the big lie. - Page 2 - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Skip N · 02-25-2006, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indanite

May God forgive me....its Saturday anyways

Well I wont be there because i dont support those nuts, but i'm sure Nebe's favorite Democrat Senetor Robert Byrd will be there! Yes thats right folks, Mr Byrd, the Dem Senetor was a KKK member. And the dems love him oh so much.....

Skitterpop · 02-25-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip N

See that i'm not as much of a nut as you thought! I can be right sometimes

You are a squirrels delight all the way.... 100% nuts

Swimmer · 02-25-2006, 03:46 PM

Democrats hand out more welfare than anyone ever possibly could hand out.

Second if you get raped and become pregnant I'll help with the abortion costs. One state filing legislation against abortion doesn't make a country. North Dakota, thats where Mark Furman moved too.

As far as Exxon, when did they ever need help ripping us off.

Your accusing Bush of the same thing Lydon Johnson did during Vietnam, helping his business buddies.

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 03:57 PM

Eben where are you getting your facts about who is profiting off of Iraqi oil??

Also where did anyone say that Iraq, or the people of Iraq were the threat? As far as I know there was a proven terrorist link between Husseins regime and Al Quaeda. What was to stop Saddam from selling biological agents, weapons plans, components or bombs to Al Quaeda? Whether or not he had WMD"S, they knew how to make them, and knowledge is just as deadly as the product itself if given to the wrong hands.

Before you make blanket statements, back it up with some facts, links to sites or articles so we can judge for ourselves. As far as I am concerned your wolf crying is just a bad as what you are blaming the Adminitstration for. I did an internet search and could not come up with any hard facts that Exxon is profiting off of Iraqi oil. Saudi oil yes, Iraqi oil no.

I'll bet you are one of those guys who does'nt want to see the drug testing on animals even if it means a cure for cancer or aids huh?

Skip N · 02-25-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Eben where are you getting your facts about who is profiting off of Iraqi oil??

Also where did anyone say that Iraq, or the people of Iraq were the threat? As far as I know there was a proven terrorist link between Husseins regime and Al Quaeda. What was to stop Saddam from selling biological agents, weapons plans, components or bombs to Al Quaeda? Whether or not he had WMD"S, they knew how to make them, and knowledge is just as deadly as the product itself if given to the wrong hands.

Before you make blanket statements, back it up with some facts, links to sites or articles so we can judge for ourselves. As far as I am concerned your wolf crying is just a bad as what you are blaming the Adminitstration for. I did an internet search and could not come up with any hard facts that Exxon is profiting off of Iraqi oil. Saudi oil yes, Iraqi oil no.

I'll bet you are one of those guys who does'nt want to see the drug testing on animals even if it means a cure for cancer or aids huh?

He has no facts, he wishes he had the facts but there's zip. Just like him saying Iraq had no wmd's when we all know Saddam slaughtered the Kurds using wmd's. And the entire world believed he still possesed them prior to the Iraq invasion in '03. Even Bill Clinton thought Saddam still had 'em. But they like to over look those tiny facts. And Saddam also supported terroism, like giving money to family members of Hamas suicide bombers. And giving aide to Al Zarquawi (sp?) after he was wounded in Afganastan Those are facts that the left just ignores because it undercuts thier arguments that Bush lied.

As for the abortion issue. Most people having abortions have not been raped, had incest or are getting them becuase the mothers health is in jeopordy. Thats another big lie....Most people having abortions are young women who got pregnant because they wernt using protection. And aborting the baby is just an easy way to not have to be responsible for the child. Its the easy way out. He knows this but uses the rape, incest stuff to sound more mederate. Abortions should be given as a LAST resort if the mother's help is at risk. Not becuase 15 year old jenny wanted to bang her boyfriend without using protection and then gets pregnant. There is no responsibilty in this country anymore. You get knocked up have the kid, dont kill it!

Sea Dangles · 02-25-2006, 04:52 PM

Skip,I was with you until the abortion rant but now you are talking out your ass.This is an issue that should certainly be left alone.
Thanks

mekcotuit · 02-25-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skip N

He has no facts, he wishes he had the facts but there's zip. Just like him saying Iraq had no wmd's when we all know Saddam slaughtered the Kurds using wmd's. And the entire world believed he still possesed them prior to the Iraq invasion in '03. Even Bill Clinton thought Saddam still had 'em. But they like to over look those tiny facts. And Saddam also supported terroism, like giving money to family members of Hamas suicide bombers. And giving aide to Al Zarquawi (sp?) after he was wounded in Afganastan Those are facts that the left just ignores because it undercuts thier arguments that Bush lied.

