I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype

[Moonbeam]

I am too realist, too down to earth, to smart to go for any nonsense about hope.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Sounds balanced.


Not.


Typical two-sided propaganda.

yes, because Kos presents itself as an unbiased source of journalistic integrity.

Everything is biased my zealot friend.

Uh...that's his point. He was being sarcastic. Kos prides itself on being pretty darn liberal.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Are these articles true btw?

Link 1
Link 2

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Are these articles true btw?

Link 1
Link 2

They probably are.. his crowds are simply too large to screen completely.

Do we need tinfoil to read between the lines of your posting of those stories? Just curious...

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 4)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

You honestly think 48 hours is enough to clean out an entire country's supposed massive stockpiles of WMD and covertly drive them to a neighboring country under the watchful eyes of patrol aircraft, spy satellites, etc without a trace left behind?

That's awfully hard to believe.

Also, Saddam saying he wanted to rebuild his WMD program is news to no-one. It doesn't matter what sort of things he wanted to do at some nebulous point in the future, that doesn't justify an invasion.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

If I read your post correctly you say you don't like Obama because he would choose to use diplomacy first. What do you propose? Military action against every country that dislikes us or we suspect has a WMD program? We were told Iraq was behind 9/11. They weren't. We were told they had WMD's. They didn't. Are you ready to attack Iran on the same premise?

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

You honestly think 48 hours is enough to clean out an entire country's supposed massive stockpiles of WMD and covertly drive them to a neighboring country under the watchful eyes of patrol aircraft, spy satellites, etc without a trace left behind?

That's awfully hard to believe.

Also, Saddam saying he wanted to rebuild his WMD program is news to no-one. It doesn't matter what sort of things he wanted to do at some nebulous point in the future, that doesn't justify an invasion.

If he didn't have a lot to clean out, then yes. We're not talking about the nuclear stockpiles of Russia here... Iraq's stuff was probably biological and chemical in nature. Also, please notice that the Israelis reported this in 2002 before the invasion. And it was page 4 of the nysun article. My bad.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

You try an dpass this off as proof:

June 15, 2003 It was revealed that the trailers discovered were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis had insisted all along. [16] The artillery balloons were used to get detailed weather data to be used to accurately direct artillery shelling. A British scientist and biological weapons expert was quoted "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." It was confirmed later that this expert was Dr David Kelly
.
.
.
July 17/18, 2003 Dr David Kelly, a key source for many of the newspaper articles doubting the Mobile weapons labs, is found dead. An inquiry into his death, The Hutton Inquiry, found his death to be suicide.

September 8, 2003

? The discovery by U.S. forces in Iraq of two mobile 'biological weapons laboratories' was touted by President Bush as clear evidence that Iraq possessed illegal weapons capabilities. However, it now is clear that these so-called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents. ?
? Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 8, 2003[20
.
.
.
Powell retraction
? I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[21] April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[4]" 2005
?
? Colin L Powell

Enjoy your kool-aid.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

You try an dpass this off as proof:

June 15, 2003 It was revealed that the trailers discovered were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis had insisted all along. [16] The artillery balloons were used to get detailed weather data to be used to accurately direct artillery shelling. A British scientist and biological weapons expert was quoted "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." It was confirmed later that this expert was Dr David Kelly
.
.
.
July 17/18, 2003 Dr David Kelly, a key source for many of the newspaper articles doubting the Mobile weapons labs, is found dead. An inquiry into his death, The Hutton Inquiry, found his death to be suicide.

September 8, 2003

? The discovery by U.S. forces in Iraq of two mobile 'biological weapons laboratories' was touted by President Bush as clear evidence that Iraq possessed illegal weapons capabilities. However, it now is clear that these so-called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents. ?
? Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 8, 2003[20
.
.
.
Powell retraction
? I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[21] April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[4]" 2005
?
? Colin L Powell

Enjoy your kool-aid.

If I had "proof" I'd be all over the media. I'm citing sources that validate my opinions, much in the same way that you left out parts of that summary that support my opinion. But it's P&N, so sa'll good 🙂

Edit: And I love how you quoted the conspiracy quote (the reporter who committed suicide)

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: irishScott

Talking just gives them more time to develop a nuke, and like I said, you can't negotiate with terrorist fanatics. It's simply useless 97% of the time, and negligibly useful for another 2%. Unless you count saving face.

