (password required) of votes.
* Bobby Jindal, while in Congress, collected campaign contributions from notorious sources like disgraced former Majority Leader and consummate GOP insider Tom Delay’s ARMPAC.
* Bobby Jindal, as noted above, only left Congress last year when he became Governor of Louisiana - <a href=http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200902250017>MediaMatters</a></blockquote>

If this is the best the GOP can do, they've relegated themselves to a long period of irrelevance, which can only be good for the country and the world.

I'm curious Bullshit, Did you do this strong of an investigation on your boys Barrack Hussein Obama and Joe "Aneurism" Biden? You don't even know where your President was actually born or what country's citizenship he holds. Why don't you care when your democrats are lying, cheating crooks?

[Joe Steel]

I'm curious Bullshit, Did you do this strong of an investigation on your boys Barrack Hussein Obama and Joe "Aneurism" Biden?

What does it matter? We're talking about a blatant lie by someone touted as a rising Republican star.

Republican Rising Star Bobby Jindal went before the American People and told them something which was untrue. It wasn't a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It was a lie.

[PostmodernProphet]

<blockquote>Do some of the Republican claims you've heard about the stimulus bill sound too awful to be true? We find a few that are wildly exaggerated or downright false.


a few?....you mean a few of the 9000 earmarks aren't really true?.......oh well, it still leaves us with what, 8900?......

[PostmodernProphet]

What does it matter? We're talking about a blatant lie by someone touted as a rising Republican star.

Republican Rising Star Bobby Jindal went before the American People and told them something which was untrue. It wasn't a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It was a lie.

I got to hand it to you, Steel....it takes someone really unique to dare to talk about rising stars and dishonesty after giving the country Obama.....

[Joe Steel]

I got to hand it to you, Steel....it takes someone really unique to dare to talk about rising stars and dishonesty after giving the country Obama.....

The Republican party has pinned its hopes on the likes of Jindal. He lied. The message to be taken from his presentation to the American People: Republicans have no regard for truth.

[emmett]

I'm just glad Democrats have set the bar so high for the truth so it sets a goal for Republicans to aspire to.

Somebody hand me a barfbag.............hurry!


Too late!

[Silver]

What does it matter? We're talking about a blatant lie by someone touted as a rising Republican star.

Republican Rising Star Bobby Jindal went before the American People and told them something which was untrue. It wasn't a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It was a lie.

So...you're hung up on liars, huh ?......Well look at all the liars I found for you...there were no WMD so all these Dims MUST have been lying....

"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 Bill 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 Bill 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 times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"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

:beer::beer::poke::beer::beer::thumb:

[Joe Steel]

[size=4]So...you're hung up on liars, huh ?......Well look at all the liars I found for you...there were no WMD

Jindal was lying.

It wasn't a good-faith repetition of what he thought was true. He said something he knew was untrue in deliberate attempt to deceive the American People.

He lied.

[Sitarro]

Jindal was lying.

It wasn't a good-faith repetition of what he thought was true. He said something he knew was untrue in deliberate attempt to deceive the American People.

He lied.

Why is it OK for you to lie, Osamabama to lie, Biden to be an ignorant ass that lies, Shillary was shot at remember? Was that a lie? You are a dick and should move to Putinville in Putinland and be much happier.

[Joe Steel]

Why is it OK for you to lie, Osamabama to lie, Biden to be an ignorant ass that lies, Shillary was shot at remember? Was that a lie? You are a dick and should move to Putinville in Putinland and be much happier.

I have never tried to deceive the members of this forum. I have never lied.

[Sitarro]

I have never tried to deceive the members of this forum. I have never lied.

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::lol::laugh2::laugh2::laug h2:

[Immanuel]

Oh my god, a politician lied... who'd a thought that would happen? :lol:

So don't vote for him in 2012, Joe, and while your at not voting for him, I'd suggest you just burn your voting card, because if you won't vote for Jindal because he lied, you should not vote for any candidate at all.

Immie

[Joe Steel]

Oh my god, a politician lied... who'd a thought that would happen?

So don't vote for him in 2012, Joe, and while your at not voting for him, I'd suggest you just burn your voting card, because if you won't vote for Jindal because he lied, you should not vote for any candidate at all.

Immie


See. I told you so.


Of course, this probably won't be a problem for Jindal's political future. If history is to be believed, Republicans don't need their truths to be truth in the sense of being actual truth. Being somewhat close to something they'd like to be true usually is enough.

Republicans like liars.

[emmett]

Post # 15 Joe. Ah..... did you see that? I was just wondering what your opinion was on that post by Silver?

It references some statements by some of your favorite people so I would have thought it to be the kind of thing you would want to spend all night on. Go back and look! They are very interesting.

[bullypulpit]

I'm curious Bullshit, Did you do this strong of an investigation on your boys Barrack Hussein Obama and Joe "Aneurism" Biden? You don't even know where your President was actually born or what country's citizenship he holds. Why don't you care when your democrats are lying, cheating crooks?

:lol:

Bitter much? Your response is pathetic to the point of irrelevance...Much like the GOP you slavishly support with the billious emesis you spew forth with every post here. Go away little man and come back when you've learned to think for yourself.

[moderate democrat]

Post # 15 Joe. Ah..... did you see that? I was just wondering what your opinion was on that post by Silver?

It references some statements by some of your favorite people so I would have thought it to be the kind of thing you would want to spend all night on. Go back and look! They are very interesting.

I was looking for one of those folks quoted in that post who ever advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Did I miss it?

[Silver]

I was looking for one of those folks quoted in that post who ever advocated invading, conquering and occupying Iraq. Did I miss it?

Why look for that...its totally irrelevant to the topic of thread....Joe's hang-up is liars and now he can bitch about a few more-

[moderate democrat]

Why look for that...its totally irrelevant to the topic of thread....Joe's hang-up is liars and now he can bitch about a few more-

I am not sure those are lies.... just incorrect judgments.

However...when Bush said "there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" that WAS a lie, because, even though HE himself might not have had any doubt, doubt certainly did exist.

btw...is your vision going bad? why do you persist in posting in such a LARGE FONT?

[Silver]

I am not sure those are lies.... just incorrect judgments.

However...when Bush said "there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" that WAS a lie, because, even though HE himself might not have had any doubt, doubt certainly did exist.

btw...is your vision going bad? why do you persist in posting in such a LARGE FONT?

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

Not might, not could, not maybe....but HE WILL

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.....
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles ........
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

again, not might, not could, not maybe....THERE IS NO DOUBT
How about "doubtless"....do you not know what that word means?


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

Not we think, not we suspect, ....but WE KNOW
Do you understand that one?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons..............."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE
What about that...do you understand what UNMISTAKABLE means..
Do you think that means "we're not sure" ?

I shouldn't have to explain all this to you if English is your first language....

[moderate democrat]

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

Not might, not could, not maybe....but HE WILL

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs.....
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles ........
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

again, not might, not could, not maybe....THERE IS NO DOUBT
How about "doubtless"....do you not know what that word means?


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

Not we think, not we suspect, ....but WE KNOW
Do you understand that one?

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons..............."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

UNMISTAKABLE EVIDENCE
What about that...do you understand what UNMISTAKABLE means..
Do you think that means "we're not sure" ?

I shouldn't have to explain all this to you if English is your first language....


Gore is the only one that I find fault with. Berger is making a prediction. Graham is talking about program development, not the existence of stockpiles. Likewise, Rockefeller is talking about development, not the existence of ready to use stockpiles.

I realize english might be your first language, but if you can only comprehend its nuances at a thrid grade level, then this stuff is probably over your head.

[Silver]

Gore is the only one that I find fault with. Berger is making a prediction. Graham is talking about program development, not the existence of stockpiles. Likewise, Rockefeller is talking about development, not the existence of ready to use stockpiles.

I realize english might be your first language, but if you can only comprehend its nuances at a thrid grade level, then this stuff is probably over your head.

