Bin Laden and Chomsky

[Chet Lemon]

Dems are weak on terror, it's been proven by their actions.

 

Which is why I will never vote for those limp-wristed pieces of garbage.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

So some partisan hack wrote a book that is "proof" that Bin Laden really likes GW Bush. Give me a break. I could point out like 30 books stating the opposite. Dems are weak on terror, it's been proven by their actions. They could have killed Bin Laden but Clinton didn't want to offend any muslims, and if you don't offend them they will leave you alone -- oh wait, that has proven to be incorrect.

Ok, I just read some of his New York Times and Esquire articles, the guy has a blatant agenda. Seriously, he's about as objective as Ann Coulter.

Point away, chief.

 

And weak on terrorism by leaving bin Laden alone? Would that be anything like saying:

 

“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else,” he said.

 

The country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

 

“I truly am not that concerned about him.”

 

If so, then that's Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and our current-terrorist-smoker-outer in Chief George W. Bush.

 

How the Hell would you and the other rabid partisan right wingers have responded if Democrats, Greens, liberals or even conservatives critical of the Iraq war policy would have said even half of that stuff?

 

I don't see how starting a war based on factless intelligence and continued actions which have only swelled anti-American sentiment abroad and swelled the numbers of people willing to accesorize with dynamite is a working strategy.

 

And Suskind has no more of an agenda than the Krauthammers, Freepers, WNDers, Kristols, Humes, Fox News, O'Reillys, Hannitys and the other boundless, brainless cheerleaders of the pro-war "stay the course no matter how much suffering or countless billions get poured in" cheerleaders do.

 

This whole near blind support for W and the Iraq policy is pretty damn insane, especially at this point when it is pretty damn clear that it was an absolute failure and continues to be.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Which is why I will never vote for those limp-wristed pieces of garbage.

Then put your money where your mouth is.

 

If you like the invasion of another country so much, then go join the surge.

 

But you likely won't, because whining and b****ing about "liberals" is a lot easier than putting your ass on the line in a marketplace in urban Iraq.

[Gregory Pratt]

Uh, Suskind's One Percent Doctrine directly quoted the deputy director of the CIA who never denied making the statement and the agency never denied the analysis. Beyond that, it makes a ton of sense that for radical Islamic purposes purposes

 

Fundamentalist Christian who slips up and uses word "Crusade"

>

Weak Bostonian with Herman Munster face who talks about sensitivity

 

Of course McLaughlin has a huge axe to grind. Any analysis, after all, which disagrees with our preconceived notions is obviously false and created falsely. Osama bin Laden wants to drink tea with Nancy Pelosi and Walter Mondale.

 

That's not really the issue here, though, and this isnt' a genuine debate or discussion about al-Qaeda. You said I made something up and I said, No, actually, sorry. That's enough for me as you clearly have not an agenda but a mind that has decided everything for itself and is in no need of looking further into a subject.

 

I have just as much contempt for bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as anyone here. I was, and am, as big a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning as anyone here. I simply object to claims which I think are demonstrably false about "Democrats = al-Qaeda" or "Iraq = going well." Neither has a basis in reality.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Gregory Pratt

[kapkomet]

Uh, Suskind's One Percent Doctrine directly quoted the deputy director of the CIA who never denied making the statement and the agency never denied the analysis. Beyond that, it makes a ton of sense that for radical Islamic purposes purposes

 

Fundamentalist Christian who slips up and uses word "Crusade"

>

Weak Bostonian with Herman Munster face who talks about sensitivity

 

Of course McLaughlin has a huge axe to grind. Any analysis, after all, which disagrees with our preconceived notions is obviously false and created falsely. Osama bin Laden wants to drink tea with Nancy Pelosi and Walter Mondale.

 

That's not really the issue here, though, and this isnt' a genuine debate or discussion about al-Qaeda. You said I made something up and I said, No, actually, sorry. That's enough for me as you clearly have not an agenda but a mind that has decided everything for itself and is in no need of looking further into a subject.