78% of statistics are made up on the spot

All it does is buy them time. I'm not saying we should invade Iran or anything, hell Israel will probably take care of them for us, but preemptive strikes are definitely a necessary principle, note I said "strikes" not "invasions". The objectives of the Iraq invasion were sound, but they did not require anything close to a full scale invasion. And then Bush moronically gave Saddam 48 hours. That's more than enough time to evacuate, destroy, or sterilize anything. We actually picked up a few mobile trailer labs (or at least they were labs) a few days after taking Baghdad. They were sterilized, perfectly. And Army intelligence points towards Syria as a likely recipient of Iraq's materials near the border. But I digress again...

proof or stfu.

Yes, I pulled the statistic out of my ass. From my own research. But this should be pretty obvious: Let's see, we've got North Korea, Yassar Arafat, Somalia, Rwanda, the list goes on.

The first bolded item is my opinion. You don't like it? I don't really care.

The trailers were definitely discovered, but whether they were labs or not is up for grabs. The CIA says they were, an Independent Fact Finding missions says they weren't, and a BBC source says he's 40% sure that they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_weapons_laboratory summarizes it nicely. Look at the references if you want sources.

As for the last fact, I know a guy in Army Intelligence. If you want a 3rd party source:
http://www.nysun.com/article/26514

Granted, it was faulty intelligence that got us into Iraq in the first place, but given that the Israelis already destroyed a Syrian nuclear reactor, it's not much of a stretch to assume Saddam gave them chemical/biological WMDs. If you don't trust Saddam's ex-advisor, there's a cite from an Israeli source saying the same thing. (page 3)

Also, Saddam has freely admitted to wanting to rebuild his WMD program to his interrogator.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories...utes/main3749494.shtml (video part 2, 8:00)

You try an dpass this off as proof:

June 15, 2003 It was revealed that the trailers discovered were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis had insisted all along. [16] The artillery balloons were used to get detailed weather data to be used to accurately direct artillery shelling. A British scientist and biological weapons expert was quoted "They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons." It was confirmed later that this expert was Dr David Kelly
.
.
.
July 17/18, 2003 Dr David Kelly, a key source for many of the newspaper articles doubting the Mobile weapons labs, is found dead. An inquiry into his death, The Hutton Inquiry, found his death to be suicide.

September 8, 2003

? The discovery by U.S. forces in Iraq of two mobile 'biological weapons laboratories' was touted by President Bush as clear evidence that Iraq possessed illegal weapons capabilities. However, it now is clear that these so-called labs were nothing more than hydrogen generation units based upon British technology acquired by Iraq in the 1980s, used to fill weather balloons in support of conventional artillery operations, and have absolutely no application for the production of biological agents. ?
? Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 8, 2003[20
.
.
.
Powell retraction
? I looked at the four [sources] that [the CIA] gave me for [the mobile bio-labs], and they stood behind them, ... Now it appears not to be the case that it was that solid. At the time I was preparing the presentation, it was presented to me as being solid.[21] April 3, 2004
I feel terrible ... [giving the speech] ... It's a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and [it] will always be a part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now.[4]" 2005
?
? Colin L Powell

Enjoy your kool-aid.

If I had "proof" I'd be all over the media. I'm citing sources that validate my opinions, much in the same way that you left out parts of that summary that support my opinion. But it's P&N, so sa'll good 🙂

Edit: And I love how you quoted the conspiracy quote (the reporter who committed suicide)

So if I find sources that say the world is flat then people are supposed to take that as "validation" of my opinions? LMAO!!

 

[lupi]

I was about to type a detailed reply, but just thinking about Obama made me feint.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So if I find sources that say the world is flat then people are supposed to take that as "validation" of my opinions? LMAO!!

No. I'm saying nothing of the sort. My opinion is hardly a stretch of the imagination, and I've stated it as my opinion multiple times. Take it or leave it. It makes sense to a lot of people I've talked to, and I have valid evidence for it.

Also, there's the fact that you have yet to actually post an opinion of your own, while you freely flame me and poke holes in my sources. Holes that I've admitted are there no less. This leads me to believe that you're simply one of the antagonistic attention whores that gives P&N its reputation.

Moving on...

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: Noobtastic

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Noobtastic
Sounds balanced.


Not.


Typical two-sided propaganda.

yes, because Kos presents itself as an unbiased source of journalistic integrity.

Everything is biased my zealot friend.