Boneheads like you have an excuse for everything.....
You're such a brain-dead liberal hypocrite, its almost laughable....laughable if it wasn't also so sad at the same time....you drink the Koolade and take it up the LA love canal just so you don't have to face the facts of life....
Heres some nuances you should be able to grasp......

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,....--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[W]e urge you, ........... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively ........ Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force --
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA)

TO USE FORCE, AIR AND MISSILE STRIKES, RESPOND EFFECTIVELY, THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE .........

Now these words and phrases might mean "using harsh words or shooting a missile from 300 miles away or something else to liberals...but to Conservatives, to patriots, to serious leaders, using appropriate force to disarm Iraq was a US threat to be taken seriously and not treated as an idle warning....Saddam should not have mistaken a pussy like Clinton with leader like Bush"
We're done, Skippy...

[moderate democrat]

You're such a brain-dead liberal hypocrite, its almost laughable....laughable if it wasn't also so sad at the same time....you drink the Koolade and take it up the LA love canal just so you don't have to face the facts of life....
Heres some nuances you should be able to grasp......

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,....--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[W]e urge you, ........... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively ........ Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force --
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA)

TO USE FORCE, AIR AND MISSILE STRIKES, RESPOND EFFECTIVELY, THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE .........

Now these words and phrases might mean "using harsh words or shooting a missile from 300 miles away or something else to liberals...but to Conservatives, to patriots, to serious leaders, using appropriate force to disarm Iraq was a US threat to be taken seriously and not treated as an idle warning....Saddam should not have mistaken a pussy like Clinton with leader like Bush"


LOL... nuance is tough for you, I know. none of those democrats quoted herein said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and none advocated invading conquering and occupying Iraq. fact.
NOW...we're done.:salute:

[red states rule]

Boneheads like you have an excuse for everything.....
You're such a brain-dead liberal hypocrite, its almost laughable....laughable if it wasn't also so sad at the same time....you drink the Koolade and take it up the LA love canal just so you don't have to face the facts of life....
Heres some nuances you should be able to grasp......

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force,....--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"[W]e urge you, ........... to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively ........ Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force --
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA)

TO USE FORCE, AIR AND MISSILE STRIKES, RESPOND EFFECTIVELY, THE AUTHORITY TO USE FORCE .........

Now these words and phrases might mean "using harsh words or shooting a missile from 300 miles away or something else to liberals...but to Conservatives, to patriots, to serious leaders, using appropriate force to disarm Iraq was a US threat to be taken seriously and not treated as an idle warning....Saddam should not have mistaken a pussy like Clinton with leader like Bush"
We're done, Skippy...

You have to consider the source Silver. Virgil thinks Obama is still as popular now and he was when he took office

[moderate democrat]

You have to consider the source Silver. MD thinks Obama is still as popular now and he was when he took office

So does Gallup!:dance:

consider THAT source!:laugh2:

[red states rule]

So does Gallup!:dance:

consider THAT source!:laugh2:

Thank you for making my case. You probably think the Dow and unemployment rate are the same as they were on Jan 20th. Or do you think they are higher as well? :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Thank you for making my case. You probably think the Dow and unemployment rate are the same as they were on Jan 20th. Or do you think they are higher as well?

they are lower.... but Obama's apporoval rating is NOT.

thank you for making MY case.:dance:

[red states rule]

they are lower.... but Obama's apporoval rating is NOT.

thank you for making MY case.:dance:

Gee, last time I checked 59 is a much lower number then 82. Must be the new math libs use to "balance" their budgets :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Gee, last time I checked 59 is a much lower number then 82. Must be the new math libs use to "balance" their budgets :laugh2:

he's not at 59...and President Obama has NEVER been at 82.

He is right where he was the day he took office.... and again..

A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF HIS PERFORMANCE NOW THAN VOTED FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER!:dance:

[Silver]

Well heres the nuance Skippy...

If I say I'm going to "eat dinner"...you don't really know if I'm having steak or seafood do you.....
and If I say I'm going to "use force" against you, you don't really know if I'm gonna break you nose or only push you aside....

Likewise..."invading conquering and occupying" are all included in "USING FORCE"....as "shooting a bullet or dropping a bomb, or firing a missile" is....


to take necessary actions..... to respond effectively; probably means harsh words to assholes like you that need to defend Dims at all costs....even if it means becoming a hypocrite like you've shown you are....

Play your words with someone else sonny....:salute:

[red states rule]

he's not at 59...and President Obama has NEVER been at 82.

He is right where he was the day he took office.... and again..

A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF HIS PERFORMANCE NOW THAN VOTED FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER!:dance:

Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First TimeFifty-nine percent now approve as more express no opinion on his performanceUSA Government Government and Politics Leadership The Presidency Americas Northern America by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Obama-Job-Approval-Dips-Below-First-Time.aspx


and

CNN Poll: Obama transition draws approval of 4 in 5 Americans
Posted: 09:05 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


Obama is drawing the approval of 4 in 5 Americans in a new CNN/ORC poll.
(CNN) – Hawaii's always been a great spot for honeymoons — and Barack Obama, who's spending the holiday season there on the beach at Kailua, is unquestionably having one of the best in modern presidential history.

Eighty-two percent of those questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning approve of the way the Obama is handling his presidential transition. That's up 3 points from when we asked this question at the beginning of December. Fifteen percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Obama's handling his transition, down 3 points from our last poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/24/cnn-poll-obama-transition-draws-approval-of-4-in-5-americans/


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Obama Job Approval Dips Below 60% for First TimeFifty-nine percent now approve as more express no opinion on his performanceUSA Government Government and Politics Leadership The Presidency Americas Northern America by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ -- For the first time since Gallup began tracking Barack Obama's presidential job approval rating on Jan. 21, fewer than 60% of Americans approve of the job he is doing as president. In Feb. 21-23 polling, 59% of Americans give Obama a positive review, while 25% say they disapprove, and 16% have no opinion.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116077/Obama-Job-Approval-Dips-Below-First-Time.aspx


and

CNN Poll: Obama transition draws approval of 4 in 5 Americans
Posted: 09:05 AM ET

From CNN Deputy Political Director Paul Steinhauser


Obama is drawing the approval of 4 in 5 Americans in a new CNN/ORC poll.
(CNN) – Hawaii's always been a great spot for honeymoons — and Barack Obama, who's spending the holiday season there on the beach at Kailua, is unquestionably having one of the best in modern presidential history.

Eighty-two percent of those questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday morning approve of the way the Obama is handling his presidential transition. That's up 3 points from when we asked this question at the beginning of December. Fifteen percent of those surveyed disapprove of the way Obama's handling his transition, down 3 points from our last poll.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/24/cnn-poll-obama-transition-draws-approval-of-4-in-5-americans/



can you read the DATES of those links????:laugh2:

you crack me up.

[red states rule]

can you read the DATES of those links????:laugh2:

you crack me up.

You have been cracked since you were shot out across the delivery room and hit the wall head first :laugh2:

[bullypulpit]

LOL... nuance is tough for you, I know. none of those democrats quoted herein said that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's...and none advocated invading conquering and occupying Iraq. fact.
NOW...we're done.:salute:

"Nuance" is meaningless to the right wing-nut fringe that has now become the mainstream of the GOP. And BTW, a party which is becoming an increasingly insular, and irrelevant, regional party.

The GOP put Piyush "Bobby the Exorcist" Jindal on center stage the other night in order to highlight the "diversity" of the party. I thought that was why Michael Steele was selected as chief of the GOP...You know, to bring a "hip-hop" sensibility to the party. Bat-shit crazy congress woman, Michelle Bachman, screamed "You da man!" at him off camera at a recent event. Hip-hop...? Not so much, but plenty embarrassing.

I know! The GOP can run Michelle Bachman and Piyush Jindal on the GOP ticket in 2012...Bachman-Jindal Overdrive! WOO-HOO!

