-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
"Ten Ways You Can Support Our Troops" - LIBERALS MUST READ!
- Thread starter ub4me
- Start date
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
Hahaha, thats hilarious, I'm sure a lot of conservatives are going to read that and be thinking "what's the joke?"
lol..ok
SO..it's ok for people to criticize the war and the president because that is fredom of speech but it's not ok for me exercise my freedom of speech to call them idiots for doing it.
I see.
So if people don't spend money how exactly does the economy get jump started?
Unfortunately this reflects the thinking of many people.
SO..it's ok for people to criticize the war and the president because that is fredom of speech but it's not ok for me exercise my freedom of speech to call them idiots for doing it.
I see.
So if people don't spend money how exactly does the economy get jump started?
Unfortunately this reflects the thinking of many people.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Pretty good . . .
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Why not invest time and money in making our country better . . . instead of buying a bunch of crap we don't need?
I just realized that thespeciousreport.com is an awesome website.
Here is one more.
Apology from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks
Here is one more.
Apology from Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
Haha, you're right, this site is badass.
Yes it does say NewsMax. Look at the bottom of the page. It's a legal disclaimer that the stuff on that page has no association with NewsMax or reality. A fun read for the few that would rather generalize and distort what is happening in the world today because they find it easier to construe at least 70% of the US population as mindless idiots solely because they don't agree with their views.
konichiwa, you just aren't worth my time anymore. I have decided to stop feeding the trolls.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
The body blows really hurt . . .
. . . especially when your position has such LARGE soft spots.
LilBlinbBlahIce
Golden Member
Originally posted by: Stark
hardy har har...
let watch the liberals laugh it up and forget that YOU SUPPORTED A MADMAN OVER YOUR OWN PRESIDENT
and
YOU PICKED THE LOSING SIDE IN THIS WAR (aka Stalin flavored Socialism).
he he he
Actually, just because one opposed Bush's diplomatic bungling, does not mean they support Saddam. You obviously joined the debate late or you would have known (non necessarily understood) the many other reasons we have given on why we oppose military action.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
I'm curious about this Saddam cheering section . . . who are these people.
these guys?
Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.
these guys?
Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.
"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
😕
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