As for the abortion issue. Most people having abortions have not been raped, had incest or are getting them becuase the mothers health is in jeopordy. Thats another big lie....Most people having abortions are young women who got pregnant because they wernt using protection. And aborting the baby is just an easy way to not have to be responsible for the child. Its the easy way out. He knows this but uses the rape, incest stuff to sound more mederate. Abortions should be given as a LAST resort if the mother's help is at risk. Not becuase 15 year old jenny wanted to bang her boyfriend without using protection and then gets pregnant. There is no responsibilty in this country anymore. You get knocked up have the kid, dont kill it!

How about Jenny's dumb%$%$%$%$, irresponsible boyfriend using some protection and not getting 15 year old girls pregnant????? What? You think having an abortion is such a fly by night decision? Let's see, today I'll go to the dry cleaners, then to the grocery store, and oh yes, pop into the doctor's for a quick D & C......I find it so interesting that the most ardent anti-abortion people seem to be men...and they need a lesson in taking responsibility.....

Skip N · 02-25-2006, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mekcotuit

How about Jenny's dumb%$%$%$%$, irresponsible boyfriend using some protection and not getting 15 year old girls pregnant????? What? You think having an abortion is such a fly by night decision? Let's see, today I'll go to the dry cleaners, then to the grocery store, and oh yes, pop into the doctor's for a quick D & C......I find it so interesting that the most ardent anti-abortion people seem to be men...and they need a lesson in taking responsibility.....

Well Jenny shouldnt be banging unless she OR the guy are using protection!! Your right its a two way street ,it goes both ways. But BOTH are responsable for thier actions. They both know what can happen when you get it on! You CAN get pregnant. Imagine that. And why can 11 year old girls have abortions without thier parents knowing? yeah that makes sense

Skip N · 02-25-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Skip,I was with you until the abortion rant but now you are talking out your ass.This is an issue that should certainly be left alone.
Thanks

Well you know i'm right about WHO is having the abortions. Its not mostly rape victims. Its mostly young folks who find themselves in that position becuase the girl AND the guy arent being responsible. If you wanna bang be prepared for what can happen.....Thats all i'm saying. Now i'm done. I;d rather argue WMD's were i can pose FACTS. Abortion issue is all opinons and a waste of my time. No one can win this debate. Its a waste of energy. Nebe opened this can of worms and im just giving a different point of view that i guess you guys dont want to hear. But im done. I aint going down the abortion road....

Skitterpop · 02-25-2006, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Eben where are you getting your facts about who is profiting off of Iraqi oil??

As far as I know there was a proven terrorist link between Husseins regime and Al Quaeda. ******
****** Whether or not he had WMD"S, they knew how to make them, and knowledge is just as deadly as the product itself if given to the wrong hands.

******* Before you make blanket statements, back it up with some facts******

This is way off Bill......

Backbeach Jake · 02-25-2006, 07:16 PM

Solving the problems of the worlds is exhausting , isn't it? It is stimulating banter, and we do get to know one another better through it. And I, for one, DO respect everyone here's opinion. They're all valid and that's what makes this so frustrating.

Nebe · 02-25-2006, 07:54 PM

specialist- exxon mobil's profits were a result of record oil prices. Prices went up due to global conflits. Any time there is a war, prices go up. Of course supply and demand are players as well, but the iraq conflict played a huge roll in elevated prices.

Iraq's link to al queda is hardly a link at all. Take a look at how many of the hijackers came from saudi arabia.. why didnt we invade them and take over thier country?? Explain to me how Iraq aided the 9-11 hijackers please.

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 07:58 PM

Quote:

This is way off Bill...

Here is a link if you read the information, you will see that even the Clinton administration was saying there was a link between the 2

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp

Read and judge for yourself...

Now if you can show me some evidence that Exxon is currently profiting directly from oil coming out of Iraq, then I will believe it.

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 08:02 PM

Ok here is your intial statement, that we went in there for the oil, and Exxon is profiting from it.

Quote:

iraq posesd no threat to the united states.. so what if they did have wmd's they were not going to use them to attack us. I can tell you what they did have- OIL. we tapped into it right away and bingo instant record oil profits for exxon mobile.

To me this statement reads the American gov., or Exxon is running the Oil fields, and directly profiting from it. This is a big difference from the instability in a volitile Oil market

spence · 02-25-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Here is a link if you read the information, you will see that even the Clinton administration was saying there was a link between the 2

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/527uwabl.asp

Read and judge for yourself...