[Noir]

Looking back at the OP this just reminds me of the story Hillery Clinton told about landing under sniper fire, the bit that worries me us not the lie, but the fact that they think they will get away with it.

Joe steel, many democrats still voted for hillery after her lie about landing under sniper fire, would that not make them the same as the repubs what you claim like liers?

Sittaro, RSR et all, did you guys not bash hillery when her lie was uncovered?so why not bash this man for lying also?

Both sides are showing a fair bit of their political colours in this thread methinks, just remember, as the old saying goes 'listen listen listen, but don't believe them'

[PostmodernProphet]

can you read the DATES of those links????:laugh2:


uh yes....the high was in December, the low in February.....doesn't that actually confirm what he claimed?.....that Obama's support is dropping?.......

[Joe Steel]

Post # 15 Joe. Ah..... did you see that? I was just wondering what your opinion was on that post by Silver?

It references some statements by some of your favorite people so I would have thought it to be the kind of thing you would want to spend all night on. Go back and look! They are very interesting.

See #16.

[Joe Steel]

I am not sure those are lies.... just incorrect judgments.

Exactly. Until proven otherwise, those are misjudgments not lies.

[Joe Steel]

Looking back at the OP this just reminds me of the story Hillery Clinton told about landing under sniper fire, the bit that worries me us not the lie, but the fact that they think they will get away with it.

Joe steel, many democrats still voted for hillery after her lie about landing under sniper fire, would that not make them the same as the repubs what you claim like liers?

Somewhat, perhaps, but the situations are not identical.

Hillary Clinton made the statement but it was a throw-away line, a casual comment. Jindal's story was intended to support a major theme of Republican ideology, the ineffectiveness of government. He spoke to tens of millions of Americans and said he had proof government doesn't work. It was a deliberate, purposeful lie focused to achieve a specific effect. That's a good bit different than a little bit of puffery intended to burnish an image.

[jimnyc]

I have never tried to deceive the members of this forum. I have never lied.

"Michael Moore has never claimed to be a documentary film maker". And then you stood your ground in the face of irrefutable proof. You're either extremely obtuse or a liar.

[jimnyc]

I am not sure those are lies.... just incorrect judgments.

However...when Bush said "there is NO DOUBT that Saddam has stockpiles of WMD's" that WAS a lie, because, even though HE himself might not have had any doubt, doubt certainly did exist.

Quite a few democrats spoke of absolute certainty of Saddam and his possession of WMD's before and after Bush was in office. And these weren't Democrats we rarely hear from, but very prominent Democrats, including one on the security council. I've listed them time and time again on this board so I won't go through the effort of looking them up again. So it would appear that quite a few of the highest ranking Democrats in Congress are liars too.

[red states rule]

uh yes....the high was in December, the low in February.....doesn't that actually confirm what he claimed?.....that Obama's support is dropping?.......

VMD reminds of other libs who were shocked to see Nixon elected. They are on record of saying they knew of onone who voted for Nixon and could not understandf how he won

In VMD's world - he knows of noone who had changed their opinion of Obama, and can't believe his poll numbers are tanking

[moderate democrat]

uh yes....the high was in December, the low in February.....doesn't that actually confirm what he claimed?.....that Obama's support is dropping?.......


no...it DOESN'T confirm what he claimed.

He CLAIMED that Obama had an 80% approval rating on January 20th. That is a lie and his links do NOTHING to disprove it. He claims that Obama's support has dropped precipitously since coming into office and THAT is a lie as well and his links do NOTHING to disprove that. In fact, the Gallup poll which he previously cited as the gospel truth shows that Obama has - overall - held steady since the day he took office, and has, in fact, improved over the last week in spite of the economic woes he inherited.

[red states rule]

no...it DOESN'T confirm what he claimed.

He CLAIMED that Obama had an 80% approval rating on January 20th. That is a lie and his links do NOTHING to disprove it. He claims that Obama's support has dropped precipitously since coming into office and THAT is a lie as well and his links do NOTHING to disprove that. In fact, the Gallup poll which he previously cited as the gospel truth shows that Obama has - overall - held steady since the day he took office, and has, in fact, improved over the last week in spite of the economic woes he inherited.

So do you consider the CNN poll showing Barry in the 80's a right wing source that is not to be believed? :laugh2:

I see you are already passing the buck to Pres Bush on the tanking economy, and not Obama's tax and spend economic policies

[moderate democrat]

So do you consider the CNN poll showing Barry in the 80's a right wing source that is not to be believed? :laugh2:

I see you are already passing the buck to Pres Bush on the tanking economy, and not Obama's tax and spend economic policies

the CNN poll was NOT taken on January 20th. You LIED.

And how, pray tell, does a PRESIDENT even HAVE an approval rating before he even becomes president? Like Gallup shows... FROM THE DAY HE WAS INAUGURATED, HIS APPROVAL RATING HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY THE SAME.

TODAY... A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF HIS PERFORMANCE THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER.

DEAL WITH IT.:poke:

[red states rule]

the CNN poll was NOT taken on January 20th. You LIED.

And how, pray tell, does a PRESIDENT even HAVE an approval rating before he even becomes president? Like Gallup shows... FROM THE DAY HE WAS INAUGURATED, HIS APPROVAL RATING HAS BEEN VIRTUALLY THE SAME.

TODAY... A GREATER PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS APPROVE OF HIS PERFORMANCE THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER.

DEAL WITH IT.:poke:

So all the articles I posted about his tanking approval ratings are wrong - and you are right?

So much for you being more moderate in your posts, and your new handle Virgil :laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

So all the articles I posted about his tanking approval ratings are wrong - and you are right?

So much for you being more moderate in your posts, and your new handle Virgil :laugh2:


you have posted no articles that show his approval rating at 20% on January 20th. That is, and has always been, a LIE. admit it.

you have ignored the FACT that the very poll YOU used to attempt to prove you point clearly shows that Obama's approval rating is NOT tanking but, in fact, has remained virtually unchanged since inauguration day. To say otherwise is a LIE. admit it.

Be a man... admit when you're wrong.

[red states rule]

you have posted no articles that show his approval rating at 20% on January 20th. That is, and has always been, a LIE. admit it.

you have ignored the FACT that the very poll YOU used to attempt to prove you point clearly shows that Obama's approval rating is NOT tanking but, in fact, has remained virtually unchanged since inauguration day. To say otherwise is a LIE. admit it.

Be a man... admit when you're wrong.

As I have said, since Obama won the election the Dow and his approval rating have been tanking

Again Virgil, take a deep breath, remember your BP issues :poke:

[moderate democrat]

As I have said, since Obama won the election the Dow and his approval rating have been tanking

Again Virgil, take a deep breath, remember your BP issues :poke:


I don't have any BP issues.... and as you said, Obama's approval rating was 80% on January 20th, and that is a LIE... and you aren't man enough to admit it.

As I have clearly shown, his approval rating since the day he took office has remained virtually unchanged...and you cannot refute that.

pathetic worm.

[red states rule]

I don't have any BP issues.... and as you said, Obama's approval rating was 80% on January 20th, and that is a LIE... and you aren't man enough to admit it.

As I have clearly shown, his approval rating since the day he took office has remained virtually unchanged...and you cannot refute that.

pathetic worm.

Hey Virgil, I strongly suggest you go to confession after you give your sermon later this morning. You have alot "issues" to expalin to a higher authority - and I am not taking about your messiah Lord Obama

What will be your excuses shiould the Dow drop below 7.000 and Barry's numbers sink below 59% where they are now?

You can only blame Pres Bush for so long :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Quite a few democrats spoke of absolute certainty of Saddam and his possession of WMD's before and after Bush was in office. And these weren't Democrats we rarely hear from, but very prominent Democrats, including one on the security council. I've listed them time and time again on this board so I won't go through the effort of looking them up again. So it would appear that quite a few of the highest ranking Democrats in Congress are liars too.