 

I have just as much contempt for bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein as anyone here. I was, and am, as big a supporter of the War in Iraq from the beginning as anyone here. I simply object to claims which I think are demonstrably false about "Democrats = al-Qaeda" or "Iraq = going well." Neither has a basis in reality.

To stick to the issue - I've never said that Democrats = Al Queda (at least I don't think I did), but I did say that the RHETORIC of the Democrats = Al Queda RHETORIC. If I didn't say it that way, it should have been said that way.

 

And there's very little that is NOT true about that statement. Again, I could come up with a lot of the transcript and put them side by side as to what was said YESTERDAY by Harry Reid and Schucky Schumer. I about wanted to vomit when I heard what they had to say to the media darlings yesterday. It disgusts me the rhetoric that they use - and it is very similiar in nature to what Binne had to say.

 

I've said this time and time and time and time again. BushCo has handled this TERRIBLY since about week 6 over there. It's been a total waste of effort by our guys because the leadership at the top is too worried about scoring political points then actually taking care of the problem over there. THAT's all political, and it sickens me that the Re-pube-lican leadership won't grow a pair and get things done right over there.

 

I can criticize things beyond party lines. Most around here can't... other then to say that the Democrats have "failed them" because they "gave in" to Bush on the last go-round of funding and other "concessions". What those "concessions" tell me is there is a LOT more behind the scenes then we really know and the camera whoring is nothing but a power trip to get elected by BOTH sides, and in a time of war, that disgusts me on both sides of the equation. I think the Democrats are MORE dangerous because they are clearly on the wrong side of the equation by simply giving up the fight in Iraq at this juncture... and even Binnie more or less confirmed that with certain phrases in his "speech".

 

[jackie hayes]

To stick to the issue - I've never said that Democrats = Al Queda (at least I don't think I did), but I did say that the RHETORIC of the Democrats = Al Queda RHETORIC. If I didn't say it that way, it should have been said that way.

 

And there's very little that is NOT true about that statement. Again, I could come up with a lot of the transcript and put them side by side as to what was said YESTERDAY by Harry Reid and Schucky Schumer. I about wanted to vomit when I heard what they had to say to the media darlings yesterday. It disgusts me the rhetoric that they use - and it is very similiar in nature to what Binne had to say.

 

I've said this time and time and time and time again. BushCo has handled this TERRIBLY since about week 6 over there. It's been a total waste of effort by our guys because the leadership at the top is too worried about scoring political points then actually taking care of the problem over there. THAT's all political, and it sickens me that the Re-pube-lican leadership won't grow a pair and get things done right over there.

 

I can criticize things beyond party lines. Most around here can't... other then to say that the Democrats have "failed them" because they "gave in" to Bush on the last go-round of funding and other "concessions". What those "concessions" tell me is there is a LOT more behind the scenes then we really know and the camera whoring is nothing but a power trip to get elected by BOTH sides, and in a time of war, that disgusts me on both sides of the equation. I think the Democrats are MORE dangerous because they are clearly on the wrong side of the equation by simply giving up the fight in Iraq at this juncture... and even Binnie more or less confirmed that with certain phrases in his "speech".

Man, you sure "could" do a lot of things. I keep thinking I have to actually back up what I say, but your method is way more efficient.

[kapkomet]

Man, you sure "could" do a lot of things. I keep thinking I have to actually back up what I say, but your method is way more efficient.

Their quotes are all over the place. I'm just lazy, that's all. Come on, people. You know what they say, almost once or twice a week an definitely every Sunday morning on the liberal talk shows on ABC and NBC. Thanks for cherry picking that one sentance out of my whole post.

[jackie hayes]

Their quotes are all over the place. I'm just lazy, that's all. Come on, people. You know what they say, almost once or twice a week an definitely every Sunday morning on the liberal talk shows on ABC and NBC. Thanks for cherry picking that one sentance out of my whole post.

No -- I'd really like to see this, actually.

