Be nice, it's all he has.

-spence

Seek the facts and truth, not fuel for hatred.

snopes says the "Cheney method of debate" is to shoot your opponent in the face with a shotgun....

I don't know where you got that other stuff, you have it in quotes, is that actually a Cheney quote, or are you making things up again?

so now we need Spence...the ultimate spinner.... to put Snopes, the last word on everything as determined by a husband and wife in a basement somewhere, into context?....gimme a break

I don't think Snopes says that...why are you making things up again?

-spence

You are getting more Obama like every post:rotf2:

What else is he to do when he doesn't have any other ammo?

He's just reaffirming my comment.

which comment? the one where you quoted Cheney?

"I ignore any evidence you have, thus must be wrong."

I can't locate that quote anywhere, not even on Snopes...but it's really brilliant if you made it up yourself...:rotf2:

hey that's a compliment from me to both you and Spence in the same thread...thank me later...

Barry's birth certificate is most likely a true document.
The problem that comes to mind is that it DOESN'T look like it was issed in 1961, but in 2008, so that even though it is a legal document, it could contain incorrect information.

I agree that it should contain more information than that.

I don't want to fuel the fanatics any further, but what if "someone" were to get a blank form and type in what they wanted?
If there is no raised/notary seal on the document then how can anyone prove it's authentic?

snopes says the "Cheney method of debate" is to shoot your opponent in the face with a shotgun....

Spence...it's called "sarcasm"...I thought you were a bit of a proponent in a recent post...maybe not...sorry these things keep going right over your head...

I even went with the Cheney bashing sarcasm.....and barely a pulse....just a blank stare

It wasn't my intention to say that was a quote from Cheney, but that is the method of how he tries to discredit people. Here's an example of how Cheney chooses to ignore facts:
Richard Cohen - Ignoring the Facts - washingtonpost.com

And the youtube:
YouTube - Hans Blix: "Cheney threatened to discredit me" (Closed Captioned)

Hans Blix??? :rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

The document was from 2007, that's when that specific copy was pulled and notarized.

-spence

don't you mean?...fabricated :uhuh: :rotf2:

Just to be sure we're square, Hans Blix was found to be pretty much 100% correct on his Iraq findings...

#^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney? Not so much...

-spence

What are you talking about? There are millions of WMDs in Iraq. They're just buried under too much sand, or was it that they were shipped off to other countries, or Saddam must have destroyed them.

IMO it's all of the above.

Just so you know, we're not talking about a nuclear bomb here.
And they did find some chemical weapons that would have done a number on an American city if they got in the wrong hands.

But come on, why would a great guy like Saddam ever give them to someone who would kill Americans

Spence posted some valuable info on this somewhere. Instead of using Snope for now on, search Spence.:)

You're right. Why would Saddam do that? Although, he probably wouldn't There is more terrorism in Iraq today than there was 8 years ago. Saddam wasn't a terrorist, he was a vile, dictator. His goals were to increase his power, not attack America any way possible. You seem to have bought into the propaganda. We have the absolute best intelligence agencies in the world and you're telling me that they were able to track the detailed operations going on inside specific buildings but then couldn't track warehouses full of weapons and weapon-making materials being transported?

The whole WMD excuse is still a joke.

I think your forgetting that we went to war twice with Saddam. He had every reason in the world to harm America. He killed thousands of his own. Our intelligence was not very good. Ask Kerry, he was on the intellgence commitee.

You mean the war where there was a fully supported international coalition that cost the US approximately $60billion with the US role paid for mostly by the Saudis?

He had no reason to harm America knowing fully the complete wrath of destruction that would be brought down on him. He had no allies and as such, no political support. In the first war, it took 100 hours for the US led forces to defeat Iraq.

Not to mention, there's still no proof.

Knowing fully the complete wrath of destruction that would be brought down on him. He continued to toy with that pathetic organization and Hanns and his experts.

It took about the same amount of time the second time too.

But then we continue to deal with who JD?:confused:

You are correct, and neither time had much of anything to do with WMD.

-spence