I'm curious as to whether or not those that accuse the right of being liars would like to appropriately address this, or do the lying Dems just get a free pass?

[red states rule]

I'm curious as to whether or not those that accuse the right of being liars would like to appropriately address this, or do the lying Dems just get a free pass?

From what I have read from liberals is Bush lied and Dems were only mistaken. Or, the same Pres Bush the left has called an idiot, was able to fool and trick the intellectually superior Democrats

[jimnyc]

From what I have read from liberals is Bush lied and Dems were only mistaken. Or, the same Pres Bush the left has called an idiot, was able to fool and trick the intellectually superior Democrats

Unfortunately, that won't fly, as quite a few Dems made statements of fact long before Bush was in office.

[red states rule]

Unfortunately, that won't fly, as quite a few Dems made statements of fact long before Bush was in office.

You know it and I know it. But we are talking about loyal liberals who have different standards when it comes judging their own kind

That is one of the benefits of being as liberal. You never have to be consistent

[Immanuel]

See. I told you so.



Republicans like liars.

What kind of an idiot are you? First, I am not a Republican. Second, I don't like Jindal. Third, I don't like any of the political parties. Fourth, if you could read, you would have known that for the last four years at least. Simply reading my signature line would tell you that.

You are an idiot.

Immie

[moderate democrat]

Hey Virgil, I strongly suggest you go to confession after you give your sermon later this morning. You have alot "issues" to expalin to a higher authority - and I am not taking about your messiah Lord Obama

What will be your excuses shiould the Dow drop below 7.000 and Barry's numbers sink below 59% where they are now?

You can only blame Pres Bush for so long :laugh2:

I am not a catholic and I do not go to confession....

and you are still a liar who exacerbates his dishonesty by an effeminate sort of cowardice that prevents you from admitting when you made a mistake.

Obama's approval rating is not 59%. It is at 67% and climbing. It is right where it was the day he was inaugurated.... but you are too big of a pussy to just admit it.:lol:


really pathetic.

[red states rule]

I am not a catholic and I do not go to confession....

and you are still a liar who exacerbates his dishonesty by an effeminate sort of cowardice that prevents you from admitting when you made a mistake.

Obama's approval rating is not 59%. It is at 67% and climbing. It is right where it was the day he was inaugurated.... but you are too big of a pussy to just admit it.:lol:


really pathetic.

I thought as an Interim Minister you above all would not lie - but lying is part of your soul Virgil

BTW, Gallup has your messiah at 59%. I posted the link, but you usually ignore the truth and keep lying through your teeth

[moderate democrat]

I'm curious as to whether or not those that accuse the right of being liars would like to appropriately address this, or do the lying Dems just get a free pass?

I don't think that many democrats used words like absolute certainty to describe Saddam's possession of WMD stockpiles. Gore did, but I don't know of any others. Some democrats spoke of certainty regarind Saddam's development of weapons programs or missile programs, or nuclear programs, but not of stockpiles of WMD's ready at a moment's notice to be used against the United States.

[red states rule]

I don't think that many democrats used words like absolute certainty to describe Saddam's possession of WMD stockpiles. Gore did, but I don't know of any others. Some democrats spoke of certainty regarind Saddam's development of weapons programs or missile programs, or nuclear programs, but not of stockpiles of WMD's ready at a moment's notice to be used against the United States.

Oh really?

"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 times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"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 useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "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 has 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.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_George_Bush_lie_about_the_WMDs_in_Iraq

[moderate democrat]

I thought as an Interim Minister you above all would not lie - but lying is part of your soul Virgil

BTW, Gallup has your messiah at 59%. I posted the link, but you usually ignore the truth and keep lying through your teeth


my name is not Virgil. I am not an interim minister, and the link you posted is over a week old...Gallup HAD Obama at 59% - A WEEK AGO! Unfortunately for you, Gallup HAS Obama at 67% TODAY.

I will post the link again which shows exactly that, but I realize that you are too stupid to be able to read line graphs, so others may have to interpret it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

[red states rule]

my name is not Virgil. I am not an interim minister, and the link you posted is over a week old...Gallup HAD Obama at 59% - A WEEK AGO! Unfortunately for you, Gallup HAS Obama at 67% TODAY.

I will post the link again which shows exactly that, but I realize that you are too stupid to be able to read line graphs, so others may have to interpret it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

You are fooling noone Virgil

Here is another poll that has your boy below 60%

snip

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter. Overall, 58% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 40% disapprove.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

[moderate democrat]

yeah...really!

Oh really?

"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 times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, 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 reinvigorated 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, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"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 useing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. 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 Rockerfeller (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. "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 has 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.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_George_Bush_lie_about_the_WMDs_in_Iraq


As I said....not a lot of statements of absolute certainty about Saddam possessing stockpiles of WMD's for use at a moment's notice against the United States.

really.:poke:

[red states rule]

yeah...really!



As I said....not a lot of statements of absolute certainty about Saddam possessing stockpiles of WMD's for use at a moment's notice against the United States.

really.:poke:

Virgil is stil in total and complete denial that his party leaders said the same things about WMD's as Pres Bush

So much for his new name of "moderate democrat". Once a liberal hack, always a liberal hack

[moderate democrat]

You are fooling noone Virgil

Here is another poll that has your boy below 60%

snip

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter. Overall, 58% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 40% disapprove.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll


you can always find A poll that will support your position. YOU were the one who quoted Gallup. Why run away from it now?:poke:

[red states rule]

you can always find A poll that will support your position. YOU were the one who quoted Gallup. Why run away from it now?:poke:

Not running Virgil. There are sevral polls that have Obama below 60%. Should the Dow drop below 7,000 this week I suspect he will drop further

[moderate democrat]

Virgil is stil in total and complete denial that his party leaders said the same things about WMD's as Pres Bush

So much for his new name of "moderate democrat". Once a liberal hack, always a liberal hack


when RSR can't debate the facts, he smears. that is his MO ...

pathetic.:laugh2:

[moderate democrat]

Not running Virgil. There are sevral polls that have Obama below 60%. Should the Dow drop below 7,000 this week I suspect he will drop further

you certainly ARE running away from Gallup.

It clearly shows that his approval rating is virtually unchanged from the day he was inaugurated...but that doesn't fit with your rush-approved talking points, so you run away from it...

even after YOU were the one who brought UP gallup first!:lol:

[red states rule]

when RSR can't debate the facts, he smears. that is his MO ...

pathetic.:laugh2:

To you, facts that show Dems agreed with Pres Bush on WND's are smears. To bad Virgil, however you should be use to facts going against you and your party

[red states rule]

you certainly ARE running away from Gallup.

It clearly shows that his approval rating is virtually unchanged from the day he was inaugurated...but that doesn't fit with your rush-approved talking points, so you run away from it...

even after YOU were the one who brought UP gallup first!:lol:

and I show other polls that support my position. To bad, the glow of the messiah is wearing off

[moderate democrat]

qand I show other polls that support my position. To bad, the glow of the messiah is wearing off

and you run away from Gallup...after YOU brought it up as a source.

FACT.

The RCP average of polls concerning direction of the country - WHICH YOU POSTED - proves my point conclusively. The public is increasingly optimistic about America and the change started with Obama's election and continues right up until today.

now run away.:lol:

[red states rule]

and you run away from Gallup...after YOU brought it up as a source.

FACT.

The RCP average of polls concerning direction of the country - WHICH YOU POSTED - proves my point conclusively. The public is increasingly optimistic about America and the change started with Obama's election and continues right up until today.

now run away.:lol:

Virgil, Virgil, Virgil

You said over and over Barry is not below 60% = yet I have posted several polls that show you wrong

Why not be a man and admit the facts?

I'll wait :poke:

[moderate democrat]

Virgil, Virgil, Virgil

You said over and over Barry is not below 60% = yet I have posted several polls that show you wrong

Why not be a man and admit the facts?