The Weekly Standard isn't exactly the most objective source you could have quoted!

This argument is pretty simple, show me a US Government report done after the Administrations snow job that indicates there's a link.

You won't find any. The tens of millions of US taxpayer dollars spent researching the isse have come up with NOTHING.

-spence

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 08:18 PM

Ok how about the Washington times:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...2921-3401r.htm

how about this one:

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp

some bullets from it:

The Clinton Justice Department's allegation in a 1998 indictment (two months before the embassy bombings) against bin Laden, to wit: In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

Seized Iraq Intelligence Service records indicating that Saddam's henchmen regarded bin Laden as an asset as early as 1992?

Saddam's hosting of al Qaeda No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri beginning in the early 1990’s, and reports of a large payment of money to Zawahiri in 1998?

The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?

Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)

Skitterpop · 02-25-2006, 08:27 PM

We were all had.... it was all about the oil.

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 08:33 PM

If it was about the Oil then why are our companies not in their pumping the fields dry right now. Also if that were the case, then it would drive the price of a barrel of oil down, as Opec has alot to do with setting the price. Again show me some concrete proof .

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 08:33 PM

If it was about the Oil then why are our companies not in their pumping the fields dry right now. Also if that were the case, then it would drive the price of a barrel of oil down, as Opec has alot to do with setting the price. Again show me some concrete proof .

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 08:37 PM

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm

spence · 02-25-2006, 08:38 PM

Why is it that the Sept. 11 commission found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda at all?

Why do internal CIA documents state such a relationship to be unlikely given the differing motivations?

Why is it that the Administration, who used a Saddam/Bin Laden nexus as the centerpiece of their justification for war has yet to offer any real evidence?

Remember Cheney stating it was "pretty much confirmed" that Atta met with Iraqi agents in Prague? Well, the intel now shows he was in the good old USA when that meeting occured.

Sorry, but I need to see some facts, not conservative opinion.

-spence

spence · 02-25-2006, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0913-14.htm

Sounds like some language was burried in the bill that nobody ever read!

Wouldn't be the first time.

The article certainly doesn't support your position.

-spence

Skitterpop · 02-25-2006, 09:56 PM

Its also about having military bases in the belly of the beast

TheSpecialist · 02-25-2006, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Why do internal CIA documents state such a relationship to be unlikely given the differing motivations?

Wow I did'nt know you had access to CIA documents, you must be a G-man

Skip N · 02-25-2006, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indanite

You are a squirrels delight all the way.... 100% nuts

Skitterpop · 02-26-2006, 12:26 AM

However, the resolution also contains language designed, despite the lack of any credible evidence, to associate the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks.

Al Qaeda = Taliban = Iraq

And if the Queen had balls she would be King

spence · 02-26-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Wow I did'nt know you had access to CIA documents, you must be a G-man

Nope, just bother to read what's been released to the public

-spence

"uffah!!" · 02-26-2006, 10:15 AM

All I got to say!!

Hooper · 02-27-2006, 12:19 PM

It's sort of funny, I think the start of this thread was the war was an issue to keep us from focusing on the war on civil rights taking place here at home.... seems to be working doesn't it?

I am so disgusted with this country today. I served my time in the US Army, as an infantryman, and couldn't have been more proud at one time. Today, I am convinced that from the President, to the Congress, to the Judiciary and every corner of Corporate America we are a nation of selfish & short-sighted people.

I am afraid I don't see a brighter future for this country. We are so wrapped up with Democrat good v. Republican bad, or Democart evil v. Republican savior, left v. right, black v. white, minority v. majority, A v. B, anything v. anything else!

It's insane. I cannot stomach the news anymore, it seems the recipe for a news program is throw two opposing viewpoints into the ring and let 'em duke it out for 7 minutes...

What a world it is.

spence · 02-27-2006, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hooper

It's insane. I cannot stomach the news anymore, it seems the recipe for a news program is throw two opposing viewpoints into the ring and let 'em duke it out for 7 minutes...

The problem is, they don't even really duke it out.

The very notion of critical journalisim has nearly crumbled under the influences of a corporate media feeding news as entertainment to a 24/7 cable news crowd.

The media pounded Bill Clinton for his actions, and thinking ahead of the game Bush has declared war on the press in an effort to control and obfuscate the issues.

What we have today are pundits from two sides who toss their charged rhetoric into the ring, with little critical analysis or challenge when they stray too far from the facts or leverage innuendo.

Spin and deception are the norm, and the average joe simply doesn't have the energy to sort through it all.

-spence