 

The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all?

 

But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait.

[Gregory Pratt]

ROHAN GUNARATNA, AUTHOR "INSIDE AL QAEDA"

"Osama's call to the Americans to convert to Islam is indicative of an al Qaeda attack on US targets. Before the Prophet (Mohammad) attacked his enemies he urged his opponents to embrace Islam."

 

"Osama is presenting Koranic injunctions before planning to attack."

 

AMR El-CHOUBAKI, EXPERT ON ISLAMIST MOVEMENTS:

There's nothing new there, except for... when he called on the US to convert to Islam. In my opinion that's different from his earlier statements that contained a political dimension, references to oppression, and contained language that was broader than direct religious creedal language.

 

I think it suggests a return to a closed and impossible understanding of religion.

 

I think when there's impossible talk floated it reflects a crisis in discourse... It's clear his influence within the al Qaeda organisation... is now limited, so the impossible discourse comes to the forefront because it costs nothing. No one's going to ask him how he plans to convert the US, and with what means. But when he talks about specific objectives, that he'll attack this area, or that the US will withdraw from Iraq in a month... there people will expect results. So it's clear he's not capable of achieving anything possible, so he's switched to impossible discourse, which no one can call him out on.

 

KHALID AL-DAKHIL, SAUDI POLITICAL SCIENCE PROFESSOR AT KING SAUD UNIVERSITY:

There was a US report warning of a possible attack, then came this. The whole message is focused on the United States ... this suggests that there is a threat.

 

The more important thing is the message that leaving Iraq, which appears more likely now, will not solve the problem.

 

ABDEL BARI ATWAN, EDITOR AL-QUDS NEWSPAPER, LONDON:

He would like to say that he is not dead, as many people anticipated, and he is still the leader of al Qaeda...

 

It was very significant, the transformation of his image, of his character which he wanted to convey in this videotape.

 

He would like to say: 'I am not the old Osama bin Laden, I am the new, mature Osama bin Laden, I am the spiritual leader of al Qaeda.'

 

Usually his appearance is connected with a coming attack. This could be a warning shot. This is sort of a rallying video. Maybe there is a message to his followers -- go ahead and do what you want to do.

 

There will be a sigh of relief among his supporters that he is still alive. But definitely it is not really the strong speech they expected, it is not newsy. The only new thing is his appearance, his conversion to civilian leader and ideologist of al Qaeda.

 

M.J. GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION, LONDON

There is a very theatrical and amateur feel about this particular message, and I suspect that Adam Gadhan, the California-born head of As-Sahab, al-Qa'ida's media arm, has played a major role in scripting and production of this video, and also orchestrating its release.

 

Bin Laden dyeing his hair and beard, whilst hiding out somewhere in Pakistan, is really bizarre because it makes him, a man who claims he wants to be a martyr, look vain and ridiculous as he seems to have the time and priority to do a major makeover before appearing on camera. It does not fit with the image he has so carefully nurtured, the masquerade of his being a holy warrior devoid of normal human traits.

 

He seems to have undergone changes in both his physical appearance and his personality.

 

It is truly odd that bin Laden speaks about "the reeling of many of you under the burden of interest-related debts, insane taxes and real estate mortgages; global warming and its woes..." because the wording and sentiments are those of a rebellious young western-born individual and not the head of al Qaeda.

 

Because video tapes featuring bin Laden speaking to camera are so rare, the release of this particular tape could herald a major attack, though remarkably this message contains none of his usual open threats against the United States.

 

If it is indeed bin Laden then he is exhibiting a very different personality trait and shift from previous messages.

 

FARES BIN HOUZAM, SAUDI INDEPENDENT RESEARCHER ON AL QAEDA:

This is just a message to his followers and foes that he exists and that he is still the leader of al Qaeda.

 

I am 100 percent sure that this man has no power to plan (for al Qaeda). He is just giving signals to his followers around the world.