I'll wait :poke:
there are some polls which have him that low. Not Gallup...which is the poll that YOU introduced and which now shows him rising in approval rating over the past week. Why do you continue to run away from that poll?

WHy do youy continue to run away from the RCP link that YOU posted that shows that the America people are increasingly optimistic about the direction of our country since the election of Obama?

WHY DO YOU RUN AWAY LIKE A GIRLIE MAN FROM YOUR OWN LINKS???:lol::lol:

[Mr. P]

my name is not Virgil. I am not an interim minister, and the link you posted is over a week old...Gallup HAD Obama at 59% - A WEEK AGO! Unfortunately for you, Gallup HAS Obama at 67% TODAY.

I will post the link again which shows exactly that, but I realize that you are too stupid to be able to read line graphs, so others may have to interpret it for you.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Ahhhh Virgie..yer a Liar..your personality supersedes any screen name you may use. Kinda like voice ID. You'll never be able to claim "IT ain't ME".

I don't think you made 10 posts before it was clear to most here you are MFM. :laugh2:

[jimnyc]

"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.

I snipped it there as I see way too much nitpicking. Many prominent Dems claimed he had the technology, was running WMD programs, would strike again if left unchecked, likely had stockpiles...

They outright claimed he was making them, yet had no definitive reports to backup that claim. They claimed he would use them again, but had nothing to backup that claim. They claimed he likely had stockpiles, but had nothing to backup that claim. They made many, many claims about Iraq, Saddam and WMD's - the only difference is that it was on the Dems clock when they made these "unfounded" accusations and statements, but yet they are not labeled liars.

Additionally, I have seen many Republicans claim that they were mistaken about their statements and intel - but I've yet to see a single Dem admit they "lied" or were "mistaken".

IMO - what it all came down to was the intel that the entire world possessed. The Dems believed it when they were in power and the Repubs believed it when they were in power. The R's acted after Saddam refused after 12 years to fully co-operate. Hell, I would have supported Clinton had he ordered the same after 8 years of not fully cooperating.

But the saddest part was watching those who made outlandish claims in the late 90's (Dems) later declare that Bush was a fear mongerer and a liar. They surely have short memories.

And yes, Bush is responsible for the one being to send troops into Iraq, that does absolutely nothing to take away from the EXTREMELY similar comments directed about Iraq and WMD's made by the Dems -at least until a Republican was running the show.

[moderate democrat]

Ahhhh Virgie..yer a Liar..your personality supersedes any screen name you may use. Kinda like voice ID. You'll never be able to claim "IT ain't ME".

I don't think you made 10 posts before it was clear to most here you are MFM. :laugh2:

I beg to differ, but that is really beside the point. the constant drumbeat, by you and your fawning sycophants, that I am someone else, is really nothing more than obfuscation. Quit making my posts about who you mistakenly think I am and start debating me on the points that I make. This is a place to debate policy, not to debate identity... is that really so hard? :poke:

[moderate democrat]

I snipped it there as I see way too much nitpicking. Many prominent Dems claimed he had the technology, was running WMD programs, would strike again if left unchecked, likely had stockpiles...

They outright claimed he was making them, yet had no definitive reports to backup that claim. They claimed he would use them again, but had nothing to backup that claim. They claimed he likely had stockpiles, but had nothing to backup that claim. They made many, many claims about Iraq, Saddam and WMD's - the only difference is that it was on the Dems clock when they made these "unfounded" accusations and statements, but yet they are not labeled liars.

Additionally, I have seen many Republicans claim that they were mistaken about their statements and intel - but I've yet to see a single Dem admit they "lied" or were "mistaken".

IMO - what it all came down to was the intel that the entire world possessed. The Dems believed it when they were in power and the Repubs believed it when they were in power. The R's acted after Saddam refused after 12 years to fully co-operate. Hell, I would have supported Clinton had he ordered the same after 8 years of not fully cooperating.

But the saddest part was watching those who made outlandish claims in the late 90's (Dems) later declare that Bush was a fear mongerer and a liar. They surely have short memories.

And yes, Bush is responsible for the one being to send troops into Iraq, that does absolutely nothing to take away from the EXTREMELY similar comments directed about Iraq and WMD's made by the Dems -at least until a Republican was running the show.

I don't strongly disagree with your premise. My point has always been that Bush had succeeded in getting inspectors into Iraq. THAT was a HUGE diplomatic victory and I applauded him for it at the time. If he had only sat still for a few months longer, we all would have found out FROM THE INSPECTORS what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMDs... and that he was NOT an imminent threat to the United States. It was BUSH who kept beating the wardrum about stockpiles of WMD's that could be used at any moment - and it was Team Bush who strongly implied a real operational alliance between Saddam and OBL that would allow Saddam to pass any one of those stockpiled WMD's to AQ at any moment so we had to quick invade right this very second or an america city would go poof under a mushroom cloud. It was THAT rush to war that I faulted him for and will ALWAYS fault him for. We should NEVER send Americans to war as the option of FIRST resort. If he had waited a few more months, we would not have had any reason to invade Iraq and we could have continued to make Afghanistan and OBL and AQ the primary focus of our military and our diplomatic actions. IMHO.

[Missileman]

I don't strongly disagree with your premise. My point has always been that Bush had succeeded in getting inspectors into Iraq. THAT was a HUGE diplomatic victory and I applauded him for it at the time. If he had only sat still for a few months longer, we all would have found out FROM THE INSPECTORS what we all now know: that Saddam did NOT have stockpiles of WMDs... and that he was NOT an imminent threat to the United States. It was BUSH who kept beating the wardrum about stockpiles of WMD's that could be used at any moment - and it was Team Bush who strongly implied a real operational alliance between Saddam and OBL that would allow Saddam to pass any one of those stockpiled WMD's to AQ at any moment so we had to quick invade right this very second or an america city would go poof under a mushroom cloud. It was THAT rush to war that I faulted him for and will ALWAYS fault him for. We should NEVER send Americans to war as the option of FIRST resort. If he had waited a few more months, we would not have had any reason to invade Iraq and we could have continued to make Afghanistan and OBL and AQ the primary focus of our military and our diplomatic actions. IMHO.

If the war on terror objectives were limited to members of AQ in Afghanistan, you might have a case. As it is, while Iraq was arguably not the primary target, the Saddam Hussien regime WAS a legitimate target...not only for his own acts of terrorism but for his sponsorship of terrorism elsewhere.

[moderate democrat]

If the war on terror objectives were limited to members of AQ in Afghanistan, you might have a case. As it is, while Iraq was arguably not the primary target, the Saddam Hussien regime WAS a legitimate target...not only for his own acts of terrorism but for his sponsorship of terrorism elsewhere.

terror ought not to have been the enemy...islamic extremism should have been. Arab nationalist terror organizations like the kind that Saddam supported were not driven to attack US. Neither were the Tamil Tigers, for example...which is why we didn't invade Sri Lanka. We had REAL enemies who attacked us and who were AND ARE bent on attacking us again. Iraq was nowhere NEAR the top of that list. As it is... the war in Iraq has detracted our efforts against our REAL enemies and has cost us a "bloody" fortune.

[Missileman]

terror ought not to have been the enemy...islamic extremism should have been.

What would you call the terrorists that Hussein was funding...islamic minimalists?

[Abbey Marie]

So the Dems are already afraid of Jindal.
Noted.

[red states rule]

So the Dems are already afraid of Jindal.
Noted.

Dems message to the liberal media when it comes to Gov Jindal


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3297414666_14b8ae3f8d.jpg?v=0

[Silver]

I beg to differ, but that is really beside the point. the constant drumbeat, by you and your fawning sycophants, that I am someone else, is really nothing more than obfuscation. Quit making my posts about who you mistakenly think I am and start debating me on the points that I make. This is a place to debate policy, not to debate identity... is that really so hard? :poke:

start debating me on the points that I make????