Uh...that's his point. He was being sarcastic. Kos prides itself on being pretty darn liberal.

yeah.

I think with print and news media, discounting the editorial pages and commentators, there's a reasonable expectation that pure news stories will do their best to be unbiased news.

that same assumption is not there when it comes to blogs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

yes that is funny!!!
Something to think about.....
A lot of white anglo saxon males would not have supported Ron whats his name had he been a man of color....hmmmm

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

yes that is funny!!!
Something to think about.....
A lot of white anglo saxon males would not have supported Ron whats his name had he been a man of color....hmmmm

This is perhaps the dumbest post I have seen all week. Congrats.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So if I find sources that say the world is flat then people are supposed to take that as "validation" of my opinions? LMAO!!

No. I'm saying nothing of the sort. My opinion is hardly a stretch of the imagination, and I've stated it as my opinion multiple times. Take it or leave it. It makes sense to a lot of people I've talked to, and I have valid evidence for it.

Also, there's the fact that you have yet to actually post an opinion of your own, while you freely flame me and poke holes in my sources. Holes that I've admitted are there no less. This leads me to believe that you're simply one of the antagonistic attention whores that gives P&N its reputation.

Moving on...

Your free to take your opinions on a hike anytime you want. 😛

Any reasonable person can see that Iraq wasn't a threat, that they didn't have stockpiles of WMD's, that they didn't have the long range missles or the uranium Bush and his whole administration tried to scare everybody with.

The best you can do is some supposed experts who say there is a 40% chance that these trailers could have been mobile WMD labs? I would venture a guess they could make that claim about any trailer with wheels.

LOL, talk about your antagonistic attention whores.

 

[irishScott]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: irishScott

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
So if I find sources that say the world is flat then people are supposed to take that as "validation" of my opinions? LMAO!!

No. I'm saying nothing of the sort. My opinion is hardly a stretch of the imagination, and I've stated it as my opinion multiple times. Take it or leave it. It makes sense to a lot of people I've talked to, and I have valid evidence for it.

Also, there's the fact that you have yet to actually post an opinion of your own, while you freely flame me and poke holes in my sources. Holes that I've admitted are there no less. This leads me to believe that you're simply one of the antagonistic attention whores that gives P&N its reputation.

Moving on...

Your free to take your opinions on a hike anytime you want. 😛

Any reasonable person can see that Iraq wasn't a threat, that they didn't have stockpiles of WMD's, that they didn't have the long range missles or the uranium Bush and his whole administration tried to scare everybody with.

The best you can do is some supposed experts who say there is a 40% chance that these trailers could have been mobile WMD labs? I would venture a guess they could make that claim about any trailer with wheels.

LOL, talk about your antagonistic attention whores.

I already said I thought Iraq was a mistake, and I never said they were a threat. I've also said that whatever stockpiles they might have had were probably small enough to be evacuated/destroyed during the 48 hour period.

Please read the posts.

Personally, I think Iraq would have become a threat, oh, maybe in 2010 if we hadn't invaded. If NK can get a nuke, I fail to see why Iraq couldn't given time.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

Are you an idiot? The title of this thread is the title of the news article. Get a clue.

 

[GoingUp]

So you're not voting for Obama because you're worried he might piss off the Chinese toy industry? Boy, thats one reason I'd never heard of before. Do us all a favor and just stay home.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs
So you're not voting for Obama because you're worried he might piss off the Chinese toy industry? Boy, thats one reason I'd never heard of before. Do us all a favor and just stay home.

😕

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

Are you an idiot? The title of this thread is the title of the news article. Get a clue.

How does that change the fact that you - a Ron Paul supporter - posted an article about Obama being all hype?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

Are you an idiot? The title of this thread is the title of the news article. Get a clue.

How does that change the fact that you - a Ron Paul supporter - posted an article about Obama being all hype?

Are you kidding me? Did you even read the article? I assume you didn't by your response. Its a PRO OBAMA Article :disgust:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Yes, because voting for Ron Paul is a great way to avoid the hype machine in this election :roll:

Maybe he feels Paul is the only one who deserves his vote.

Is that wrong? 😕

It is when someone who has been (still is?) pimping for Ron Paul starts a thread titled 'I Refuse to Buy into the Obama Hype'.

yes that is funny!!!
Something to think about.....
A lot of white anglo saxon males would not have supported Ron whats his name had he been a man of color....hmmmm

Another blathering idiot who doesn't know what he is talking about.