 

MOHAMED EL-SAYED SAID, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE AHRAM CENTRE FOR POLITICAL AND STRATEGIC STUDIES IN CAIRO:

 

The message is much more threatening this time. It's confident, it uses iconic language that suggests, 'I'm commissioned to wage an unending war against you, and the only way to get peace is to convert to Islam.'

 

It's very clear that he took care to give the impression that's he's at ease, that he's on the offensive and he controls the situation, that's he not a fugitive, he's very comfortable ... He's saying 'Now I can show you mercy or not.'

 

He's in a state of battle, a state of constant, unending war until he Islamises the world ... So they're not talking about Iraq, they're talking about the world.

[kapkomet]

No -- I'd really like to see this, actually.

 

The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all?

 

But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait.

No, that's not what I said. I said the RHETORIC is the same. Read what I'm writing, please, before you just all out assail what I'm saying.

[kapkomet]

I don't care what people's analysis of the speech is, I can read the transcript on my own, thanks, though.

[Heads22]

Goddamn, all I was trying to say was Chomsky is a terrorist.

[jackie hayes]

No, that's not what I said. I said the RHETORIC is the same. Read what I'm writing, please, before you just all out assail what I'm saying.

Everything I referred to is a public pronouncement and therefore "rhetoric". So, please, do exactly what you said you could do. Put the relevant statements "side by side". And since, as you said, "damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points", please be thorough.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Goddamn, all I was trying to say was Chomsky is a terrorist.

 

:lolhitting

 

You owe me a beer to make up for the one I just spit reading that.

[jasonxctf]

this thread absolutely disgusts me. anyone here who is honestly trying to associate Osama with the Democratic Party should be ashamed of themselves.

 

We have a common enemy and yet we use him or what he says to divide ourselves against each other. you're falling right into his trap.

 

This is exactly what he is trying to accomplish.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Bin Laden?? Meh, I truly am not that concerned about him.

 

Oh, wait, I didn't say that. Our president did back in March of 2002.

 

Yeah, I can see how this president has OBL absolutely quaking in his sandals with that get it done attitude. From "Dead or Alive" to "not that concerned," exactly six months and three days after 9/11.

 

BushCo and the Neocons tough on terror?? Yep, sure, you betcha. whatever.

 

Bush getting reelected in 2004 was OBL's wet dream and apparently it really doesn't take a Genius to figure that out. I guess it's that much harder to vilify a fundamentalist whackjob who thinks God speaks to him and tells him to do horrendous things when leader of the free world is, well, a fundamentalist whackjob who thinks God speaks to him and tells him to do horrendous things.

Edited September 9, 2007 by FlaSoxxJim

[kapkomet]

First, I said that Bush has royally f'ed up this war. But wow, it's amazing, no one wants to give me credit for that one, because it doesn't support all the f***ing sharks in the bloody water right now, now does it?

 

Second, the only damn thing I can find of the transcript is in .pdf (on MSNBC where I read it yesterday), and frankly I am not retyping all that s***. Anyone want to find me a .html transcript? I told you once, I'm too lazy to spend the next three hours typing all this s*** out.

 

But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday.

 

For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I even have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there).

 

There's many, many more... but that's a start.

[StrangeSox]

First, I said that Bush has royally f'ed up this war. But wow, it's amazing, no one wants to give me credit for that one, because it doesn't support all the f***ing sharks in the bloody water right now, now does it?

 

Second, the only damn thing I can find of the transcript is in .pdf (on MSNBC where I read it yesterday), and frankly I am not retyping all that s***. Anyone want to find me a .html transcript? I told you once, I'm too lazy to spend the next three hours typing all this s*** out.

 

But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday.

 

For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I evven have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there).

 

There's many, many more... but that's a start.

 

There's still a big problem, and that is that this entire argument revolves around this:

 

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

 

Address the claims and the merits of the claims. Saying "Bin Laden believes it, so it must be bad" is a logical fallacy and, imo, a pretty stupid way to determine things.