I considered continuing the discussion but .....

The only really valid point you made in the entire thread is you're an enormous hypocrite and you're not man enough to admit it ... or too stupid to actually realize it....facts put directly in front of your eyes are a waste of typing....you define words to suit your Koolade induced fantasy of recent history....you spin like a top, fooling only yourself....you epitomize one that can't separate the truth from the news.....

either way, to continue any "debate" with you is obviously a waste of time.....

[Mr. P]

I beg to differ, but that is really beside the point. the constant drumbeat, by you and your fawning sycophants, that I am someone else, is really nothing more than obfuscation. Quit making my posts about who you mistakenly think I am and start debating me on the points that I make. This is a place to debate policy, not to debate identity... is that really so hard? :poke:

Is it really that hard for you to admit yer MFM? Why? Yer still an asshole!

Anyone who lies about who they are will lie about anything and doesn't rate a ligitamate debate.

Prove I'm mistaken about who you really are. I know I'm not, no one posts the vile shit that you and your former MFM have. That chit is like a finger print. You were dead in the water a very short time into yer not so new personality, MFM.

Man Up. Come clean. Stop the denial...wait, the denial is part of being a liberal...well, work on it...the truth will set you free. Some folks may even find a bit of respect for you, maybe.:poke:

[red states rule]

start debating me on the points that I make????


I considered continuing the discussion but .....

The only really valid point you made in the entire thread is you're an enormous hypocrite and you're not man enough to admit it ... or too stupid to actually realize it....facts put directly in front of your eyes are a waste of typing....you define words to suit your Koolade induced fantasy of recent history....you spin like a top, fooling only yourself....you epitomize one that can't separate the truth from the news.....

either way, to continue any "debate" with you is obviously a waste of time.....

To people like Virgil, this is the change they want for America. Libs believe in the old saying you always hurt the one you love

http://thepeoplescube.com/images/marx_Obama_Change_300.gif

[moderate democrat]

What would you call the terrorists that Hussein was funding...islamic minimalists?

arab nationalists.

If you don't know the philosophical differences between Al Fatah and Al Qaeda, we really have nothing to talk about, I guess.

[moderate democrat]

Is it really that hard for you to admit yer MFM? Why? Yer still an asshole!

Anyone who lies about who they are will lie about anything and doesn't rate a ligitamate debate.

Prove I'm mistaken about who you really are. I know I'm not, no one posts the vile shit that you and your former MFM have. That chit is like a finger print. You were dead in the water a very short time into yer not so new personality, MFM.

Man Up. Come clean. Stop the denial...wait, the denial is part of being a liberal...well, work on it...the truth will set you free. Some folks may even find a bit of respect for you, maybe.:poke:

I say again:

This is a place to debate policy, not to debate identity... is that really so hard?

I have said that I am not this MFM character, and that is all I need to say about it. In looking back at some of his posts, it is clear to me that he made very liberal use of obscene language. I do so very infrequently. It seems to me that that is what got him in trouble. I don't want to be tarred with that brush. I keep it pretty clean and want to talk issues and not personalities or identities.... are you suggesting that you are incapable of doing that?

[Yurt]

Is it really that hard for you to admit yer MFM? Why? Yer still an asshole!

Anyone who lies about who they are will lie about anything and doesn't rate a ligitamate debate.
Prove I'm mistaken about who you really are. I know I'm not, no one posts the vile shit that you and your former MFM have. That chit is like a finger print. You were dead in the water a very short time into yer not so new personality, MFM.

Man Up. Come clean. Stop the denial...wait, the denial is part of being a liberal...well, work on it...the truth will set you free. Some folks may even find a bit of respect for you, maybe.:poke:

exactly. this joker likes to whine that his identity shouldn't be an issue, yet this same joker made telling the truth such a big issue in his previous nick. now with this new nick, apparently the truth doesn't matter. the joker doesn't realize that when he takes a new nick and says the exact same words, insults etc....and then proclaims that i am not the former person, that is actually takes away and distracts from the debate as the person on the other end immediately doesn't trust him.

but he thinks its funny. its a little joke. he gives out little "hints" on the board that let you know its him and then when you call him on it, he cries like a bitch and whines about how you are all about his identity and not the debate.

[moderate democrat]

exactly. this joker likes to whine that his identity shouldn't be an issue, yet this same joker made telling the truth such a big issue in his previous nick. now with this new nick, apparently the truth doesn't matter. the joker doesn't realize that when he takes a new nick and says the exact same words, insults etc....and then proclaims that i am not the former person, that is actually takes away and distracts from the debate as the person on the other end immediately doesn't trust him.

but he thinks its funny. its a little joke. he gives out little "hints" on the board that let you know its him and then when you call him on it, he cries like a bitch and whines about how you are all about his identity and not the debate.


again. I am not MFM. Can you debate the topic at hand, or is it really all about this obfuscating detracting discussion all day all the time for you?

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding hints.

[Yurt]

again. I am not MFM. Can you debate the topic at hand, or is it really all about this obfuscating detracting discussion all day all the time for you?

I have no idea what you are talking about regarding hints.

dude, just cut the shit. if you weren't, you would have stopped replying eons ago. the fact that jim won't come out and proclaim you are not mfm is a strong indicator that you are. more importantly, your words convict you.

SLG....to rsr....you even bolded S L G.....semi liberal girl.....you're full of shit....you knew my personal history, you knew about rsr's girlfriend....get over it, stop living a lie. life is to short. you may think it is only some electronic frontier, some ethereal place where "truth" doesn't count....and that is unfortunate. a lie you tell here is still a lie.

[Mr. P]

I say again:

This is a place to debate policy, not to debate identity... is that really so hard?

I have said that I am not this MFM character, and that is all I need to say about it. In looking back at some of his posts, it is clear to me that he made very liberal use of obscene language. I do so very infrequently. It seems to me that that is what got him in trouble. I don't want to be tarred with that brush. I keep it pretty clean and want to talk issues and not personalities or identities.... are you suggesting that you are incapable of doing that?

No, I'm STATING you are MFM and not man enough to admit it.

Do you call calling a mod which you couldn't even really know in the short time you were here a "Slut" and "Fat bitch" pretty clean? See, MFM would and YOU DID IT..

Man up..you slimball.

[Yurt]

No, I'm STATING you are MFM and not man enough to admit it.

Do you call calling a mod which you couldn't even really know in the short time you were here a "Slut" and "Fat bitch" pretty clean? See, MFM would and YOU DID IT..

Man up..you slimball.

i appreciate jim's dedication to privacy on this board, hence why he has never declared MD is not MFM. however, one must ask if the same insults are worth the hassle.

no one banned mfm....no one.

[moderate democrat]

dude, just cut the shit. if you weren't, you would have stopped replying eons ago. the fact that jim won't come out and proclaim you are not mfm is a strong indicator that you are. more importantly, your words convict you.

SLG....to rsr....you even bolded S L G.....semi liberal girl.....you're full of shit....you knew my personal history, you knew about rsr's girlfriend....get over it, stop living a lie. life is to short. you may think it is only some electronic frontier, some ethereal place where "truth" doesn't count....and that is unfortunate. a lie you tell here is still a lie.

like I said, I am not MFM... get over it. talk issues.

[moderate democrat]

No, I'm STATING you are MFM and not man enough to admit it.

Do you call calling a mod which you couldn't even really know in the short time you were here a "Slut" and "Fat bitch" pretty clean? See, MFM would and YOU DID IT..

Man up..you slimball.

she insulted me first. fact.

talk issues.

[Mr. P]

i appreciate jim's dedication to privacy on this board, hence why he has never declared MD is not MFM. however, one must ask if the same insults are worth the hassle.

no one banned mfm....no one.

I have no idea what Jims position is on this...I just see what I see and read..No doubt in my mind this is MFM..I said as much weeks ago.

[Mr. P]

she insulted me first. fact.

talk issues.

She called you a slut? Talk FACTS. Slimball.

[moderate democrat]

She called you a slut? Talk FACTS. Slimball.

well...her calling me that would be sort of silly, wouldn't it? :lol:

She insulted me and I replied in kind. My guess is even she would admit to that.

[moderate democrat]

I have no idea what Jims position is on this...I just see what I see and read..No doubt in my mind this is MFM..I said as much weeks ago.

again... why can't you debate issues instead of identities?

simple question.

[hjmick]

she insulted me first. fact.

What are you? Fucking nine years old? Remember what your mommy taught you, two wrongs don't make a right... You are rubber she is glue... Turn the other cheek... Do unto others...

Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck in a rolling donut who you are or who you might have been. What I have observed, in the short time you have been a member, is a complete and utter inability to exercise any of the above lessons we all learned in our youth. For Christ's sake, take the first step. Ignore those with whom you are having a problem or dislike. If you are unable to do that on your own, there is an ignore feature in the forum software that you can use. You don't even need to ask for permission, you can control it yourself. Yeah, okay, it won't work with a moderator or an administrator, but it should cut down on the persecution you feel when people accuse you of being ManfromMaine.

And, if you're asking yourself why I chose to address you rather than RsR, Yurt, Mr. P, or any of the others whe take issue with you, it's because none of them, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to call one of the ladies on this board a "slut" or "fat bitch." I hate that, regardless of a woman's political affiliation.

[moderate democrat]

And, if you're asking yourself why I chose to address you rather than RsR, Yurt, Mr. P, or any of the others whe take issue with you, it's because none of them, to the best of my knowledge, have yet to call one of the ladies on this board a "slut" or "fat bitch." I hate that, regardless of a woman's political affiliation.

it had nothing to do with her political affiliation. She can call someone a "liar" and a "fuktard" and get kudos from her adoring posse? how quaint. She called me a loser. I called her a bitch. she escalated, so did I. it stopped. deal with it.

[Silver]

How can one debate a meathead that insists a basketball is square no matter what is put in front of him to prove its round ?

So ...why bother :bang3:

[hjmick]

it had nothing to do with her political affiliation. She can call someone a "liar" and a "fuktard" and get kudos from her adoring posse? how quaint. She called me a loser. I called her a bitch. she escalated, so did I. it stopped. deal with it.

Well, as I said, what are you? Fucking nine years old? If someone calls you a name, ignore it. Be a man. Be an adult. Deal with it.

[moderate democrat]

Well, as I said, what are you? Fucking nine years old? If someone calls you a name, ignore it. Be a man. Be an adult. Deal with it.

and be consistent and go after everyone who calls anyone else a name.... or are "ladies" allowed to call people fuktards on here and that is somehow MATURE for them to do so?

gimme a break.

[Yurt]

I have no idea what Jims position is on this...I just see what I see and read..No doubt in my mind this is MFM..I said as much weeks ago.

i wasn't talking to you...

this person had a chance in a "conference" PM to prove himself, and he bailed...needless to say, the board owner respects privacy. good for him. nonetheless, it speaks volumes in the instant case.

[Yurt]

and be consistent and go after everyone who calls anyone else a name.... or are "ladies" allowed to call people fuktards on here and that is somehow MATURE for them to do so?

gimme a break.

how manfrommaine of you....

oh, thats like a euphemism.....nothing at all to do with a former poster

maybe the terms:

virgil

manfrommaine

shall be euphemisms for lying shithead....

[Abbey Marie]

and be consistent and go after everyone who calls anyone else a name.... or are "ladies" allowed to call people fuktards on here and that is somehow MATURE for them to do so?

gimme a break.

One time a member here called me the "c" word. I can assure you I never called him, or anyone else, crude names, let alone something as base as that. Sometimes, people are just nasty and scummy in public because they are nasty and scummy inside. What should be done with someone like that?

[hjmick]

and be consistent and go after everyone who calls anyone else a name.... or are "ladies" allowed to call people fuktards on here and that is somehow MATURE for them to do so?

gimme a break.

For what it's worth, I have had discussions with at least one other member about name calling and flaming, and it wasn't ManfromMaine, who I happened to get along with just fine.

As for what the ladies are allowed to get away with, I for one, have never been attacked by one of our members of the gentler persuasion, but if it were to happen, I would smother them with kindness and remain respectful. But that's just me. I believe that when a person resorts to name calling or flaming, they lose the debate, or argument, as the case may be.

Let's put this question to you: If your wife were to, out of frustration or anger, call you a name, would you call her a "slut" or "fat bitch?" And don't tell us it's not the same thing or a message board is different, that's a cop out.




Oh, and to any mods out there, it might be time to split this thread into the Cage as it seems to have strayed off topic to the extreme. I certainly haven't contributed to pushing back on track. Though I will assure you that this will be my last post in this thread.

[Missileman]

arab nationalists.

If you don't know the philosophical differences between Al Fatah and Al Qaeda, we really have nothing to talk about, I guess.

If you insist that Muslims blowing themselves up on busses to kill as many non-Muslims as possible is something other than islamic, extreme, and terrorism, I don't think we have anything to talk about either.

[moderate democrat]

Let's put this question to you: If your wife were to, out of frustration or anger, call you a name, would you call her a "slut" or "fat bitch?" And don't tell us it's not the same thing or a message board is different, that's a cop out.

If my wife said something to me out of anger that she later regretted, I am quite sure that she would forgive me if, in an angry response to her insult, I said something that I later regretted.

Having said that, I am quite sure that my wife would never call ME a loser, a liar and a fuktard.

[moderate democrat]

If you insist that Muslims blowing themselves up on busses to kill as many non-Muslims as possible is something other than islamic, extreme, and terrorism, I don't think we have anything to talk about either.
it is something other than the Islamic extremism as practiced by OUR enemies... absolutely. different goals....different enemies.

[PostmodernProphet]

Having said that, I am quite sure that my wife would never call ME a loser, a liar and a fuktard.

sure, but your wife probably knows something about you that we don't......

[moderate democrat]

One time a member here called me the "c" word. I can assure you I never called him, or anyone else, crude names, let alone something as base as that. Sometimes, people are just nasty and scummy in public because they are nasty and scummy inside. What should be done with someone like that?

sometimes, I am sure you are correct. I can imagine that a person like that should be ostracized.... perhaps even banned for a time.

[Missileman]

it is something other than the Islamic extremism as practiced by OUR enemies... absolutely. different goals....different enemies.

The US declared war on all terrorists and those that sponsor terrorism. Saddam Hussein was as much OUR enemy as AQ, just for different reasons.

[moderate democrat]

The US declared war on all terrorists and those that sponsor terrorism. Saddam Hussein was as much OUR enemy as AQ, just for different reasons.


we are going around in circles. I have stated that I thought that terror ought not to have ever been our "enemy", but rather, Islamic extremism. If TERROR is our enemy, as you suggest, why are we not invading Sri Lanka to root out the Tamil Tigers? Oh...and a small, but important point: the US never "declared war on all terrorists and those that sponsor terrorism". That is just a slogan. No declaration of war was ever issued.

[Missileman]

we are going around in circles. I have stated that I thought that terror ought not to have ever been our "enemy", but rather, Islamic extremism. If TERROR is our enemy, as you suggest, why are we not invading Sri Lanka to root out the Tamil Tigers? Oh...and a small, but important point: the US never "declared war on all terrorists and those that sponsor terrorism". That is just a slogan. No declaration of war was ever issued.