[kapkomet]

No -- I'd really like to see this, actually.

 

The fact is, your statement was utter bulls*** from the start. What kind of f***ing sense does it make to comment on "damn near everything" in the speech when you admit that you haven't read it all?

But, hey, go ahead. You made it sound like Reid was reciting the speech verbatim. How hard can it be? And Biden's on Meet the Press tomorrow morning. Should be pretty easy pickings. Put 'em side-by-side, just like you said you could. I can't wait.

And by the way, I didn't say that either. I said I read the transcript, in it's entirety. And I have also said, now three times, the RHETORIC is the same -- and what Harry Reid is saying is VERY comparable to what Binnie had to say. So again, I politely ask, stop putting words in my mouth. That's the third time in this thread that someone has tried that, and it needs to stop. Thanks - much appreciated.

[kapkomet]

There's still a big problem, and that is that this entire argument revolves around this:

 

A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

 

Person A makes claim X

There is something objectionable about Person A

Therefore claim X is false

 

Address the claims and the merits of the claims. Saying "Bin Laden believes it, so it must be bad" is a logical fallacy and, imo, a pretty stupid way to determine things.

And that is incorrect.

 

It's not "something objectionable about person A" that is the point I'm making. Therefore, your little cutesy argument that you like to post every time someone starts making things like this is false in this case. It's that Person A HAS SOMETHING OBJECTIONABLE to say, and there is a huge difference between the two.

 

I don't feel like playing philosophy class anymore. With this I close for tonight. I have discovered that the more vigourously something like this is defended on Soxtalk, the more merit it has, because all you libs like to circle on the lump of chum in the water. There's small truths ( and I will allow not 100%, but definitely a majority) to the claim of RHETORIC that Democrats currently have and Binnie's latest video for us. I'm going to say this one more time. DEMOCRATS ARE NOT AL QUEDA so stop saying that I'm saying that. I am saying that there are certain idealogies being taken and twisted for his perverted view of the world, and the Democrats in this country make it easy for him to do so.

 

And I'll add: So does George W. Bush, but I already said that. I agree with Flaxx's post up to the last paragraph. I think it's horse s*** that "Binnie doesn't matter" anymore. This tape is why it matters. The asshole was responsible for 3,000 deaths, and he needs to meet Allah for it to get his just desserts.

Edited September 9, 2007 by kapkomet

[jackie hayes]

And by the way, I didn't say that either. I said I read the transcript, in it's entirety. And I have also said, now three times, the RHETORIC is the same -- and what Harry Reid is saying is VERY comparable to what Binnie had to say. So again, I politely ask, stop putting words in my mouth. That's the third time in this thread that someone has tried that, and it needs to stop. Thanks - much appreciated.

 

Now I'm not jking here... seriously (and I haven't read the whole thing, it's just contextual at this point) but damn near everything he said are Democrat talking points. HOW SAD IS THAT?

 

You are a joke.

[mr_genius]

Point away, chief.

 

And weak on terrorism by leaving bin Laden alone? Would that be anything like saying:

 

“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else,” he said.

 

The country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

 

“I truly am not that concerned about him.”

 

If so, then that's Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and our current-terrorist-smoker-outer in Chief George W. Bush.

 

How the Hell would you and the other rabid partisan right wingers have responded if Democrats, Greens, liberals or even conservatives critical of the Iraq war policy would have said even half of that stuff?

 

I don't see how starting a war based on factless intelligence and continued actions which have only swelled anti-American sentiment abroad and swelled the numbers of people willing to accesorize with dynamite is a working strategy.

 

And Suskind has no more of an agenda than the Krauthammers, Freepers, WNDers, Kristols, Humes, Fox News, O'Reillys, Hannitys and the other boundless, brainless cheerleaders of the pro-war "stay the course no matter how much suffering or countless billions get poured in" cheerleaders do.

 

This whole near blind support for W and the Iraq policy is pretty damn insane, especially at this point when it is pretty damn clear that it was an absolute failure and continues to be.