On the contrary...a clear list of objectives was established in the war on terror:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terrorism


The Bush Administration has defined the following objectives in the War on Terrorism:[32]

Defeat terrorists and destroy their organizations
Identify, locate and destroy terrorists along with their organizations
Deny sponsorship, support and sanctuary to terrorists
End the state sponsorship of terrorism
Establish and maintain an international standard of accountability with regard to combating terrorism
Strengthen and sustain the international effort to fight terrorism
Working with willing and able states
Enabling weak states
Persuading reluctant states
Compelling unwilling states
Interdict and disrupt material support for terrorists
Eliminate terrorist sanctuaries and havens
Diminishing the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit
Partner with the international community to strengthen weak states and prevent (re)emergence of terrorism
Win the war of ideals
Defend US citizens and interests at home and abroad
Implement the Nation Strategy for Homeland Security
Attain domain awareness
Enhance measures to ensure the integrity, reliability, and availability of critical physical and information-based infrastructures at home and abroad
Integrate measures to protect US citizens abroad
Ensure an integrated incident management capability

Feel free to point out anything in the list of objectives that supports your position or that contradicts mine.

[moderate democrat]

On the contrary...a clear list of objectives was established in the war on terror:

Feel free to point out anything in the list of objectives that supports your position or that contradicts mine.

now...if you could only find a post from me whereby I ever agreed to the validity of the objectives of Bush's "war on terror", you'd have a point.

my position has always been that the war against terror was inaccurately named and it allowed us to get sidetracked in Iraq instead of fighting our real enemies.

[glockmail]

now...if you could only find a post from me whereby I ever agreed to the validity of the objectives of Bush's "war on terror", you'd have a point.

my position has always been that the war against terror was inaccurately named and it allowed us to get sidetracked in Iraq instead of fighting our real enemies. Our real enemy is liberals like you.

[Missileman]

now...if you could only find a post from me whereby I ever agreed to the validity of the objectives of Bush's "war on terror", you'd have a point.

my position has always been that the war against terror was inaccurately named and it allowed us to get sidetracked in Iraq instead of fighting our real enemies.

Your position is the problem. All terrorists are our real enemy.

[moderate democrat]

Your position is the problem. All terrorists are our real enemy.


I am curious...why haven't you been screaming all along for Bush to invade Sri Lanka and get those Tamil Tigers who are our "real enemies"?

[Missileman]

I am curious...why haven't you been screaming all along for Bush to invade Sri Lanka and get those Tamil Tigers who are our "real enemies"?

The Sri Lankan government isn't funding terrorism and the U.S. is providing assistance to the Sri Lankan government to fight the Tamil Tigers. An invasion of Sri Lanka would be senseless and unwarranted. Is that the best you can come up with?

[moderate democrat]

The Sri Lankan government isn't funding terrorism and the U.S. is providing assistance to the Sri Lankan government to fight the Tamil Tigers. An invasion of Sri Lanka would be senseless and unwarranted. Is that the best you can come up with?

My point was: the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are a terrorist organization....YOU said that that made them our "real enemies". They are and were just as big a threat to the United States as Saddam. Neither the Tamil Tigers NOR the government of Iraq had diddly squat to do with our being attacked.... although the connection between suicide bombing and the Tigers is much stronger than with Iraq.

[Missileman]

My point was: the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka are a terrorist organization....YOU said that that made them our "real enemies". They are and were just as big a threat to the United States as Saddam. Neither the Tamil Tigers NOR the government of Iraq had diddly squat to do with our being attacked.... although the connection between suicide bombing and the Tigers is much stronger than with Iraq.

Your point was already noted and shown irrelevant. Did you fail to notice that we are involved in the fight against the Tamil Tigers? I would say that can be construed as indicating the U.S. considers the Tamil Tigers an enemy.

[moderate democrat]

Your point was already noted and shown irrelevant. Did you fail to notice that we are involved in the fight against the Tamil Tigers? I would say that can be construed as indicating the U.S. considers the Tamil Tigers an enemy.


We have combat troops in Sri Lanka? I didn't know that. got a link?

and when are we going to invade, conquer and occupy south boston, mass?

they have long supported the IRA... another bunch who are our "real enemies".

[Missileman]

We have combat troops in Sri Lanka? I didn't know that. got a link?

It's called funding and training...maybe you'd like to argue that's not involvement.

[moderate democrat]

It's called funding and training...maybe you'd like to argue that's not involvement.


I'd like to argue that that is hardly the sort of bold approach I would like to see against our "real enemies".

and south boston? when will that military operation start?

[Silver]

After carefully considering all available intelligence, the Joint Chiefs along with the CIA and FBI and have come to the conclusion, South Boston is so freekin' useless, its not worth anyones effort to invade and occupy....
The facts make it clear that no one gives a shit, a twit, or a fart about Boston....be it North, South, East or West....
ditto for the entire state of Maine....:salute::lol::salute:

[Missileman]

and when are we going to invade, conquer and occupy south boston, mass?

they have long supported the IRA... another bunch who are our "real enemies".

Speaking of links...how about one that the Mass government is sending funding to the IRA?

[moderate democrat]

Speaking of links...how about one that the Mass government is sending funding to the IRA?

mass government? they are not sending funding... it is the people of that region. much like the people of the region of pakistan that borders afghanistan. the government of pakistan is not supporting AQ, but that does not stop us from bombing their country.

[Missileman]

mass government? they are not sending funding... it is the people of that region. much like the people of the region of pakistan that borders afghanistan. the government of pakistan is not supporting AQ, but that does not stop us from bombing their country.

Then how about a link that the residents of Mass are actively engaged in funding?

[moderate democrat]

Then how about a link that the residents of Mass are actively engaged in funding?

are you suggesting that there is not a long and rich history of support for the IRA from the Irish American community in Massachusetts?

[moderate democrat]

you can read up on NORAID here and on many other sites online...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

[Missileman]

are you suggesting that there is not a long and rich history of support for the IRA from the Irish American community in Massachusetts?

I'm suggesting that it will take more than your statement to establish it as fact.

[moderate democrat]

I'm suggesting that it will take more than your statement to establish it as fact.

go look up NORAID.

[Missileman]

you can read up on NORAID here and on many other sites online...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAID

Please point to the part in your link that proves NORAID funded the IRA. I'll wait.

[moderate democrat]

Please point to the part in your link that proves NORAID funded the IRA. I'll wait.

In May 1981, the U.S. Department of Justice won a court case forcing Noraid to register the Provisional Irish Republican Army as its "foreign principal", under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938.

[Missileman]

In May 1981, the U.S. Department of Justice won a court case forcing Noraid to register the Provisional Irish Republican Army as its "foreign principal", under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938.

And in a compromise, NORAID was allowed to disclaim any affiliation to which the Federal government agreed. Sorry Charlie!

[BoogyMan]

What does it matter? We're talking about a blatant lie by someone touted as a rising Republican star.

Republican Rising Star Bobby Jindal went before the American People and told them something which was untrue. It wasn't a misinterpretation, a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. It was a lie.

It seems the sheriff remembered him being there....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wO5S5LGT1s

[Silver]

In May 1981, the U.S. Department of Justice won a court case forcing Noraid to register the Provisional Irish Republican Army as its "foreign principal", under the Foreign Agents Registration Act 1938.

That just ain't gonna cut it MM....

U.S. governments have accused Noraid of being a front for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), This accusation has always been denied by Noraid.

Accusation made....accusation denied.....case closed ?

Not that its relevant to anything anyway...who gives a shit

But as is typical in mfm, aka, mm's MO, you've successfully changed the subject from your losing debate...

[Missileman]

That just ain't gonna cut it MM....

U.S. governments have accused Noraid of being a front for the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), This accusation has always been denied by Noraid.

Accusation made....accusation denied.....case closed ?

Not that its relevant to anything anyway...who gives a shit

But as is typical in mfm, aka, mm's MO, you've successfully changed the subject from your losing debate...

Was this supposed to be addressed to me or MD/MFM?

[Silver]

Was this supposed to be addressed to me or MD/MFM?

MM is maineman, aka, MFM ...manfrommaine....
and now I suspect MD...moderate democrat....
Sorry for any confusion....