 

give me a break. your Dems are the ones saying " but, he didn't get bin Laden.... osama is the real target. " . you going to blame them for being shortsighted? of course you won't.

 

comparing Suskind to Hannity and O'reilly sounds about right. i certainly wouldn't use any of their books as proof of anything, and that was my point... so what if some partisan wrote a book? it proves nothing.

 

i didn't think the US should have invaded iraq.. but i wouldn't say anyone that does is, as you call it, "braindead". we get it, you're a democrat, but do you really need to stoop so low to make a point?

Edited September 9, 2007 by mr_genius

[kapkomet]

Since that time when I made the first post, and when I made my posts today, I was able to read the entire thing. So, I stand corrected on my original post when I said what I did, but subsequent to that, I read it. And at least I admitted the truth about "context" last night when I originally posted that - it's much more then you get from most of you libs around here anyway.

 

I still stand by the "Democrat talking points" comment, especially after reading the whole thing!! - well what do you know, "talking points" and "rhetoric" are pretty damn close in meaning.

 

Would you like to continue to assassinate the messenger, or do you have ANY point at all?

[jackie hayes]

But, I have gone back and transcribed Reid and Durbin for yesterday.

 

For starters, all the global warming s***, well we know that's a Democrat talking point. Bin Ladin speaks of the billions of the cost of the war, well, so does Reid (as a defense to make it stop). Durbin, who once called our own troops Nazis, is talking about our troops "taking their last breath" in Iraq whlie we wait for political reconciliation. The RHETORIC (now read that AGAIN so I don't have to read about how I'm calling Al Queda = to Democrats again) is the SAME. It's not a direct quote, but they play right off of one another. Now, that's just the start, but the idea is there. For Cripes sake, Noam Chomsky? Wow... do I even have to explain that? Bin Ladin of course speaks of a civil war in Iraq, all caused by Bush - the Democrats talk about this every day. Bin Ladin references "war for corporations"... we see STILL all the Haliburton references quite often (although not as recently... but I know they are still out there). Bin Ladin talks about the capitalistic failures (oh, even home loans!!) and we need bailouts (yes that is a strech, but the points are there).

 

There's many, many more... but that's a start.

Oh, I'd f***ing LOVE the whole list.

 

Global warming? GMAFB, you're going to put anyone who mentions global warming in bed with BIN LADEN? Holy s***...

 

Then you mention soldiers suffering. Who ISN'T mentioning that?

 

"corporations" is not a reference specific to Halliburton. Which is obvious by the usage. Where is the Dem who's claimed that Halliburton conspired to assassinate JFK?

 

"side by side" -- back up your boast. We're waiting.

[jackie hayes]

Since that time when I made the first post, and when I made my posts today, I was able to read the entire thing. So, I stand corrected on my original post when I said what I did, but subsequent to that, I read it. And at least I admitted the truth about "context" last night when I originally posted that - it's much more then you get from most of you libs around here anyway.

 

I still stand by the "Democrat talking points" comment, especially after reading the whole thing!! - well what do you know, "talking points" and "rhetoric" are pretty damn close in meaning.

 

Would you like to continue to assassinate the messenger, or do you have ANY point at all?

What was unclear about my post? I quoted you exactly. You felt qualified to speak on everything in the clip, without having even read it. That's some real desperation. The thing was only 7 pages long, for chrissake.

 

You said you hadn't said it. You did say it. And you still try to attack me, for attacking "the messenger". What the f*** is your problem? If you said it, ADMIT IT.

 

Btw, with all your "you libs" bulls***, I invite you to provide a few examples of where I blindly supported Dem positions. Like when I've said that we should stay in Iraq at this point, although the invasion was idiocy. Or when I've supported open trade or guest worker programs. Be my f***ing guest.

 

On the other side, I'd like you to do exactly what you said you could -- put full quotes "side by side", and let us all gasp at how terrorist the Dems are. We're still waiting. Vague references about "global warming" are just sad.